# You Make Me Feel Like a Natural Woman....



## Ms. Aligned (Aug 26, 2021)

So here is a unique question....

Lia, the transgender swimmer. To do my research for this argument I looked up the average height of female olympian swimmers. She's not an outlier there, so I tried to think of other reasons why she might have an unfair advantage. The only one I could come up with was this....

How do they test to ensure the hormone levels are the same for transgender, as well as female by birth? If "doping" consists of higher levels of testosterone? Who's monitoring that they're truly transgender? A lot of test to make sure you're not doping, how does that translate to transgenders?

Like, it would need to be from the day you transition, to the day of competition to be fair. 

Also the argument that they have more lung capacity, that could be a valid argument if you were looking at base diving. Swimming laps will have no effect, since they learn to breathe.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Okay, maybe I'm missing something about this whole controversy. I get that some people feel their biological sex does not match how they feel inside, but having the upper body strength of a biological male is a distinct advantage over that of a biological female. How is this fair? I don't know what the ultimate answer is, I just know it isn't really fair to cis female competitors.


----------



## JimT (May 31, 2010)

Ms. Aligned said:


> So here is a unique question....
> 
> Lia, the transgender swimmer. To do my research for this argument I looked up the average height of female olympian swimmers. She's not an outlier there, so I tried to think of other reasons why she might have an unfair advantage. The only one I could come up with was this.... [snipped]


As I understand it (I'm not a doctor), when a boy goes through puberty, he gains tremendous physical advantages over girls: Greater bone density, more dense muscle tissue, bigger lung capacity, etc. And those advantages stay with him/her even after transitioning. As one commentator said, "You can't roll back puberty."

So now, as a result of transitioning, Lia Thomas has the same hormone levels as a female, and she has lost some of her muscle mass that she had as a man. But she still has the broad shoulders, dense bones, dense muscle tissue, bigger lungs, etc. of a man. Notice that she was only a mediocre swimmer when competing against men before transitioning (she was ranked #468 nationwide in the NCAA as a man), but now she is a super swimmer when competing against women after transitioning (she is ranked #1 nationwide in the NCAA as a woman). That's because she went through puberty as a boy and retains some of the physical advantages that come with that process.

_(Meantime, the opposite situation occurs when a woman transitions to become a man. If a transgender man went through puberty as a girl, he will never have the full strength and build of a cis man, no matter how hard he trains. So men's sports aren't threatened by transmen; transmen simply can't win against top male athletes who are male by birth and went through puberty as boys.)_

Anyway, back to Lia Thomas: Some feminist commentators have pointed to cases like Lia Thomas and said that the policy of allowing transgender women (and particularly those who went through puberty as boys) to compete in women's sports amounts to "the erasure of women." They warn of a day when all the top athletes in women's sports will be transgender women, and all the so-called "natural women" (reference to the thread title) will simply be edged out of any kind of higher-level competition.

I'm not sure it will ever get to that point. We're only talking about a couple athletes at this point. But whatever.

As a man, frankly I find this all kind of funny. Back in my youth, men had all kinds of male-only social networks: Lodges, rod and gun clubs, social clubs like the Masons, etc. But feminists cried "patriarchy" and got the government to outlaw male-only organizations in the US, to the point that even the Boy Scouts had to allow girls as members.

Now the transwomen are threatening to do the same for women's sports and for other privileges that feminists have traditionally claimed. In a way, transwomen are just "leveling the playing field," much the same way that feminists "leveled the playing field" by trashing men's social organizations and networks back 20-50 years ago.

Poetic justice, and all that. 

I just want to make it clear: Personally, I'm fine with people transitioning and changing genders. We have the technology to do it, so why not. But it's creating some frankly hilarious social conflicts and dilemmas. And I can't help but laugh at this stuff.

Anyway, whatever. As a man, it's not my problem. You strong, independent women can work this situation out by yourselves.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

JimT said:


> As I understand it (I'm not a doctor), when a boy goes through puberty, he gains tremendous physical advantages over girls: Greater bone density, more dense muscle tissue, bigger lung capacity, etc. And those advantages stay with him/her even after transitioning. As one commentator said, "You can't roll back puberty."
> 
> So now, as a result of transitioning, Lia Thomas has the same hormone levels as a female, and she has lost some of her muscle mass that she had as a man. But she still has the broad shoulders, dense bones, dense muscle tissue, bigger lungs, etc. of a man. Notice that she was only a mediocre swimmer when competing against men before transitioning (she was ranked #468 nationwide in the NCAA as a man), but now she is a super swimmer when competing against women after transitioning (she is ranked #1 nationwide in the NCAA as a woman). That's because she went through puberty as a boy and retains some of the physical advantages that come with that process.
> 
> ...


