Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Laurel Hubbard
Comments
-
The muscular advantage enjoyed by trans women only falls by about 5% after a year of testosterone suppressing treatment, according to a review of existing studies by the University of Manchester and Sweden's Karolinska Institute.
Britain's Loughborough University found that hormone therapy reduced trans women's haemoglobin levels - which affects endurance - to equal that of non-trans women within four months.
But strength, lean body mass and muscle area remained higher after three years of medication to block testosterone, it said.
Tommy Lundberg, who co-authored the first study, said male athletes gain their 30% muscular advantages during puberty, but there are no studies of trans adolescents who may take puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones before puberty finishes.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN2DE1O4
0 -
Rival Weightlifter Says Transgender Athlete Laurel Hubbard Competing In The Olympics Is ‘Like A Bad Joke’Max Sherry
Published 1:46, 01 June 2021 BST
| Last updated 3:06, 01 June 2021 BST
A weightlifter heading to the Tokyo Olympics next month has slammed the decision to allow a transgender athlete compete.
Laurel Hubbard shocked the sporting world last month when it was revealed she received the green light to go to the 2021 Games.
The New Zealander will become the first trans athlete to compete at an Olympic level after she passed all the relevant tests.
But fellow weightlifter, Anna Van Bellinghen, who will be in the same category as Hubbard in Tokyo, said the inclusion of transgender athletes should not come 'at the expense of others.'
The Belgian competitor told insidethegames her statement isn't meant to be transphobic but is simply about fairness.
Credit: AWF Biała Podlaska/Facebook
"First off, I would like to stress that I fully support the transgender community, and that what I'm about to say doesn't come from a place of rejection of this athlete's identity," she said.
"However, anyone that has trained weightlifting at a high level knows this to be true in their bones: this particular situation is unfair to the sport and to the athletes.
"I understand that for sports authorities nothing is as simple as following your common sense and that there are a lot of impracticalities when studying such a rare phenomenon, but for athletes, the whole thing feels like a bad joke."
New rule changes from the International Olympic Committee (IOC) have granted Hubbard the ability to qualify for the women's super heavyweight (87kg-plus) category for weightlifting.
The 43-year-old previously competed in men's competitions before transitioning back in 2013.
In 2015, the IOC made amendments to their qualifying guidelines which ultimately allowed for trans athletes to compete in women's events depending on their testosterone levels.As long as the athlete's levels of testosterone were 10 nanomoles per litre for at least 12 months prior to competition, they were eligible to compete.
While some opponents of trans inclusion in sports argue there is a 'biological advantage' when transitioning from male to female, some trans athletes have revealed hormone replacement actually decreased their natural athletic abilities and caused them to lose muscles mass and stamina, according to ABC News.
For the Olympic Games, Hubbard's inclusion will serve as a landmark moment. But for Hubbard herself, she'll be purely focused on coming away from Tokyo with a medal wrapped round her neck.
She is currently ranked fourth overall out of the 14 other qualifiers in the super heavyweight class, meaning she has a genuine shot of clinching gold.Featured Image Credit: Inside The Games
Topics: olympics, Trans, Australia, transgender
Max Sherry
0 -
The fact is the "unfair" biological advantage trans women have is they were men. Like it or not, can you not see that?kentaddick said:
So it wouldn’t be an unfair match up of a team of 6 ft 5 women to a team of 4ft 8 women?Addickted said:
It's a biological advantage though, not an 'unfair' biological advantage.kentaddick said:
But again, where do you draw the line - a 6 foot 5 woman has an unfair biological advantage at basketball than a 4 foot 8 woman. Should women above 6 foot be banned from competing because it’s unfair on the other women? It’s banning because of an accident of birth.Henry Irving said:I'm slightly taller than AFKA.
That gives me an advantage if we are playing basketball or if we're deciding who replaces Ben Amos
AFKA is actually quite good at playing football which I never was (although my knee injury when I was 20 ruined my career, honest) and that gives him an advantage.
Neither of those however are "unfair" advantages.
The question of transwomen competing in female sport isn't (or shouldn't be) about whether they are women or if they have a right to identify as women but whether they gain an "unfair" advantage by doing so.By any measurable metric - trans women are women. So why are they not allowed to compete because of something they had no control over at birth?
I suggest a trans woman has an unfair biological advantage by going through puberty as a male with all the inherent physical advantages that gives them.
