Transgender women athletes banned from women’s Olympic events by new IOC policy
https://apnews.com/article/ioc-olympic-transgender-female-eligibility-520cd9cee152a312767a667acf77dbc8Open linkView original on lemmy.zip162
Comments129https://apnews.com/article/ioc-olympic-transgender-female-eligibility-520cd9cee152a312767a667acf77dbc8Open linkView original on lemmy.zip
IOC 2022 "Framework on Fairness, Inclusion and Non-Discrimination".
IOC 2026 "Pander to Sexists, Racists, and Morons"
It's so sad to see hatred winning.
Sad times if you're a cis woman who happens to have a wider jawline, larger nose or who generally does not look sufficiently "feminine". You can be subjected to cruel, invasive transvestigation instigated by people with sinister motives or bitter rivals.
As always, transphobia is used to pander to bigoted pricks. This is not a victory for women in any shape or form. This just opens more avenues for abuse for the fucking gender police.
Right?
…What happens when the athlete is a minor? Who inspects the child?
Trump
There is no good evidence that transgender women who have been on GAHT for two years have any physical advantages over cisgender women. https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/60/3/198
The first link does not support your position. It comes to broadly the same findings as the one I linked. The second link is to a DW article that haphazardly hyperlinks to a couple of small-scale studies (that were themselves included in the meta-analysis from your first link).
The idea of a preturnatural sporting advantage for trans women in womens sports is taken as an axiomatic truth by most people when this issue comes up. In fact the evidence suggests that over the first few years of GAHT, trans atheletes' physical performance approaches that of their cis peers. They tend to remain in the same percentile of performance for their true gender post transition as they achieved in their assigned gender pre-transition.
The article I linked was a large-scale meta-analysis (52 studies, n=6485) that is looking at a broader evidence base. At the very least, it is reasonable to question the base assumption that there is an obvious performence difference in the first place. Especially when that assumption is being used to justify the exclusion of trans people from yet another aspect of public life, both in professional sports and in for-fun, low-stakes highschool and local sports.
I'm not going to assume malicious intent from you but what you're doing in practice is JAQing off.
If you care about getting to the facts to form an opinion, as you say you do, then you could have carefully read through the study I linked, or even the ones you posted, before you posted them. That's what the several people who responded to you did.
I'm going to disengage now. Good luck to you on your fact finding mission.
I did, and i did.
I didn't say you were a consipiricist and I specifically didn't ascribe to you malicious intent.
Perhaps in the spirit of learning, you could maybe read into that rhetorical technique a little. The wikipedia article maybe focuses a little too much on conspiracy theorists but it's a well-developed concept and it is in fact what you are doing.
You are crowding the conversation with questions that you've not sincerely attempted to answer for yourself, instead you saw my comment, googled for 30 seconds and dumped two links in here, that you didn't read, as if they were some kindof gotcha. You've forced several other people to take time to engage you in the substance of your questions, which they, and I, did.
Nobody is silencing you, I'm disengaging because this is the sum-total of the amount of energy I'm willing to put into this conversation with a stranger, whose motives I don't fully trust. You are of course free to continue crashing out.
"I'm just asking questions..."
You have a right to do many things but they will not always be appropriate or do anything to help humanity develop. Oh, and you missed the sarcastic rhetoric. You aren't asking questions, you are pasting in talking points that someone else wrote to detour the conversation and cast doubt on the rights of others. Stand up behavior.
It's not healthy to look for enemies in every interaction. Detouring the conversation and casting doubt on the rights of others? When? Where?
Did you even read those at all? The second one literally agrees with their comment.
Hell the conclusion of the article basically states we need to study it more. That there is every indication that proper regulation can level the playing field to a degree but sports have never been fair. Which yeah of course not, no amount of training was going to let me dunk over Shaq.
You have asked for a conversation, and I want to present a different position that I don't often see.
Are trans women..... Women?
If they are, then what's the problem with trans women in sports? A women's competition was held, women competed, a woman won.
What's the problem? Tall women are not banned from basketball, or track, despite having natural advantages. Micheal Phelps has clear physiological advantages in swimming. He is not banned from competing, he is celebrated.
Why are gifted trans women not celebrated?