So smug. "leveling the playing field" would be just having mixed sports.


----------



## JimT (May 31, 2010)

DOGSOUP said:


> So smug. [...]


Oh please. Allow me a little schadenfreude. 

The left has been trashing males and supporting women's issues and causes for decades. But now the left suddenly finds itself caught up on an internal contradiction regarding how to define women and womanhood. Feminists who are all about womanhood and "girl power" increasingly find themselves opposing the "gender is a social construct" people, who basically deny that womanhood even exists. Hence we're seeing scenes like Ketanji Brown Jackson's Supreme Court confirmation hearings, where Ms. Jackson asserted that she was unable to define what a woman is. Because any definition of a woman might leave out part of the trans community or non-binary community or whatever community.

It's going to be fun watching feminists and lefties contorting themselves trying to resolve this contradiction. And it gets played out over issues like whether transwomen should be allowed to compete against cis women in women's sports: Is it "inclusion," or is it "the erasure of women"?

I wish all the various parties to the debate well. I'm not hating on anyone. Hell, I'm a liberal myself. I'm not backing one side or the other because frankly it's none of my business anyway. But it's still fun to watch.


----------



## eeo (Aug 25, 2020)

Basically, reaching the female hormone levels does not make the benefits of going through male puberty disappear. In sports that translates to physical advantages that have already been mentioned above.

I fully support the LGBTQIA+ community. I find the opening of discussion interesting. In a way, Lia Thomas, Emily Bridges, and even what happened with Caster Semenya, they are the pioneers of a new era. 

However, such developments in sports are also quite alarming, because it could make things a lot worse if not handled properly. I understand how it's important to feel you're part of the gender sphere you've always thought yourself to be. And when you love the sport, you'd also want to be a part of the right side you feel you belong to. But it seems like a no-brainer that elevating one shouldn't come at the expense of another. 

There's always been unfairness in sports. Genetics, the environment you grew up in, the conditions you've trained in, the equipment you use, having more money could mean being better prepared compared to many others - you can never get two athletes who are on the exact same level in every aspect. The society is always changing. Maybe it's high time to overhaul sports too. Inclusivity, but categorization based on more than gender, etc.



JimT said:


> As a man, frankly I find this all kind of funny. Back in my youth, men had all kinds of male-only social networks: Lodges, rod and gun clubs, social clubs like the Masons, etc. But feminists cried "patriarchy" and got the government to outlaw male-only organizations in the US, to the point that even the Boy Scouts had to allow girls as members.
> 
> Now the transwomen are threatening to do the same for women's sports and for other privileges that feminists have traditionally claimed. In a way, transwomen are just "leveling the playing field," much the same way that feminists "leveled the playing field" by trashing men's social organizations and networks back 20-50 years ago.


Are women now running all of these formerly male-only social networks? Are the males being slowly phased out of ever reaching the top again?


----------



## JimT (May 31, 2010)

eeo said:


> Are women now running all of these formerly male-only social networks? Are the males being slowly phased out of ever reaching the top again?


The organizations are still around. You still hear of the Shriners or the Masons or the American Legion. But they're much smaller than they used to be. Men kind of bailed out of those social networks. I don't know whether they just didn't want to deal with the changes brought about by the inclusion of women, or whether it was because membership in them came to be regarded as misogynistic and antiquated and therefore to be avoided for reputation reasons.

Probably more the second reason: Women started creating a fuss about them, and men's lodges and clubs came to be regarded as behind the times, disreputable, something out of a past era; and basically men just walked away from them to keep the peace.

It's all kind of humorous, because nowadays psychologists often say that men are too anti-social, and that men need to learn how to create and use social support networks like women have. But in fact, men used to be very good at socializing. In the past, men used to have elaborate social networks through these lodges and organizations. But feminists feared it when men socialized freely by themselves, so they bad-mouthed the organizations and in some cases sued to open membership to women in the name of female empowerment. And so now those days of men's clubs and lodges are long-forgotten. Oh well. C'est la vie.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

JimT said:


> Oh please. Allow me a little schadenfreude.
> 
> The left has been trashing males and supporting women's issues and causes for decades. But now the left suddenly finds itself caught up on an internal contradiction regarding how to define women and womanhood. Feminists who are all about womanhood and "girl power" increasingly find themselves opposing the "gender is a social construct" people, who basically deny that womanhood even exists. Hence we're seeing scenes like Ketanji Brown Jackson's Supreme Court confirmation hearings, where Ms. Jackson asserted that she was unable to define what a woman is. Because any definition of a woman might leave out part of the trans community or non-binary community or whatever community.
> 
> ...