Can you not see or acknowledge that?Some female born women might have “unfair” hormanal and physical advantages to other women. Is that unfair or not? The fact is you have to put the metric against all women - not just trans women.
If a 4ft 8 woman had cocktail of hormone theropy and physical surgery to become a 6ft 5 women would you think it was OK for her to be in the woman's basket ball team?0 -
I've got an anatomy and physiology textbook that you can borrow if you like....It will blow your mind!kentaddick said:
So it comes down to chromosomes? As for physical, A trans woman can be physically the same as a female born woman.McBobbin said:
Any measureale metric other than genetic and physical ones.kentaddick said:
But again, where do you draw the line - a 6 foot 5 woman has an unfair biological advantage at basketball than a 4 foot 8 woman. Should women above 6 foot be banned from competing because it’s unfair on the other women? It’s banning because of an accident of birth.Henry Irving said:I'm slightly taller than AFKA.
That gives me an advantage if we are playing basketball or if we're deciding who replaces Ben Amos
AFKA is actually quite good at playing football which I never was (although my knee injury when I was 20 ruined my career, honest) and that gives him an advantage.
Neither of those however are "unfair" advantages.
The question of transwomen competing in female sport isn't (or shouldn't be) about whether they are women or if they have a right to identify as women but whether they gain an "unfair" advantage by doing so.By any measurable metric - trans women are women. So why are they not allowed to compete because of something they had no control over at birth?2 -
That was my point. It's an advantage but not an unfair advantage.kentaddick said:
But again, where do you draw the line - a 6 foot 5 woman has an unfair biological advantage at basketball than a 4 foot 8 woman. Should women above 6 foot be banned from competing because it’s unfair on the other women? It’s banning because of an accident of birth.Henry Irving said:I'm slightly taller than AFKA.
That gives me an advantage if we are playing basketball or if we're deciding who replaces Ben Amos
AFKA is actually quite good at playing football which I never was (although my knee injury when I was 20 ruined my career, honest) and that gives him an advantage.
Neither of those however are "unfair" advantages.
The question of transwomen competing in female sport isn't (or shouldn't be) about whether they are women or if they have a right to identify as women but whether they gain an "unfair" advantage by doing so.By any measurable metric - trans women are women. So why are they not allowed to compete because of something they had no control over at birth?
You are arguing that because other advantages that you deem to be "unfair" exist any "unfair" advantage, including those gained in some people's opinion by transwomen competing in female sport, should be allowed.
The counter argument is that a person's height, for example, is not an unfair advantage but the post pubescent muscle etc development that nearly all men have, including Laural, gives a genuinely unfair advantage if they are competing with CIS women even if they have transitioned.
This is different from guaranteeing transpeople the rights they fully deserve in employment, education, marriage and self identification.6 -
Such a difficult subject. I have a group of friends who are all trans, MTF, and this has been a growing topic of discussion over the last 2-3 years.Henry Irving said:
That was my point. It's an advantage but not an unfair advantage.kentaddick said:
But again, where do you draw the line - a 6 foot 5 woman has an unfair biological advantage at basketball than a 4 foot 8 woman. Should women above 6 foot be banned from competing because it’s unfair on the other women? It’s banning because of an accident of birth.Henry Irving said:I'm slightly taller than AFKA.
That gives me an advantage if we are playing basketball or if we're deciding who replaces Ben Amos
AFKA is actually quite good at playing football which I never was (although my knee injury when I was 20 ruined my career, honest) and that gives him an advantage.
Neither of those however are "unfair" advantages.
The question of transwomen competing in female sport isn't (or shouldn't be) about whether they are women or if they have a right to identify as women but whether they gain an "unfair" advantage by doing so.By any measurable metric - trans women are women. So why are they not allowed to compete because of something they had no control over at birth?
You are arguing that because other advantages that you deem to be "unfair" exist any "unfair" advantage, including those gained in some people's opinion by transwomen competing in female sport, should be allowed.
The counter argument is that a person's height, for example, is not an unfair advantage but the post pubescent muscle etc development that nearly all men have, including Laural, gives a genuinely unfair advantage if they are competing with CIS women even if they have transitioned.
