Anonymous #1 15w

Yeah

28

Anonymous #3 15w

They shouldn’t be in those sports though tbh

6

Anonymous #2 15w

Yes they should.

-2

Anonymous OP 15w

My position isn’t rooted in hostility toward transgender people. It comes from a basic concern for competitive fairness. Sports categories exist precisely because biology matters. We separate by weight class in wrestling, by age in youth leagues, and by sex in most elite competition, all because physical differences create unequal conditions that undermine fair contest.

1

Anonymous #2 15w

So Michael Phelps shouldn’t have been able to compete in his competitions?

0

Anonymous OP 15w

What? Michael Phelps went against world class biological men. The women’s division exists for one reason, to stop biological males from outcompeting biological females. Phelps actually proves my point. If a male genetic outlier competing against women would be unfair, then the category boundary matters. That’s the whole argument.

6

Anonymous #2 15w

Phelps' ankles could bend about 15 degrees further than the average swimmer's, allowing his feet to function similarly to dolphin flippers. At the physiological level, data has shown that Phelps' body produces approximately half the amount of lactic acid compared to most of his competitors, delaying fatigue and allowing him to recover much faster between races.

0

Anonymous OP 15w

Good for him? and he still competed against men. Flexible ankles and lower lactic acid are advantages within the male category. Natural variance among men competing against men is just sport. The issue isn’t outliers existing, it’s which category they compete in

9

Anonymous OP 15w

The women’s division exists so that biological females have a space to compete without that entire variance gap working against them from the start

7

Anonymous #2 15w

he had biological advantages. Don’t you care about fairness? He had advantages that others didn’t physically have.

0

Anonymous OP 15w

I think even having trans only sports is a problem too bc that variance gap is still prevalent. A born woman is not competing with a born man

1

Anonymous OP 15w

Yes he had biological advantages, over other men. That’s the whole distinction. Sport has never guaranteed equal physical starting points within a category, it guarantees you’re competing against the same sex. Phelps beating other men with better ankles is variance. A biological male competing against women isn’t variance, it’s a category error.

1

Anonymous #2 15w

Okay wait, so are biological advantages okay or not?

0

Anonymous OP 15w

within a category, yes. Across the sex boundary that the category exists to enforce, no.

1

Anonymous #2 15w

That’s not a contradiction, that’s the entire point of having categories

1

Anonymous #2 15w

so you’re OK with trans women who biologically meet the same standard standards as cis women then?

6

Anonymous OP 15w

How do you define that. There’s so many factors that’s play into “same standards”.

1

Anonymous OP 15w

Hormone levels are one metric but they don’t fully account for the structural advantages that developed during male puberty, bone density, height, lung capacity, muscle fiber comp. Those don’t fully revers

1

Anonymous #2 15w

How are you defining advantages if you’re now questioning the idea of a standard being met

7

Anonymous OP 15w

So in theory, if someone could demonstrate no residual physiological advantage over the female baseline, the argument weakens. But that threshold doesn’t currently exist in a measurable, reliable way. Until it does, the category has to default to protecting the athletes it was built for

3

Anonymous #2 15w

What do you mean by advantage

5

Anonymous OP 15w

A measurable performance edge that results from male puberty development. Things like greater bone density and the other stuff I mentioned earlier

4

Anonymous #2 15w

So the term advantage only applies to males?

5

Anonymous OP 15w

No, advantage just means a physical edge over your competition. Women can have advantages over other women too. The specific concern here is about advantages that come from male puberty crossing into a category designed to exclude them. The word isn’t gendered, the context is tho

5

Anonymous #2 15w

And you’re arguing for as much fairness as possible?

5

Anonymous OP 15w

Yes, specifically for the women’s category which exists precisely because perfect fairness between sexes isn’t possible in open competition. Sports will never be perfectly fair at the individual level, but the category boundary is the closest structural tool we have to make it fair at the group level. Removing or ignoring that boundary doesn’t increase fairness, it just shifts who gets disadvantaged

1

Anonymous #2 15w

Nobody is born a woman… or a man… babies are not men or women… You’re also talking about categories, meaning that there is a necessary condition to be a female. What are those necessary conditions to be considered female? This is NOT the same as the necessary condition of being a woman, which has nothing to do with biology and everything to do with psychology/sociology. I think you’re proving the point that you do not know enough about this subject to attempt to argue your opinion.

1

Anonymous #2 15w

So putting sexes together is inherently unfair? -and therefore If a man competes in a woman’s sport, that’s unfair to you

4

Anonymous OP 15w

Yes

1

Anonymous #2 15w

Hypothetical, an unfit man goes to compete in a race with professional women athletes, still unfair towards the women?