When it comes to things like these I usually ask myself: cui bono? But that's just me


----------



## JimT (May 31, 2010)

DOGSOUP said:


> When it comes to things like these I usually ask myself: cui bono? But that's just me


And I'm thinking that maybe you're scared to actually address the social issues raised by this thread. Perhaps you're afraid of coming down on the wrong side and having an opinion that might be unpopular.

I get the feeling it's easier for you to make your responses about me and my motives than to take on a substantive, tough social issue where the available options are highly controversial.

But that's just me.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

JimT said:


> And I'm thinking that maybe you're scared to actually address the social issues raised by this thread. Perhaps you're afraid of coming down on the wrong side and having an opinion that might be unpopular.
> 
> I get the feeling it's easier for you to make your responses about me and my motives than to take on a substantive, tough social issue where the available options are highly controversial.
> 
> But that's just me.


What issues? Boys not wanting to be scouts anymore? I didn't even knew just boys could be Scouts.


----------



## JimT (May 31, 2010)

DOGSOUP said:


> What issues? Boys not wanting to be scouts anymore? I didn't even knew just boys could be Scouts.


Cute. Still avoiding. 

The thread is about whether transgender women should compete in women's sports. I gave a pretty faithful accounting of the issues involved (as I understand them), and then I excused myself from pronouncing on the issue because I don't personally have anything at stake.

Sure, I mentioned that I get some enjoyment seeing lefties squirm a bit with this issue. But try to see past that and get back to the issues raised by the OP. Don't keep pulling the thread off-topic by complaining about my "smugness." I get it, you didn't like my attitude. But try to move past it.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

JimT said:


> Cute. Still avoiding.
> 
> The thread is about whether transgender women should compete in women's sports. I gave a pretty faithful accounting of the issues involved (as I understand them), and then I excused myself from pronouncing on the issue because I don't personally have anything at stake.
> 
> Sure, I mentioned that I get some enjoyment seeing lefties squirm a bit with this issue. But try to see past that and get back to the issues raised by the OP. Don't keep pulling the thread off-track by complaining about my "smugness." I get it, you didn't like my attitude. But try to move past it.


I did, I said that "levelling the playing field" in the manner you suggested would actually be mixed sports, which you erased from your response to only address the smug part.

But yeah I am actually shocked 2019 is when girls could become scouts in America?? wow


----------



## eeo (Aug 25, 2020)

JimT said:


> and basically men just walked away from them to keep the peace.


So it was really the men who gave up? And, conveniently, the women got the blame. 

Seems like that's what's expected of women too with this issue. To walk away and keep the peace. A lot of female athletes have anonymously admitted that they're afraid of speaking up for themselves, they fear being cancelled, or retaliated against. The feminism movement didn't do everything right, that's for sure. But the trans movement today isn't doing things completely right either. As I said before, elevating one shouldn't come at the expense of another.


----------



## JimT (May 31, 2010)

DOGSOUP said:


> I did, I said that "levelling the playing field" in the manner you suggested would actually be mixed sports, which you erased from your response to only address the smug part.
> 
> But yeah I am actually shocked 2019 is when girls could become scouts in America?? wow


Alright, I guess we're done. You and I are wasting each other's time. I'll bow out. Good chatting with you.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

DOGSOUP said:


> But yeah I am actually shocked 2019 is when girls could become scouts in America?? wow


Ok sorry this wasn't correct, I'll probably make another thread about that.


----------



## Clare_Bare (Apr 6, 2015)

Almost all aspects of pysiology in a Trangender woman are similar to biological women after several years of medical hormone treatment.
It’s been proven clinically - repeatedly.
That fact relates to the normal homeostasis of women, irrespective whether they are Transgender or biological females.

For example, a pathologist anonymously testing blood samples wouldn’t be able to determine if the sample was from a Trans woman or a genetic woman from a bio-chemistry perspective.
Even then, the results from the Trans female would generally scale at the same levels as CIS female in terms of density, etc.

Female Trangender children, especially pre-pubercent or teenagers receiving puberty blocker medication, have no advantage over natural girls in sports or other childhood activities.
Equally, if a Transgender female adult never went through male puberty (due to blockers), the Transwoman’s pysiology would be the equivelant of a CIS woman’s. In other words, they‘d have had identical ‘development’ from childhood to adulthood.

The whole concept of male puberty advantage for Transgender women competing at elite level competition is based on the idealogy that they retain male peak levels of pysiology - which is a false dictomony.
Their bodies do weaken significantly and alter across all facets of pysiology, predominantly their internal bio-chemistry and it’s affect on the organs - heart, lungs, etc.