This is different from guaranteeing transpeople the rights they fully deserve in employment, education, marriage and self identification.The majority viewpoint last time we spoke, a couple of months ago, is that trans involvement in women’s sport is unfair to women. It’s not argued that this can be seen as discriminatory, in fact that is the reason we have discussed it so often. But a females right to fairness, that has been fought for over many decades, should prevail.This does not, and must not, override the important bold text in Henry’s post above.5 -
That article copied and pasted above decided to choose two pictures of Hubbard - one where she's looking quite clearly unflattering - but one fairly good one of Anna Van Bellinghen. I wonder why.
Btw, this isn't about my opinion on Hubbard's presence in competition - which, as I've stated, seems unfair to me. Rather, this is one of the few potentially semi-legitimate arguments - if not the only argument - against trans folk in gendered spaces ie sport, though I'd say I want to see Hubbard compete if only because there's a relative lack of data (vs anecdotal evidence). And I think the anti-trans movement is going to use this to stoke more anger against trans people as a whole, and we need to be mindful of that rhetoric.
Also, the "trans lobby" - like, what is that phrase? Seen in used a couple of times on here. It's not a lobby - it's a fight to ensure trans people are recognised at the most basic levels!
(Edited as my previous terminology was poor and I clicked send before editing what I'd initially written.)0 -
I see nothing unflattering about the first photo, she is smiling and happy ... what is wrong with that?PaddyP17 said:That article copied and pasted above decided to choose two pretty unflattering pictures of Hubbard, but a fairly good one of Anna Van Bellinghen. I wonder why.3 -
A bit harsh when you go look at the "Taking a knee" thread or whatever else - there are always disagreements on CL and Seth's not here to answer to all that, so it... well, just looks a bit harsh to me. Would be nice if he actually knew why the band is carrying on without him though, so to speak. Any outreach would probably be appreciated, as he was meant to hear back a little while ago.AFKABartram said:
Off beam but I notice the first thread in a month involving disagreements prompted you to think of him :-)ShootersHillGuru said:Off beam question here but where is sethplum? Not seen a post for a while
Yes, with regret Seth has recently had his microphone and guitar taken away from him. Seth’s been part of the CL band since the early days so we are hopeful it will be be temporary and not permanent, and we’ll be back making (non-political) music together again sooner rather than later.1 -
Excuse me - I forgot to go back and edit, which I did mean to do. You're right, the first photo's fine - but that second one, like... c'mon.stonemuse said:
I see nothing unflattering about the first photo, she is smiling and happy ... what is wrong with that?PaddyP17 said:That article copied and pasted above decided to choose two pretty unflattering pictures of Hubbard, but a fairly good one of Anna Van Bellinghen. I wonder why.0 - Sponsored links:
-
Think you are reading too much into that. She’s a weightlifter, most of them do not make the greatest facial expressions when in action.PaddyP17 said:
Excuse me - I forgot to go back and edit, which I did mean to do. You're right, the first photo's fine - but that second one, like... c'mon.stonemuse said:
I see nothing unflattering about the first photo, she is smiling and happy ... what is wrong with that?PaddyP17 said:That article copied and pasted above decided to choose two pretty unflattering pictures of Hubbard, but a fairly good one of Anna Van Bellinghen. I wonder why.1 -
Apart from the data that says the men's athletics world records are about 10% better than woman's and that in weight lifting, specifically, the difference is about 30%. I don't think any of that is anecdotal?PaddyP17 said:That article copied and pasted above decided to choose two pictures of Hubbard - one where she's looking quite clearly unflattering - but one fairly good one of Anna Van Bellinghen. I wonder why.
Btw, this isn't about my opinion on Hubbard's presence in competition - which, as I've stated, seems unfair to me. Rather, this is one of the few potentially semi-legitimate arguments - if not the only argument - against trans folk in gendered spaces ie sport, though I'd say I want to see Hubbard compete if only because there's a relative lack of data (vs anecdotal evidence). And I think the anti-trans movement is going to use this to stoke more anger against trans people as a whole, and we need to be mindful of that rhetoric.
Also, the "trans lobby" - like, what is that phrase? Seen in used a couple of times on here. It's not a lobby - it's a fight to ensure trans people are recognised at the most basic levels!
(Edited as my previous terminology was poor and I clicked send before editing what I'd initially written.)
Add in the scientific facts of why this is the case you can't deny that a trans woman has a significant advantage over a CIS one, all other things being equal.