1

Anonymous OP 15w

Yes, because fairness is about category integrity not outcome. An unfit man still carries the physiological baseline of male development. He might lose, but his presence in the category is still a violation of what the category is designed to protect

-2

Anonymous OP 15w

The argument was never that every man beats every woman, it’s that the category boundary exists for a structural reason and crossing it is inherently unfair regardless of individual fitness level

-2

Anonymous #2 15w

So then it seems like a categorical issue

5

Anonymous #2 15w

Just stop arguing with them. There’s no point.

10

Anonymous #1 15w

Nah

4

Anonymous #1 15w

This shit isn’t going anywhere 😭. Like you just came to that realization what I’m arguing after I’ve said it 100 times

-1

Anonymous #2 15w

You’re saying that trans people shouldn’t compete because it’s unfair, and you’re arbitrarily adhering to this made up category issue and also showing that you’re actually perfectly content with advantages. That’s really what’s happening here lol

6

Anonymous #4 15w

Have you never learned about sex?

-1

Anonymous #2 15w

It’s because your argument doesn’t make sense. They were trying to get you to address the contradictions in your own answers and the categorical definitions of man and woman, in addition to your consistent use of those words as if they are interchangeable with male and female — they are not. Male ≠ man and female ≠ woman inherently. Trans men and women are men and women. It’s that easy.

5

Anonymous #2 15w

Have you never learned about gender?

6

Anonymous OP 15w

You are born into sex. You saying no one is born into being a male or female is just wrong

0

Anonymous #2 15w

Show me when I said that.

4

Anonymous #2 15w

I just came to the realization of what you’re arguing? they’re never gonna change their mind.

5

Anonymous #1 15w

Nah

3

Anonymous #2 15w

Wow I started an argument lmao. But you do realize trans people on hrt are literally on the same level as cis women? Look it up if you don’t believe me.

8

Anonymous #2 15w

so the short answer was yes, you don’t know what gender is bc you replied talking about sexes. womp womp. please learn more about a topic before commenting so much about it. you come off as an ultracrepidarian when you do.

6

Anonymous #3 15w

they proved your point so hard tbh.

10

Anonymous #4 15w

Yes I do…. Quit getting so emotional. I said sex and not gender for a reason. You can say whatever gender you are. Sex isn’t something u change

-1

Anonymous #4 15w

I know lmao. Do ANY research and you know trans people in sports literally is not a problem.

11

Anonymous #3 15w

Research would tell you male puberty gives you an advantage. Please enlighten me. What should I be researching

-3

Anonymous #2 15w

You also said I said something but can’t back it up

2

Anonymous #2 15w

Please scroll up and see that you consistently used man/woman when talking about biology, specifically where you used a wild oxymoron like “born man” or “born woman” when you are certainly not talking about gender. You suffered in categorical errors by incorrectly using terms interchangeably throughout. Your entire argument is based in emotion, none of what you suggested had any scientific, sociological, or psychological basis — especially in that you didn’t provide any evidence.

8

Anonymous #2 15w

Oberlin, D.J. (2023) Sex differences and athletic performance. Where do trans individuals fit into sports and athletics based on current research? Front Sports Act Living, 5:1224476. PubMed ID: 37964771

8

Anonymous #2 15w

Hamilton, B., et al. (2024) Strength, power and aerobic capacity of transgender athletes: a cross-sectional study. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 58(11): 586–597. These results actually show that trans women athletes had lower performance than cis women in the metrics of forced expiratory volume in 1 s:forced vital capacity ratio, jump height, AND relative V̇O2max.

9

Anonymous #4 15w

Thanks for providing studies so I don’t have to 🤞 I don’t think they’re going to change their opinion though

8

Anonymous #3 15w

no but I just want them to just think to themselves “huh, maybe i should learn more about this before talking about it so much so hard.” it’s a good skill for things outside of this topic too ofc as the OP suggested in the first place.

6

define gender and sex really quickly to the best of your understanding

6

Your point is contingent on your terminology being correct/accurate: Define both to the best of your understanding, independently.

6

Anonymous #2 15w

So you literally just don’t want trans people in sports then. You’re just transphobic. You literally just said you don’t care if someone has biological advantages unless it’s trans people. Stupid bigot

7

Sex is your biology/genetics and includes a massive number of variants which are classified as intersex. Gender is psychological and part of your identity, what you prefer to be called and treated as. While you cannot change Sex and can change your Gender.

7

Anonymous #6 14w

actually it is technically possible to qualify as the other sex after gender affirming care like hormone therapy, etc. since sex is based on like five or six ADDITIONAL characteristics to the 46-XY or 46-XX. Biology is so damn fascinating when you actually know more than surface level stuff. There’s been multiple women who have 46-XY and have given birth to multiple children with zero intervention (Dumic et al. 2007) and with typical fertility intervention (Selvaraj et al. 2002).