It is either the external body size/shape/appearance of the Trans woman that is the focus of attention (thus incorrect assumptions regarding ability) or a complete rejection of the Transgender factor in sports …


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

DOGSOUP said:


> So smug. "leveling the playing field" would be just having mixed sports.


If this happened, it's likely we would not see many women playing sports competitively. Is that what you wanted?

I personally think it's fine to disallow transitioned men and women from competing in sports separated by sex. Transitioning is medically altering, and I think it's fine to compare it to steroids as an unfair advantage.


----------



## eeo (Aug 25, 2020)

Clare_Bare said:


> The whole concept of male puberty advantage for Transgender women competing at elite level competition is based on the idealogy that they retain male peak levels of pysiology - which is a false dictomony.
> Their bodies do weaken significantly and alter across all facets of pysiology, predominantly their internal bio-chemistry and it’s affect on the organs - heart, lungs, etc.


Believing that male peak levels of physiology can be fully retained after transitioning is obviously ludicrous. From a purely scientific viewpoint, I'd be really interested in more thorough long-term studies on hormone replacement therapy and how the subsequent changes occur in the body. Comparisons with biological genders, etc. With athletes in mind, and also both female and male bodies. It's such a fascinating subject.

It's also a complex issue on several levels, and there are more questions than answers so far. There probably wouldn't even be much criticism if Lia Thomas hadn't won the races. She'd be celebrated as a trans role-model who can finally compete as herself in a sport she loves. But she's been winning, and all you need is casting doubt to unfold the drama. Currently the suggested requirement for trans athletes is at least two years of hormone therapy (olympic level). Thomas has reported that she doesn't have the same strength, can't hold up the same pace in practice as before transitioning, etc. But who would she have to be compared to to guarantee fairness in a female sport? The other record breaking female swimmers from her team, who clearly have natural advantages over others who don't? How weak does her body need to be to be considered equal, and the competition fair?

As I said earlier, even cisgender athletes are not on the exact same level, so the unfairness is written into the equation from the start. If you started testing all of them, you'd find all sorts of things that can be considered individual advantages or disadvantages. Sports also has a lot more involved in it than simple biology.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

secondpassing said:


> If this happened, it's likely we would not see many women playing sports competitively. Is that what you wanted?


What, no. I was just saying, this isn't really the same as "levelling the playing field" as he put it. That's all.


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

DOGSOUP said:


> What, no. I was just saying, this isn't really the same as "levelling the playing field" as he put it. That's all.


It seems I've misinterpreted your stance, and still don't know what it is. Oh well.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Ms. Aligned said:


> Wait, the other question I want to ask is, do women gain any physical advantages during puberty? I think they do, actually.
> 
> I used to "leg wrestle" with my next door neighbor of the same age as we were growing up. This was my making the playing field level. Usually there is arm wrestling, but what I decided we should do is sit with our backs to opposite walls. We would start in a position where both our feet met each other, and both our knees were bent. The first one to straighten their legs, won. And I did every time.
> 
> ...


Well in fighting video games like tekken or soul caliber, females are balanced to be just as good as males. What they tend to do is kick a lot, using speed, and flexibility. 

In real life I see the majority of women working on their butt or legs at the gym. The thing is, they are going for looks not performance. Those who train for performance train all around. But they usually don't increase the weight in their upper body and instead do high reps. 

The thing is, though a female could Have physical prowess in conditioning their legs, a male doing the same would provide better results. They'll be able to kick faster, harder, have more endurance, etc. 

So when looking at Trans genders, typically what's seen as unfair is specifically male to female. 

Though you'd have to look at each individual sport. Like darts for example, or bowling, etc. Sports that aren't so obvious there is a distinct advantage. Ones emphasizing skill and technique while minimizing strength endurance and speed. Those sports may be fair after all.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Ms. Aligned said:


> This could easily be corrected with height and weight classes. For example, I'm still not 100% convinced that a female of the same height and weight as a male, given the same training, could not beat a man in swimming...Aside from that, it would seem like the classes should include female puberty vs. male puberty. Those who have gone through puberty still get to test their skills among others. Those who have not, get to compete in their own class.
> 
> It's how fighting does it...Would that be terrible for anyone?


They may struggle to find someone in their weight class. Plus, even if they are the same weight, you wouldn't want male competing versus female. Weight isn't directly correlative of power. Think Bruce Lee. He didn't weigh much but his power was phenomenal.


----------



## Ms. Aligned (Aug 26, 2021)

I think we're saying the same thing here. That skill, and natural strength, COULD be leveraged.


----------