1 -
With respect, I think you are conflating two different positions here. Very few people are denying her right to be recognized, but as Henry Irving has pointed out, this is not the same as thinking she should therefore be allowed to compete.PaddyP17 said:That article copied and pasted above decided to choose two pictures of Hubbard - one where she's looking quite clearly unflattering - but one fairly good one of Anna Van Bellinghen. I wonder why.
Btw, this isn't about my opinion on Hubbard's presence in competition - which, as I've stated, seems unfair to me. Rather, this is one of the few potentially semi-legitimate arguments - if not the only argument - against trans folk in gendered spaces ie sport, though I'd say I want to see Hubbard compete if only because there's a relative lack of data (vs anecdotal evidence). And I think the anti-trans movement is going to use this to stoke more anger against trans people as a whole, and we need to be mindful of that rhetoric.
Also, the "trans lobby" - like, what is that phrase? Seen in used a couple of times on here. It's not a lobby - it's a fight to ensure trans people are recognised at the most basic levels!
(Edited as my previous terminology was poor and I clicked send before editing what I'd initially written.)
Equality is not actually equality if she enjoys a particular physical advantage - which there is enough scientific evidence for that it can't be ignored. By allowing her to compete, the message becomes "all competitors are equal - but some are more equal than others."2 -
Insofar as we don't know what trans women are like compared to cis women in competition: other than Hubbard and Renee Richards, I can't name many (well, any) other competitors offhand.Cafc43v3r said:
Apart from the data that says the men's athletics world records are about 10% better than woman's and that in weight lifting, specifically, the difference is about 30%. I don't think any of that is anecdotal?PaddyP17 said:That article copied and pasted above decided to choose two pictures of Hubbard - one where she's looking quite clearly unflattering - but one fairly good one of Anna Van Bellinghen. I wonder why.
Btw, this isn't about my opinion on Hubbard's presence in competition - which, as I've stated, seems unfair to me. Rather, this is one of the few potentially semi-legitimate arguments - if not the only argument - against trans folk in gendered spaces ie sport, though I'd say I want to see Hubbard compete if only because there's a relative lack of data (vs anecdotal evidence). And I think the anti-trans movement is going to use this to stoke more anger against trans people as a whole, and we need to be mindful of that rhetoric.
Also, the "trans lobby" - like, what is that phrase? Seen in used a couple of times on here. It's not a lobby - it's a fight to ensure trans people are recognised at the most basic levels!
(Edited as my previous terminology was poor and I clicked send before editing what I'd initially written.)
Add in the scientific facts of why this is the case you can't deny that a trans woman has a significant advantage over a CIS one, all other things being equal.
It's also wrong to conflate men's WRs with trans women: this implies they are in all other senses still men despite identification, when hormone treatments and such demonstrably show this isn't true.
I think that trans women probably do have a significant advantage. But I'd want to see it with my own eyes first, if that makes sense.0 -
Whereas yours is to insult all of us.kentaddick said:
So we’re not allowed to post on a discussion more than once? I’m not buying that, sorry.SoundAsa£ said:
Troll?kentaddick said:
and let me guess, you’re the gatekeeper of that are you? Again, just a bit sad to just comment on a discussion just to troll.southamptonaddick said:
I'll apologise when you stop posting shit.kentaddick said:
Just because you say “I was saying it is a fact” doesn’t make it a fact or less of an insult. It clearly was an insult and you should apologise.southamptonaddick said:
You can take it as an insult, I posted it as a fact.kentaddick said:
If your only contribution to a discussion is to post an insult - it’s probably best not to post at all.southamptonaddick said:
You do come out with some shit.kentaddick said:
Right, but there’s women born as a female that would have unfair physical advantage over other women, should they be segregated too?Covered End said:
Because she was born as a man and has an unfair physical advantage over the females that were born female.kentaddick said:
Its an interesting idea, but why should trans women be segregated like that? Should we segregate other athletes based on other factors? I mean, we have weight classes in boxing - is this the same thing?Covered End said:
The line is drawn at trans women who should be able to compete equally and fairly with other trans women.kentaddick said:
Has allowing black competitors bred more racism? Has allowing gay competitors bred more homophobia? I don’t think it has.KBslittlesis said:I started this thread because I really wanted to see if there was someone out there who could genuinely help me get my head around this issue.
But it just seems it has attracted those who would rather stick an oar in & be judgmental then actually come up with sensible adult conversation about a very difficult topic.