I want to drill down on this if you will indulge me.
Conceding the need for hormone therapy is easy. Nearly every trans person will do this anyway and the science suggests that it more or less accomplishes the goal of a gendered sports category to provide women a space to compete fairly.
But this conceeds the point that matters to most non athletic trans women.
Are we? Or are we not? Women?
I am a trans woman if that wasn't clear.
And if we are women, then what is the problem? What we are seeing is that a large part of our society answers this categorically: no. We are something else, presumably men, in their eyes.
That's painful, to me personally. It hurts to know that on a very real level, I don't get that recognition. I haven't completed in sports since middle school, long before I knew I was trans. But this issue matters to me because it sets out in black and white what my society thinks about me and people like me.
If there's no clear scientific consensus, then why in fuck's sake could you possibly justify a sports ban? You could actually be a child molesting pedophile. I have no evidence for or against this claim. But I better call the cops on you just in case!
You're demanding someone prove a negative. That is not how proof works. You can scientifically proof Bigfoot exists. Find a Bigfoot corpse? Call in some scientists and they'll document it, analyze it, read its DNA, and scientifically prove with a mountain of evidence that Bigfoot exists. In contrast, it's impossible to prove that Bigfoot does not exist. There could always be some hidden cave or remote mountain valley somewhere where, against all odds, there actually is a population of large non-human primates living on the North American continent. I can prove Bigfoot exists. I cannot prove that Bigfoot does not exist. That is simply the nature of logic and proof.
You're approaching this from a flawed premise. You're effectively saying, "I will accept trans women in women's sports when you conclusively prove they have no advantage whatsoever." But that's demanding proof of a negative. It is possible to prove an advantage. It is not possible to prove the non-existence of an advantage. Rather, the default assumption should be that no advantage exists. Since all secondary sex characteristics, including differences in musculature, come from lifetime hormone exposure, the default assumption should be that no advantage exists. Even men growing larger than women is because of hormone exposure at different periods in life. So if you switch someone's hormones, the default assumption should be that no advantage exists. And basic humanity dignity and respect for human beings demands that you start by assuming a position of equality.
The burden of proof is on those demanding we strip people of their liberty and dignity. The burden of proof is on those who would do real tangible harm to a group of people. Remember, these are lives we're talking about. You're arguing a hypothetical, but we're talking about real human beings. And we know that trans women athletes will be harmed by being excluded from women's sports. They certainly can't meaningfully compete against cis male athletes. By excluding trans women from women's sports, you are making it so trans women cannot compete in any competitive sport at all. That's an entire realm of the human experience you're cutting them out from.
If it can be proven that some overwhelming advantage exists, sure. On a sport-by-sport basis, perhaps bans would be justifiable. But you need to actually prove real harm before you start taking people's civil rights away. You are demanding proof that no advantage exists. You should be starting by demanding those who would take away civil rights present a rigorous case and actually prove real harm.
Who are you agreeing with? You're the one that posted the article, I'm just explaining to you what it said since you apparently didn't read it. Am I living in some kind of Bizarro World here? What are you contributing here to this conversation?
Super concerning that you don't know the difference between aggressiveness and bewilderment.
The first link does not conclude what you state. From the conclusion, “The exclusion of trans individuals also insults the skill and athleticism of both cis and trans athletes. While sex differences do develop following puberty, many of the sex differences are reduced, if not erased, over time by gender affirming hormone therapy.”
Your presentation on the article is completely contrary to what the article concluded. I didn’t read the second given your serious misrepresentation of the first.
You just proved Domi right lmao
I'm of two minds about this:
First, let people compete in comparative tier skill events. We have different weight classes for boxing, why should other sports be any different?
Second, who fucking cares? Sports are literally just physical games which have become the victim of capitalism, and the Olympics added nationalism and implicit racial perspectives.
You will never see a Japanese woman winning the 100m sprint. Should we have another category for Asian sprinters? Maybe? But at some point you need to realise:
NONE OF THIS SHIT MATTERS.
Most of these athletes are doing drugs anyway lol.
Women's sports exist because they can't actually compete against men. The division is inherently and explicitly exclusionary. They were created to give 50% of the population a chance to compete on as fair of a stage as possible.