3

Anonymous #4 14w

Biology really is cool!!!!

7

Anonymous #6 14w

highly recommend exploring that study by Dumic et al. 2007 for some awesome human biology research!! it’s pretty incredible — it’s a whole matriarchal line of women with 46-XY giving birth to daughters with the same karyotype. I fucking love how biology has tons of exceptions to the “rules” of life. It’s beautiful!

5

I refuse to argue with bigots. You’ve already made it clear you don’t care about biological advantages unless it relates to the gender assigned at birth, which means this is targeted at trans people specifically. Don’t act like you’re so loving and benevolent, you’re using it as a shield for your hateful ideology.

8

Anonymous #6 14w

If you’re talking about biological advantages like how Michael Phelps is physically built for swimming, isn’t that the point? Like the point is to find who is the best at any given thing. He was given insane genetics, he didn’t control that. That is in no way comparable to biological men competing in women’s sports.

-2

Anonymous #1 14w

Your last two comments have demonstrated your ignorance on the subject, particularly with the constant oxymoron “biological men” because that doesn’t fucking exist lmao. Biology has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with sex, which is male and female, which is determined by both genotypic AND phenotypic traits. You don’t care about the science bc you won’t read any research provided. You don’t even care about sports, let alone women’s sports. You just care about being transphobic.

10

Anonymous #1 14w

You’re genuinely just unaware of the way sex and gender works

6

Anonymous #4 14w

I’m transphobic? I don’t care about what trans people do. People can be trans, I don’t agree with it, but people can do what they want. My problem is when people like you who force this very new “science” down people’s throats and try to make everybody accept it. You can’t just take a term and make up whatever definition you want for it. You can’t say that you’re a female when every cell in your body is male, and vice versa. The social aspect of it is dumb and I refuse the premise. Trans people

-2

Anonymous #1 14w

“I’m not transphobic I just don’t think trans people exist” dumbass

8

Anonymous #1 14w

Exist, fine, but they’re supposed to say that they’re whatever sex or gender they biologically are. Not whatever thing they made up on their head. I don’t care about sports? One of the only things I care about is sports. You can’t bring up your fake, made up science, and say that trumps science that we’ve known for hundreds of years.

-2

Anonymous #1 14w

News flash: as time progresses so does our understanding of science. It’s new science, yes, but that doesn’t mean it’s fake or any less legit. If anything modern science and understanding should be treated more factually than old science. The world is a complex place and gender and sex are different things, and neither is a binary.

6

Anonymous #1 14w

You don’t actually believe in science, too. You just say that so you can feel like you’re special and you know something about something. You know what the reality is, and it’s not whatever you’re preaching

-2

Anonymous #1 14w

What makes you think I don’t believe in science? You haven’t provided any evidence for that and you’re the one literally rejecting science with what you’re claiming to please enlighten me

10

Anonymous #6 14w

Did I say I don’t think they exist? I said people can do whatever they want, EXCEPT force their trans ideology onto other people.

-1

Anonymous #1 14w

You said you “reject the premise” while talking about trans people, I’m sorry if I misinterpreted that but those are your own words. Also, you clearly aren’t fine with them doing “whatever they want” cause you don’t want them playing sports in the leagues that already exist. Nobody is forcing you to be trans, but they refuse to be treated as second class to their fellow citizens as is their right. Also you didn’t address my question, what makes you think I don’t believe in science?

4

Anonymous #1 14w

Define sex and gender. Just define the two terms clearly

1

Anonymous #1 14w

bruh the first phalloplasty on a trans man was 1946 what are you even saying lmao. this ain’t new science. it is new to YOU because you aren’t educated on the subject. having negative presumptions about a minority group of people that you know nothing about is typically referred to as something like a “phobia” which, in this case, is transphobia. You’d learn so much more if you TRIED.

4

Anonymous OP 14w

Already did earlier, read back

1

Anonymous #6 14w

Just can’t find it.

6

Anonymous #1 14w

if only the Nazis didn’t destroy so much of the research produced by studies at the Institute of Sexual Science in Berlin back in the day with the book burnings, then maybe we’d all have known much earlier… then again, those with pink triangles freed from concentration camps were also often mistreated or even left behind, since they were still unwanted and abused in nearly every nation involved in their liberation from the camps… There is a reason why trans people are still demonized today…

8

Anonymous #6 14w

I was talking to 1

2

Anonymous OP 14w

Cool

1

Anonymous #6 14w

I reject the premise of the social aspect of gender as you’d put it. Gender isn’t a social thing. It’s biological. Gender and sex are the same thing. They describe the physiology of any given person in two ways, either male or female, and those come with their own characteristics. Intersex people exist, yes, but that doesn’t mean the rule isn’t true. Trans people can exist, I don’t agree with it, but they can exist. I have one trans friend and he’s doing fine now. He transitioned got top surgery

-2

Anonymous #1 14w

Then there’s no point in having a conversation if you’re unwilling to learn and understand the concepts being presented. If you refuse to accept the generally understood distinction between sex and gender then there’s no way for you to understand these people fully, and I’m sorry you’ll never experience that.