It doesn’t suddenly make you a transphobic is you feel this doesn’t sit right in the competitive world of sport. It makes you want to have a playing field as fairly as possible and to continue having a conversation about it until the issue is resolved for all those who want to compete.If we ignore it and say, ‘yeah crack on, welcome aboard’ when other competitors feel aggrieved then surely you are opening the door to breeding more transphobia?
It has to be spoken of, it has to be.The fact is - trans women are women. If you’re saying they shouldn’t compete because of a biological advantage, then where is the line drawn? If some one who was born a woman with higher muscle density not be allowed to compete either? If a swimmer is born with webbed feet, we know that to be a biological advantage, so should they be allowed to compete?
I will continue to post what I like until one of the mods think I have broken a rule then I am sure they will tell me.
AND THAT'S A FACT.
Says the guy who has posted in this thread over forty times in just a few hours.
You’re at the very least somewhat weird.🧐🤨🧐And yes, a troll, his only contribution to this thread is to insult me.2 -
In which case it would be lovely if people didn't use the phrase "the trans lobby", which to me makes it seem as if trans people are a group that need bandying about like a political football (which as Leuth says is hardly how trans people want to be - they just wanna live). I agree with what you're saying though: no-one here appears to really be denying her right to be recognised, for sure, and I agree that the issue of MtF trans folk in sport is an inherently unfair one tbh.thenewbie said:
With respect, I think you are conflating two different positions here. Very few people are denying her right to be recognized, but as Henry Irving has pointed out, this is not the same as thinking she should therefore be allowed to compete.PaddyP17 said:That article copied and pasted above decided to choose two pictures of Hubbard - one where she's looking quite clearly unflattering - but one fairly good one of Anna Van Bellinghen. I wonder why.
Btw, this isn't about my opinion on Hubbard's presence in competition - which, as I've stated, seems unfair to me. Rather, this is one of the few potentially semi-legitimate arguments - if not the only argument - against trans folk in gendered spaces ie sport, though I'd say I want to see Hubbard compete if only because there's a relative lack of data (vs anecdotal evidence). And I think the anti-trans movement is going to use this to stoke more anger against trans people as a whole, and we need to be mindful of that rhetoric.
Also, the "trans lobby" - like, what is that phrase? Seen in used a couple of times on here. It's not a lobby - it's a fight to ensure trans people are recognised at the most basic levels!
(Edited as my previous terminology was poor and I clicked send before editing what I'd initially written.)
Equality is not actually equality if she enjoys a particular physical advantage - which there is enough scientific evidence for that it can't be ignored. By allowing her to compete, the message becomes "all competitors are equal - but some are more equal than others."2 -
What is he a striker?0
-
A valid point and I can see your point - I don't use the term myself but I can see why it's a point of contention.PaddyP17 said:
In which case it would be lovely if people didn't use the phrase "the trans lobby", which to me makes it seem as if trans people are a group that need bandying about like a political football (which as Leuth says is hardly how trans people want to be - they just wanna live). I agree with what you're saying though: no-one here appears to really be denying her right to be recognised, for sure, and I agree that the issue of MtF trans folk in sport is an inherently unfair one tbh.thenewbie said:
With respect, I think you are conflating two different positions here. Very few people are denying her right to be recognized, but as Henry Irving has pointed out, this is not the same as thinking she should therefore be allowed to compete.PaddyP17 said:That article copied and pasted above decided to choose two pictures of Hubbard - one where she's looking quite clearly unflattering - but one fairly good one of Anna Van Bellinghen. I wonder why.
Btw, this isn't about my opinion on Hubbard's presence in competition - which, as I've stated, seems unfair to me. Rather, this is one of the few potentially semi-legitimate arguments - if not the only argument - against trans folk in gendered spaces ie sport, though I'd say I want to see Hubbard compete if only because there's a relative lack of data (vs anecdotal evidence). And I think the anti-trans movement is going to use this to stoke more anger against trans people as a whole, and we need to be mindful of that rhetoric.
Also, the "trans lobby" - like, what is that phrase? Seen in used a couple of times on here. It's not a lobby - it's a fight to ensure trans people are recognised at the most basic levels!
(Edited as my previous terminology was poor and I clicked send before editing what I'd initially written.)