Women's sports exist because men wouldn't allow them to even play competitive sports, period. Women's leagues were created as a conciliatory gesture from misogynists, not out of some sense of chivalrous duty to uphold fairness and equality.
That's an interesting take when there's generally no rules preventing women from competing in professional men's leagues.
There are no rules against it today. Go back in time 100 years and you have a culture of women being excluded from sports in general in favor of them learning "women's work" or being homemakers. The 14th amendment was the catalyst that allowed women to begin participating in competitive sports as more than just a passtime or a hobby.
There isn't men sports. There are sports, and women sports. The league men play in allow both genders.
Lol, no they don't. Some do, but many don't.
For games like golf, up until relatively recently, women weren't even allowed to be club members.
Let's not rewrite history.
That's how it works today, but historically that has not been the case. Women even being allowed to play sports is less far removed from the present day than you might imagine.
Women's sports was not created to protect women. Women's sports were created to protect the egos of men who would place under women. If women competed with men, there would be a bunch of butthurt men who would be angry they aren't as good.
For example, the Battle of the Sexes tennis matches had so many men coping and seething when a women beat a man in a highly publicized tennis match after the guy was talking mad shit. You can look up any number of examples like this where after a woman does well in a sport, a seperate league for women is established.
It matters exactly for the reason why it's banned. Sports is a pretext for hurting trans people. Sex assigned at birth should not matter at all. The bigots know this is just a way to draw in normies. Their bigotry is acceptable as long as it's dressed up as an intellectually honest debate about fairness in sports. Fairness in sports is a fool's errand, like you point out. Having that discussion at all is letting the bigots win.
It shouldn't, but it does. As a matter of what is statistically relevant about the dichotomy between males and females.
I'm not having that debate. Nobody cares except bigots trying to hurt trans people. If you're not, don't get sucked into that debate. They're arguing in bad faith
You're arguing in bad faith?
You are creating a strawman by claiming anyone who cares about gender in sports is a bigot who is trying to hurt trans people.
No, I said people are being duped into debating by bigots. This is about politics, not sports.
That's a strawman.
You are saying that people do not reach that conclusion on their own.
Has Domi pointed out elsewhere in this thread. There is no evidence that transgender women have a physical advantage over cisgender women, provided they've been on HRT for 2+ years. here's the meta-analysis they linked
So yeah, based off of:
You're either a bigot trying to use sports to hurt trans people, or you've been duped by bigots. So, unless you're made of straw Qevlarr isn't using a straw man argument.
is that true, though? What I've read is that the science is showing the opposite, that sex is mostly plastic and that after a couple years on hormones, trans women have similar fitness and athletic ability as cis women:
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2026/01/22/bjsports-2025-110239
I'm going to plagiarise myself:
So we aren't talking about Olympic tier athletes.
Also, the authors themselves acknowledge the evidence quality sits between very low and low
Why are you demanding that someone proves no advantage exists? If you find the level of proof ambiguous, then the null hypothesis must be that no difference exists. That's just basic respect for human rights and dignity.
Realize what you are suggesting. You are suggesting that trans women and girls be completely cut off from competitive sports in any form. Trans women are conclusively far below cis men in performance. We're just squabbling over whether some minute advantage exists over cis women. Trans women can't just go and play with the guys. You're arguing for trans women to be completely excluded from any form of sports whatsoever, a complete expulsion from an entire realm of human culture and experience.
If you're arguing for something so radical and cruel, the burden of proof is on you. The default assumption is equality. We don't take away civil rights on a whim. If it can be scientifically shown, on a sport-by-sport basis, that trans women have some massive advantage over cis women? Fine. In that case I might support a handicap system, or if that were not possible, exclusion as a last resort. But the burden for proof for that should be high. You're hurting real people here. Unless you can scientifically prove that some advantage exists, the default assumption must be that no advantage exists.
I'm not. I'm simply stating that there is a difference, it isn't a matter of debate. It's like saying Kenyans are better at sprinting than white people in general.
I believe that respecting trans people means being honest about the facts, and promoting equality. Both can be true.
None of these are claims I've made.
The only thing I'm hurting is the brains of the people who are jumping on the slippery slope, all the way to the strawman.