8

Anonymous #1 14w

Top surgery and he’s taking things rn for it and he’s fine. The difference between him and other people is that he knows that he’s a woman and he can’t truly be a man. He can live like a man. He can get surgery, but he can’t change his dna to be a man. I enjoy being around him too, he’s great. I use his preferred pronouns bc he asked me too and bc I respect him. They can do whatever they want except for compete in women’s leagues bc they weren’t women and they have a clear biological advantage

-2

Anonymous #1 14w

Above women. They shouldn’t, it’s people that are forcing trans ideology like being able to go into whatever bathroom they want that makes people not like them. Not bc they’re trans, but bc they’re assholes. Bc you believe that people can just live as the other gender and full heartedly believe in when science is proven to not be like that. Men can do things that women usually do and vice versa, that doesn’t make them the other gender, and it certainly doesn’t justify turning small children into

-2

Anonymous #1 14w

The other gender and catering to the feelings of kids and people that aren’t adults

-2

Anonymous #1 14w

Explain what gender is

1

Anonymous OP 14w

I did. It’s the same as sex, and it describes someone’s physiology as male or female.

0

Anonymous #1 14w

Biologically sex and gender are different. That is quite literally a fact you learn in 8th grade. Your logic is flawed. Can a woman have male genitalia?

5

Anonymous #6 14w

Oh I understand the concepts that are being presented. I just reject them. It’s a psyop that is specifically going against science and creates a justification for doing other obscene actions. It isn’t generally accepted. You try to create a social consensus and then point to that consensus and say everybody agrees with it, why don’t you, When everybody doesn’t agree with it. Are you saying you understand trans people? Are you trans?

1

Anonymous #1 14w

brother you do not get to just “reject” biological and sociological facts rooted in peer-reviewed, qualitative, quantitative, and empirical studies! You are VERY scientifically misinformed and you should educate yourself HEAVILY before being very loudly and publicly wrong on basic scientific fact. What would you call the women, who’ve had unassisted births, that have XY genotype that’s found in typically male individuals?

5

Anonymous #1 14w

if Gender and Sex are supposed to be the same thing, both under the discipline of Biology, indulge me — I have a woman with living in my house with four legs, a long shiny coat, a wet nose, beady little eyes, large canine teeth, and barks at bicycles. This woman hasn’t had offspring, and she’s been sterilized… You would agree, maintaining your assumption that it is a biological term, that I’m talking about a WOMAN, correct?

4

Anonymous #4 14w

You’d have to show me a source for those “unassisted births” bc it’s impossible for a man to give birth. Having a disease or a defect that allows somebody with a Y chromosome to give birth doesn’t help your side. Those people are still men

0

Anonymous #4 14w

So you’re trying to compare women to dogs. That’s what I’m getting from that. No, you have a female dog.

-1

Anonymous #4 14w

Also, not having kids and being sterile doesn’t make the dog any less of a female.

0

Anonymous OP 14w

No. Under normal circumstances a woman doesn’t have male genitalia.

-1

Anonymous #1 14w

Can a woman have male genitalia was the question, don’t qualify my question for me. I wrote it how it was intended to be asked. Yes or no?

5

Anonymous #1 14w

Dumic et al. 2007 examined “A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis.” I highly recommend you read that study, as the matrilineal family are phenotypically AND genotypically female, aside from the novel 46-XY karyotype. Biology is fascinating and FULL of exceptions!

1

Anonymous #1 14w

Correct, I was describing a female dog! A female of any species is NOT a woman. It’d be the same if i described a male dog and called it a man! Therefore, the gender identity of “woman” is not inherently the exact same definition as an individual of the female sex in biological terms. The words “woman” and “man” are sociological terms that strictly apply to adult humans in society, and NOT to the discipline of biology as a whole.

1

Anonymous #1 14w

Correct again. Fertility is not a qualification of being a female nor is it a qualification of being a woman. What is the necessary conditions of being a woman, then? Clearly you understand that it is an exclusionary category, since you’re attempting to exclude trans people from these gender categories. Please offer the necessary condition(s) of being a woman with ZERO EXCEPTIONS and under EVERY circumstance. Provide the required traits to be a woman (NOT a female)

1