Equality is not actually equality if she enjoys a particular physical advantage - which there is enough scientific evidence for that it can't be ignored. By allowing her to compete, the message becomes "all competitors are equal - but some are more equal than others."
While it probably is unfair on Hubbard, unfortunately there is going to be some political football played with this case as it does set a precedent for future cases
1 -
As I said previously if your a trans woman you are unlikely to be able to compete against men even if you were a world class athlete previously due to the treatments etcPaddyP17 said:
Insofar as we don't know what trans women are like compared to cis women in competition: other than Hubbard and Renee Richards, I can't name many (well, any) other competitors offhand.Cafc43v3r said:
Apart from the data that says the men's athletics world records are about 10% better than woman's and that in weight lifting, specifically, the difference is about 30%. I don't think any of that is anecdotal?PaddyP17 said:That article copied and pasted above decided to choose two pictures of Hubbard - one where she's looking quite clearly unflattering - but one fairly good one of Anna Van Bellinghen. I wonder why.
Btw, this isn't about my opinion on Hubbard's presence in competition - which, as I've stated, seems unfair to me. Rather, this is one of the few potentially semi-legitimate arguments - if not the only argument - against trans folk in gendered spaces ie sport, though I'd say I want to see Hubbard compete if only because there's a relative lack of data (vs anecdotal evidence). And I think the anti-trans movement is going to use this to stoke more anger against trans people as a whole, and we need to be mindful of that rhetoric.
Also, the "trans lobby" - like, what is that phrase? Seen in used a couple of times on here. It's not a lobby - it's a fight to ensure trans people are recognised at the most basic levels!
(Edited as my previous terminology was poor and I clicked send before editing what I'd initially written.)
Add in the scientific facts of why this is the case you can't deny that a trans woman has a significant advantage over a CIS one, all other things being equal.
It's also wrong to conflate men's WRs with trans women: this implies they are in all other senses still men despite identification, when hormone treatments and such demonstrably show this isn't true.
I think that trans women probably do have a significant advantage. But I'd want to see it with my own eyes first, if that makes sense.0 -
In this case, they’ve taken a bit more than a knee.PaddyP17 said:
A bit harsh when you go look at the "Taking a knee" thread or whatever else -AFKABartram said:
Off beam but I notice the first thread in a month involving disagreements prompted you to think of him :-)ShootersHillGuru said:Off beam question here but where is sethplum? Not seen a post for a while
Yes, with regret Seth has recently had his microphone and guitar taken away from him. Seth’s been part of the CL band since the early days so we are hopeful it will be be temporary and not permanent, and we’ll be back making (non-political) music together again sooner rather than later.2 - Sponsored links:
-
That's a completely different point to the one @AFKABartram was making, as you know. The fact is, Laurel Hubbard isn't taking someone else's place in the the New Zealand Olympic team.ShootersHillGuru said:
But weightlifters from every other country might once the competition begins.Chizz said:
No-one has failed to qualify for the Olympics because Laurel Hubbard has been selected. The New Zealand weightlifting team is two and a half times more numerous than at the last Olympics: they're taking more weightlifters. Laurel Hubbard is part of a team, with team-mates, not an competitor who has taken someone else's place.AFKABartram said:
What I was just about to say. I find the whole thing a farce. If however I’d had a daughter who lets say had dreamed all her life of being an Olympic swimmer, had been getting up at 5am since 8yrs old for pre-school pool sessions, sacrificed her teenage years and potential career prospects to try and be the best in a low paid sport, only to never have a realistic opportunity because a male elite swimmer had decided to transition, I’d be calling it more than a farce.KBslittlesis said:
I have recently become interested because our niece competes in para weightlifting tournaments for Wales.Chizz said:Good luck to her.
And I am surprised and delighted to see so many people interested in women's weightlifting. It's not a subject many on CL have shown much interest in, in the past.I was wondering how she would feel if she had been training all this time, finally got to an Olympics only to find one of the competitors was a trans woman 🤷♀️
The examples of a para weightlifting competitor and a made-up swimmer are interesting, but not relevant.
Lauren Hubbard qualified to compete for New Zealand in the Olympics, within the rules of the Olympics and with the support of New Zealand. No-one has missed out.