For decades the Olympics committee has enabled trans and intersex athletes to compete without issue, using regulations on hormones to ensure fairness; it is only because the new IOC president is committed to excluding trans and intersex participation in sports that we have seen this reversal - there has been no change in the science to support the IOC's new position.
The quality of evidence is often low to very low for many important guidelines, both clinical and social, and yet those guidelines are not tossed out as not sufficiently backed by evidence. Meanwhile, the evidence we do have is clear that there is no meaningful advantage granted to trans women over cis women in physical fitness or athletic ability - and this fact is corroborated by decades of failure of trans female athletes to dominate against cis female competitors.
Furthermore, the majority of trans athletic bans are state laws in the US that bar both trans men and trans women from participating in sports primarily in K-12 schools - the impact of the anti-trans movement's push for the exclusion of trans participation in sports has not been primarily about creating fairness, but opening the door to senseless discrimination, often against a handful of children.
In Kentucky, they passed a law and overrode the governor's veto to pass a trans sports ban that only impacted a single girl who was actually the founder of her field hockey team, and all the people she played with wanted her to be able to play. But now she isn't allowed to play because she's trans.
Whether you intend to or not, you are supporting a hate movement without the actual evidence to show that trans participation in sports is a problem on any level of competition, let alone for children playing with their friends.
My feeling is that if there was an unfair advantage due to hormones or genetics, or would seem unfair to peak athletes. However, there appears to be none or minimal. It seems that most elite athletes have genetic or other advantages is some way, as you alluded to with racial differences.
However, that aside, when we look at the purpose of sport, fun, exercise, community, human achievement; the exclusion of trans people undermines that and disappoints far more people. So for me, it's a no brainer. Inclusivity wins out as that's what protects the most kids (and people) from harm.
biggest advantage is just having the funds/support network available to dedicate your whole life to X sport
This. The amount of effort and time that it takes to be an olympic athlete is crazy. I've actually met quiet a few in person, through the work I do. Even their 'light training' days are insane. Which is why I love the Olympic Games so much, regardless of IOC rulings.
Transphobes care about it, a lot. The material changes may be minimal, and harm cis women more than they'll harm trans women. But they use the "sports issue" as a way to introduce the idea of excluding trans people from public life to mainstream debate. Here's prominent transphobe Helen Joyce admitting to it publicly:
Were transgender women winning a lot of golds at Olympic events?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinn_(soccer)
Nothing else in terms of medals. One trans woman in power lifting who didn't even place and IIRC nothing else for trans competitors.
Not a problem that needed solving then. Common IOC L.
Most golds are based on luck, getting qualified to go at all is a huge achievement.
Now comes the "spite filings" on athletes just before competition.
They never care about trans men because this is just misogyny.
Now I'm curious: Are there official limits on just how much a trans man is allowed to juice as an athlete?
No clue tbh. There probably are though as testosterone is a monitored thing.
Or because trans men don't have a physical advantage over Cis men competitors in physical competitions.
Not all Olympic events are about brute strength or reaction time etc.
There’s equestrian, sailing, shooting, and an array of mixed events where a trans man could have an advantage over a Cis man.
You're correct (shooting... women are naturally better shooters than men in my experience.) I agree in competitions that don't rely on pure physicality this ban wouldn't make sense, but I don't agree this is just misogyny versus some other type of prejudice.
I think a one way ban makes sense in some fields because a trans man competing against cis men is already at a physical disadvantage. That's not the case if the genders are switched.
Curling is the only sport in the Olympics that matters and it would probably be fine ungendered.
Not sure why you’d agree…then double down.
Mmm. I don’t think anybody was saying that misogyny is the ONLY issue.
Literally the original comment I replied to claims, "this is just misogyny."
Has Domi pointed out elsewhere in this thread. There is no evidence that transgender women have a physical advantage over cisgender women, provided they've been on HRT for 2+ years. here's the meta-analysis they linked
That's neat. Wild how much an affect hormonal changes can have on the body. Humans are weird.
It's the old "I have nipples Greg, could you milk me?" and the answer is yes.
Imagine if Greg had responded "yes," and then proceeded to provide detailed step-by-step instructions in how to induce lactation. That would have been a real weird twist. I'm talking like a five minute segue in the movie.
Can we just, I dunno, end competitive sports for a while already?
The planet is going to shit, dictatorships are running wild, democracy is dying, wars, …
Meanwhile these assholes are SOOOO concerned about people their genitalia and using that to distract people from ACTUAL problems. Like maybe just stfu and go away.
Same for the whole Eurosong debacle btw.
The amount of reactionaries here is deeply disappointing, I expected nothing from a world community and yet somehow I am still disappointed
At this rate trans should launch their own olympic games.
Find, the Olympics have been super corporate for too long anyway. Create an inclusive alternative and fuck corporate
I think this should be handled by the communities of the different sports in stead. I imagine some sports, like power-lifting, would end up separating on biological sex - with some others wouldn't
The only trans woman to ever compete in the Olympics was a power lifter. She came last.
Your intuition about trans athletes is wrong.
I don't think that single example really proves that. There's reasons why we have separate events for men and women, and some of those have to do with biology - if biology didn't matter, we could just remove the separation altogether.
...but then again, I really don't think it should be up to me either, that's kind of my point. The communities and institutions of the different sports should figure this out, not the IOC, and certainly not me.
If transphobia wasn't rampant, that would be ideal. But transphobia is rampant, and it just means each and every sport defaults to exclusion. That's how it worked before this IOC ruling. That's how it worked at the last Olympics, in which zero trans women were able to compete.
Idealised scenarios that assume fairness and good will don't work. They just lead to exclusion, and worse, they make it impossible to gather more data.
And the reason for that is that everyone thinks like you. Which is to say, everyone thinks "Biology matters", but for some reason, is never working to challenge that assumption by acknowledging that trans folks biology changes with the introduction of hormone replacement. It's also a space with a lot of bad faith and actively misleading research, because of the aforementioned transphobia.
Excluding trans people from sport is an openly acknowledged "first step" of a where they're using to normalise exclusion of trans folk in wider society. These are the folk generating much of this research, research that normally would be laughed out of the room, but when it's about trans people and aligns with the "common sense" belief that trans folks have an advantage in sports, somehow the research gets taken seriously.
That's the environment we live in. And that's the environment that tried your approach, as a stepping stone to the outright exclusion we have now.
I don't see how entrusting the process to the IOC will ensure that there's less transphobia behind the decision. It's not exactly known for being very progressive :p
And either way, I don't think fighting to push something through against the popular will, without a clear plan for consensus-building afterwards, is a good way of building lasting change - I'd say it is a good way of creating a backlash, and of selling the Conservative image of the trans movement as anti-democratic and elitist.
Appeasing the bigots and fearmongers has never once in the history of people lead to success and protection of minority rights. All it is is a slowly closing ratchet.
The only method that has ever worked is pushing back. It doesn't have to mean violence, but it means making people uncomfortable, and challenging their harmful beliefs, not letting them sit comfortably with them
I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, but I also don't think it invalidates any of what I just wrote.
ITT: Lemmy’s on high alert, scanning every post in this thread for the tiniest crack of nuance, hesitation, or less-than-100% agreement. The moment someone sounds even slightly conflicted or imperfectly aligned, the chorus leaps in with the sacred “transphobe!!” label like it’s a reflex. Then comes the frantic history dive of screenshots, out-of-context quotes... anything to sharpen the pitchforks and prove the heretic was always suspect.
I'm fine with transphobes being called out, but some in this thread are really stretching the meaning of the word. Can't we all just try to get along?
It’s genuinely fascinating to watch. lol
That's a bit hard when we're having our rights taken away. But sure, the biggest issue is that the folk defending trans people aren't doing it in a polite enough way for your sensibilities.
So do you think you're helping people understand, by being jerks and finger pointing every time someone doesn't 100 percent agree with every single thing you say? (Not YOU specifically, I'm talking some of the more angry, extreme people)
On Lemmy, just asking "Why?" gets people brigaded and yelled at.
Hey, you do you. I don't care one way or the other. People can keep on doing screenshots and fingerpointing and yelling...but it won't change minds or hearts doing it that way.
I've been on Lemmy long enough to realize that most on Lemmy don't want to have nuance, or useful conversation. People here LIKE being mad.