You're making a wider point. That other athletes might lose out to a competitor who, by dint of the rules applied by the sport's federation, takes part and is successful. But you need to allow for a federation making arbitrary decisions which might be to the detriment of some of the competitors. If the federation changed the weight categories, that might make it harder - or impossible - for some competitors to win, as they would have to move category and compete with heavier opponents. In this case, some competitors would feel hard done by, because the rules of their federation have made it harder for them. This case, in my view, is no different.
She's been allowed to compete in the Commonwealth Games and the World Championships. Why should the Olympics be any different?
In my view, she should every right, through her sporting prowess, to compete in the Olympics.
Also, in my view, she shouldn't be allowed ever to compete for her country. But that's nothing to do wit her sporting ability or her gender transformation. But that's another story.0 -
No. Because she didn't qualify.Addickted said:
What about the woman who came second in the New Zealand weightlifting trials in her weight group? Does she have the right to be pissed off for missing the selection?Chizz said:
No-one has failed to qualify for the Olympics because Laurel Hubbard has been selected. The New Zealand weightlifting team is two and a half times more numerous than at the last Olympics: they're taking more weightlifters. Laurel Hubbard is part of a team, with team-mates, not an competitor who has taken someone else's place.AFKABartram said:
What I was just about to say. I find the whole thing a farce. If however I’d had a daughter who lets say had dreamed all her life of being an Olympic swimmer, had been getting up at 5am since 8yrs old for pre-school pool sessions, sacrificed her teenage years and potential career prospects to try and be the best in a low paid sport, only to never have a realistic opportunity because a male elite swimmer had decided to transition, I’d be calling it more than a farce.KBslittlesis said:
I have recently become interested because our niece competes in para weightlifting tournaments for Wales.Chizz said:Good luck to her.
And I am surprised and delighted to see so many people interested in women's weightlifting. It's not a subject many on CL have shown much interest in, in the past.I was wondering how she would feel if she had been training all this time, finally got to an Olympics only to find one of the competitors was a trans woman 🤷♀️
The examples of a para weightlifting competitor and a made-up swimmer are interesting, but not relevant.
Lauren Hubbard qualified to compete for New Zealand in the Olympics, within the rules of the Olympics and with the support of New Zealand. No-one has missed out.0 -
The solution that I believe would work is that there is a 'Trans' competition that is treated like the biological existing categories of Men's or Women's games, it is it's own category.
For simplicity we'll use the biological terms for explaining it:
Males vs Males
Females vs Females
Trans vs Trans
Any other solution creates an unbalanced competition as it is predominantly Males transitioning to Females that are trying to compete in the Women's games...
Even if Laurel has failed to win despite her genetic & hormonal advantage previously...
The only other option would be that you can only compete if your hormones are within certain limits.0 -
From a purely physical basis perhaps. But this would surely create/feed the narrative that trans women are not "really" women which is both harmful and hurtful.Dazzler21 said:The solution is that there is a 'Trans' competition that is treated like the biological existing categories of Men's or Women's games, it is it's own category.
For simplicity we'll use the biological terms for explaining it:
Males vs Males
Females vs Females
Trans vs Trans
Any other solution creates an unbalanced competition as it is predominantly Males transitioning to Females that are trying to compete in the Women's games...
Even if Laurel has failed to win despite her genetic & hormonal advantage previously...1 -
Exactly! And different locations have different training and development opportunities - they can't all be equal tooO-Randy-Hunt said:
So a 6 foot 5 women has an unfair biological advantage at basketball than a 4 foot 8 women. No shit sherlock. The 4 foot 8 women probably would be a basketball player. She would be a gymnast or a jockey.kentaddick said:
But again, where do you draw the line - a 6 foot 5 woman has an unfair biological advantage at basketball than a 4 foot 8 woman. Should women above 6 foot be banned from competing because it’s unfair on the other women? It’s banning because of an accident of birth.Henry Irving said:I'm slightly taller than AFKA.
That gives me an advantage if we are playing basketball or if we're deciding who replaces Ben Amos
AFKA is actually quite good at playing football which I never was (although my knee injury when I was 20 ruined my career, honest) and that gives him an advantage.
Neither of those however are "unfair" advantages.
The question of transwomen competing in female sport isn't (or shouldn't be) about whether they are women or if they have a right to identify as women but whether they gain an "unfair" advantage by doing so.By any measurable metric - trans women are women. So why are they not allowed to compete because of something they had no control over at birth?