Extremism is what brought most to Lemmy in the first place. Most LIKE the echo chamber. It will accomplish nothing though.
So hey, go about being mad, getting mad, and yelling. That won't change opinions and that's not the goal anyway.
Yep, the real issue isn't the fact that trans people are being excluded, the thing we need to talk about is how a trans person didn't talk about their exclusion in a way you were comfortable with.
There is a world wide growing movement against trans people. We have had our drivers licenses and passports taken away, we've been excluded from sports, we've had our protections against violent and sexual crime weakened and removed, we've had whole governments campaign on their desire to attack us.
I personally live in a country that has escaped the worst of it, but even so, do you know that I legally can't enter the US? Not that I'd want to, but it would literally be impossible for me to provide ID that matches their expectations. And if I was let in anyway because some random person didn't realise I was trans, I would face imprisonment if they identified that I'm trans.
Fuck nuance.
The US doesn't ban trans people or gay people from entering. So what's the actual reason that would you be banned from entering US?
Which proves my point I was making. You don't want nuance. I don't care the reasons, my point stands: you don't care about nuance.
They ban people whose identity documents don't match their assigned sex at birth (ie, me). All of my documents list me as female. Birth certificate, passport, ID card etc.
So if I declare that I'm trans, they deny me a visa, because my documents don't match their transphobic guidelines. And if I don't declare that I'm trans, and they let me in, then they can hit me for entering the country with "fraudulent" documentation if they later identity me as transgender.
Here's a breakdown of how it works https://www.huschblackwell.com/newsandinsights/new-visa-rules-target-transgender-individuals-considerations-for-employers-and-educational-institutions
The irony being here, you aren't interested in nuance either. You've got your line in the sand, and it doesn't matter how much exclusion, harm or bigotry you see, how explicitly exclusion from sports is shown to be a wedge issue to normalise exclusion of trans people from other levels of society, your opinion won't change.
Why were they ever allowed to compete in the first place?
Definitely not a transphobe though.
I wouldn't say I'm a transphobe since I'm not scared of trans people. I generally support causes for trans people except if its for trans women being in womens sports or trans children
I'm not going to talk about trans women in sports as that has already been addressed in another comment.
For your trans children comment. Why? Why the fuck? You know that them not transitioning doesn't mean they're not trans, right? You know that it just means they'll likely kill themselves, right?:
https://www.thetrevorproject.org/resources/article/facts-about-lgbtq-youth-suicide/
https://goodlawproject.org/new-data-shows-surge-in-trans-kids-suicides-following-healthcare-rollbacks/
Kids should not have the ability to make permanent life-altering decisions, period. We don't let kids get a tattoo or drink so why the fuck should they be allowed to change their gender
Is suicide not a life-altering decision you fucking moron? Do you think that tattoos are as much of an emergency as gender affirming care?
Address what I actually said and sourced dipshit.
To say that every single kid who doesn't transition is going to kill themselves is such an insane and emotionally manipulative take. By this logic you could say that because a kid is going to kill himself because he won't get an AK47, you should give the kid an AK47
I hope you know that you can prevent secondary effects without always solving the original primary effect. It's a lot safer and cheaper to do so
Tell me where I said "every single kid who doesn't transition is going to kill themselves". Tell me where I said that. Because as far as my eye can see, I just cited sources for my claims on transgender children taking their lives more than their peers, especially when having cut access to gender affirming care.
And holy fuck dude, I really didn't think you would stoop this low. You literally think gender dysphoria is equivalent to wanting an AK and killing oneself if one can't get it.
Tell me how many children have killed themselves because they couldn't get access to such a silly thing. Show me the data. Because it seems that you think CHILDREN in a specific marginalized group with specific needs are KILLING THEMSELVES over 4 TIMES MORE because they are just being fucking petty.
"Bro, just try to prevent children from killing themselves while they live the worst, most depressed years of their life when they feel like they don't even belong in their own body bro. It's much cheaper to do so bro." Shut the fuck up and just take the L at this point. Your arguments are pathetic.
Why the fuck do you care so much what medical care other people's children receive? Are you against cancer treatment for children because they aren't old enough to decide whether they want the effects of the treatment? Fucking hell I'm so sick of this shit ass argument.
If you genuinely think that gender affirming care is the same as cancer treatment then you are long gone
Funny how everyone here can't communicate about this without instantly breaking into immature behaviour
I'm pretty sure you're mentioning me when you say immature behavior so I'll chime in here too.
I'm not being immature. I'm just cussing you the fuck out because your ideology literally kills people. And you're trying so hard to not change your ideas about this that you're diving into false equivalencies and strawmans.
The "immature behaviour" I'm showing here is not nearly as bad as the actual immature behaviour you show to millions of children you deny the experience of that have to go through mental hell.
Yeah, the difference is you think one condition exists and the other doesn't. Because you're being an idiot, on purpose apparently.
It's Lemmy. Don't expect nuance on this. Expect pitchforks if you don't 100 percent agree with the mob. lol
Anyone possessing the tiniest bit of intellectual integrity can tell who is talking while providing actual data, evidence, and objectivity; and who is talking with 0 experience with gender dysphoria while going against the current scientific consensus and going down the barrel even more while actively being mocked.
Lemmy is generally queer-friendly, but it's not a "mob". I've been on/off this platform ever since Reddit closed down its API and I can easily say that supporting trans kids medically transitioning is not a majority opinion on this platform as can easily be seen by comparing the downvotes on sunglocto's bullshit against the upvotes of my replies. People downvote them because it's so obvious that they're just clutching pearls at this point, but they don't really want to agree with me either so they skip on voting.
But please, share your nuance on this topic with me :)
Nah. No way am I jumping in to this fray. I'll watch everyone yell at each other. I want no part of it. Thanks, though.
You should consider deleting your account and going back to Facebook
I mean... Good?
We separate genders in most sports for a reason. If I were a woman who trained my whole life as a woman, and got to the Olympic level, and I suddenly had to face an opponent that went through puberty as a man, trained as a man, and then a few years ago decided they were a woman, and began taking hormone blockers, I would be fucking pissed. There are significant biological and hormonal differences between men and women, which is why testosterone levels are monitored and regulated among female athletes.
Overall, I think articles like this are just intentional trolling with rage bait about stuff that doesn't directly concern or impacts a thousandth of a percent of the population.
There's real news in the real world that's impacting all of us that we should be aware of and angry about.
And cis women who have naturally high testosterone levels are then discriminated against.
Discrimination like this are huge signs of the problems of socitey. Sure, trans people not being able to compete isnt the end of the world... but the Discrimination doesnt stop there. We can just look at history for examples.
Jeeeeeesus Christ it's twenty fucking twenty six, how do you not know how gender dysphoria works? Do gay people decide to be gay?
Yes, they’re “trolling” or “rage bait”…but you’re the one getting baited.
…you’re the one babbling about the never-has-or-will happen-but-is-technially-possible scenario. You obviously completely unaware of the standards that were in place…which made it impossible for the athlete that you described to compete as a woman.
All this is going to do is allow transphobes and other perverts to inspect the generals of athletes…some of them minor athletes…if they wish to compete.
This is a virtue signal for bigots, solving a problem that didn’t and couldn’t exist. Full stop, end of story.
Didn't read but thank you for identifying yourself as a bigot
Careful about saying stuff like that on Lemmy. If you can't tell by your downvotes, you'll find out when they start stalking you. lol
So you're a transphobe too eh? Way to brag about it
What are you going around the bends about, mate? I'm not transphobic at all. I've never done anything transphobic, and I've never said or posted anything transphobic. The Olympic committee decided this, I had no vote or say about it whatsoever. Are you under the mistaken impression that I'm part of the Olympic committee?
I responded to what you said, not the article. Weird deflection.
What did I say that was transphobic, then? What have I said or posted anywhere that was transphobic in any way, shape, or form? Please post here so everyone can see. Because you have no idea what you're talking about.
Weird projection you have going on here.
Doesn't seem like you know what projection means
I know exactly what it means.
Now please show me even one example where I’ve said or posted anything transphobic. You’re the one who threw the accusation at me, so let’s see the receipts.
The reason you aren't showing us anything, is because I haven't said or posted anything transphobic. lmao