What next, ban Ryan Innis from football because he has an unfair biological advantage and can beat Oztumer in the air.0 -
But would she IF she had not been beaten by someone with an unfair advantage?Chizz said:
No. Because she didn't qualify.Addickted said:
What about the woman who came second in the New Zealand weightlifting trials in her weight group? Does she have the right to be pissed off for missing the selection?Chizz said:
No-one has failed to qualify for the Olympics because Laurel Hubbard has been selected. The New Zealand weightlifting team is two and a half times more numerous than at the last Olympics: they're taking more weightlifters. Laurel Hubbard is part of a team, with team-mates, not an competitor who has taken someone else's place.AFKABartram said:
What I was just about to say. I find the whole thing a farce. If however I’d had a daughter who lets say had dreamed all her life of being an Olympic swimmer, had been getting up at 5am since 8yrs old for pre-school pool sessions, sacrificed her teenage years and potential career prospects to try and be the best in a low paid sport, only to never have a realistic opportunity because a male elite swimmer had decided to transition, I’d be calling it more than a farce.KBslittlesis said:
I have recently become interested because our niece competes in para weightlifting tournaments for Wales.Chizz said:Good luck to her.
And I am surprised and delighted to see so many people interested in women's weightlifting. It's not a subject many on CL have shown much interest in, in the past.I was wondering how she would feel if she had been training all this time, finally got to an Olympics only to find one of the competitors was a trans woman 🤷♀️
The examples of a para weightlifting competitor and a made-up swimmer are interesting, but not relevant.
Lauren Hubbard qualified to compete for New Zealand in the Olympics, within the rules of the Olympics and with the support of New Zealand. No-one has missed out.1 -
thenewbie said:
From a purely physical basis perhaps. But this would surely create/feed the narrative that trans women are not "really" women which is both harmful and hurtful.Dazzler21 said:The solution is that there is a 'Trans' competition that is treated like the biological existing categories of Men's or Women's games, it is it's own category.
For simplicity we'll use the biological terms for explaining it:
Males vs Males
Females vs Females
Trans vs Trans
Any other solution creates an unbalanced competition as it is predominantly Males transitioning to Females that are trying to compete in the Women's games...
Even if Laurel has failed to win despite her genetic & hormonal advantage previously...
But many people believe that and it has been believed for millennia.
I have a relative who is trans. I would respectfully refer to them by preferred pronoun and treat them with respect but do not think that they are a man in the same sense as male from birth relatives. I wouldn't say that to them unless they asked me as I wouldn't want to hurt their feelings and my opinion on the matter is irrelevant. But it doesn't make me bigoted or transphobic for not believing what I don't believe i.e. that there is no difference between a person who identifies as a certain gender with another who is biologically that gender from birth.
I think many people have this view as unfortunately hurtful or harmful as it may be in the same way saying I don't believe in God would be hurtful or harmful to billions of people around the world. But doesn't change the fact that we should not be castigated for holding such views which appears to be the case in a lot of instances that are played out on social media with folk being vilified for expressing such views with no intended malice.
People are free to identify as they please as long as they are not hurting others and should be afforded dignity, respect, legal rights etc. But when it is putting others at a unfair disadvantage or exercising of rights impinges on the rights (and safety of others in the case of trans UFC fighter Fallon Fox who is a utter disgrace) then there must be subjectivity.
What should not be mandated or law is 1984 style group think that everybody else has to accept this relatively new definition of what a women is particularly when many women hold the same view. Women should not need to adopt phrases like "CIS" to accommodate others.
The fact that people are ending up in court for expressing such views these days is nothing short of terrifying and not far from the sort of carry on we would be horrified with if it was happening in North Korea.
16 -
The vast majority of the population are oppose to this as its just plain common sense, Laurel Hubbard as admirable as she may be used to be a man, and in her female state now still has advantages due to her former sex that make it impossible for a biological female to win. If sport carries on in this way all the gains in women's sport might as well just be scrapped. The womens football team for example will just be trans women, what about boxing?!? 25 stone trans women seriously harming some poor women. Anyone who can't see a problem with this has taken leave of their senses, have a separate category for Trans people!6
-
My only comment is if it is a fair playing field then why are we not seeing trans men trying qualify in male sporting events?3
-
For professional sport, I believe you should only be able to compete as the gender you were born and if you’re not good enough to make it in that gender category then tough.
As for how people identify in life in general, who gives a fuck, it’s their business.9
