Of course males have advantages. That's WHY we have women's sport. And no, it isn't a minuscule problem. Why? When a male takes a woman's spot, it doesn't affect only one person. It affects hundreds. It affects all the women who could have reasonably competed for the spot. It affects their families, coaches, and friends. It affects all those the male competes against and their families, coaches, and friends. It often endangers competitors, affecting them, their families, coaches, friends, and medical teams. It dampens enthusiasm for sport among women.
And this is just sport. It solidifies gender stereotypes. It creates a climate where the interests of girls and women are subordinated to "affirming" fixed false views and beliefs. And it empowers men to set boundaries for women.
Emma, (if I can call you that), the article is spot-on and factual, but I think it might be more valuable to rethink what's happening and seeing what underlies these behaviors to pass more focused judgement.
These men have a compulsion to imitate women. It's a biologically-based behavioral phenomenon, often called sexual mimicry. These men imitate women for two core reasons.
First, to avoid male competition in general. They are quite successful with this avoidance, men imitating women die of male violence at half the rate of other men Second, by avoiding male competition, they gain access to females they wouldn't have otherwise.
This second model takes a coupe of forms - they gain access to women, without male presence, for reproduction, so we see prison rape. They gain access to female territory without male presence, to mark it with urine, so we have men in women's restrooms. They gain sexual pleasure at seeing women in intimate spaces without men preventing it, so we have men leering in dressing rooms in gyms and spas. Finally, they establish physical supremacy over female groups without male competition, so we see men in women's sports.
Sports is easy to think of as ritualized warfare, without the death and destruction, and with it comes titles and hierarchical status. However, in women's sports, with no men present, it's perfect, and they dominate their harem, or pack, or with apes, it's called a 'shrewdness' of apes.
Biology has many examples of male sexual mimicry, it's present in all complex animals except amphibians. The male giant cuttlefish can control its chromatophores, presenting one half its body to a male as female, to avoid aggression, and the other half as male to a female in the harem to impregnate her with a tentacle (technically, an arm).
To the article, there is no purpose to men competing with women in sports other than to simultaneously promote the female imitation, and to establish paradoxical male physical supremacy over women without having to compete with males. It's not that they are stronger than women - that's almost irrelevant, it's a given. It's that males aren't present that is the key. It's very simple behavioral biology.
There are many other aspects to the behavior when you grasp it is just men compulsively imitating women - there are many things they must do to ensure the deception is not revealed. They redefine all sex around their behavior - it's not men and women, it's cis-men and cis-women. It's not mothers, it's pregnant people. The create sex ambiguity to keep the pretense up - it's not sex, its one of innumerable and meaningless genders. It's not teen anxiety about their bodies changing, it's that their sex is uncertain. It's not sex at conception, it's sex 'assigned' at birth.
I call the phenomenon, the behavior, 'mimisexuality'.
Though I do wish news magazines and the like would deprecate if not anathematize phrases like "female transgender athletes" as they're nothing of the sort. They're no more than male transvestites, at least if they still have their nuts, and sexless eunuchs if not.
But in some related news, you might also be interested in a story out of Oklahoma where the State has more or less fully endorsed the definitions for the sexes that you, along with Heather Heying and Colin Wright, had had published in the letter section of the UK Times:
KJRH: "For example, the Order defines 'female' as a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to produce ova. 'Male' is defined as a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to fertilize the ova of a female."
UK Times: "Individuals that have developed anatomies [gonads?] for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively."
Both, of course, making it unnecessary to actually be able to reproduce, to actually produce gametes, to qualify as members of the male and female sex categories. Those definitions may well have some social utility -- even they may be a rather problematic if not a "poisoned chalice" -- but they ain't biology. They do not at all comport with the standard biological definitions "promulgated" in more reputable sources -- the UK Times certainly qualifies as a decent newspaper, but it hardly qualifies as any sort of a peer-reviewed biological journal. But, for some specifics, see these sources, including the tweet of the definitions in the Oxford Dictionary of Biology:
If one assumes that DSDs such as 5-ARD, which confers significant advantage in athletics, are equally dispersed through the sports population, do you think
- someone with that sort of T advantage should have shown up by now
- or other factors are at work? It seems surprising that someone with such an advantage hasn’t shown up.
In weightlifting? Yes I’d predict male advantage (as in any athletic sport) but I think the demographic that picks up weightlifting might differ from that accessing track running?
Apropos of women's weightlifting and ICYMI, you might have some interest in the Wikipedia article on transwoman and Olympian weightlifter Laurel Hubbard. Of particular note therein:
Wikipedia: "In 2012, Hubbard transitioned to female. She began hormone therapy that year. Hubbard competed in international weightlifting for the first time in 2017."
Their use of "female" has something of a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" aspect to it since they are using the word, or implying its use as a gender, but still something of a bait-and-switch fraud. Something which I, as a then Wikipedian editor, rather objected to, and for which I have now been exiled to the outer darkness:
Of course males have advantages. That's WHY we have women's sport. And no, it isn't a minuscule problem. Why? When a male takes a woman's spot, it doesn't affect only one person. It affects hundreds. It affects all the women who could have reasonably competed for the spot. It affects their families, coaches, and friends. It affects all those the male competes against and their families, coaches, and friends. It often endangers competitors, affecting them, their families, coaches, friends, and medical teams. It dampens enthusiasm for sport among women.
And this is just sport. It solidifies gender stereotypes. It creates a climate where the interests of girls and women are subordinated to "affirming" fixed false views and beliefs. And it empowers men to set boundaries for women.
I could have done without the last paragraph. It was not written as well as the first. I think it’s better to stick with the concrete.
Emma, (if I can call you that), the article is spot-on and factual, but I think it might be more valuable to rethink what's happening and seeing what underlies these behaviors to pass more focused judgement.
These men have a compulsion to imitate women. It's a biologically-based behavioral phenomenon, often called sexual mimicry. These men imitate women for two core reasons.
First, to avoid male competition in general. They are quite successful with this avoidance, men imitating women die of male violence at half the rate of other men Second, by avoiding male competition, they gain access to females they wouldn't have otherwise.
This second model takes a coupe of forms - they gain access to women, without male presence, for reproduction, so we see prison rape. They gain access to female territory without male presence, to mark it with urine, so we have men in women's restrooms. They gain sexual pleasure at seeing women in intimate spaces without men preventing it, so we have men leering in dressing rooms in gyms and spas. Finally, they establish physical supremacy over female groups without male competition, so we see men in women's sports.
Sports is easy to think of as ritualized warfare, without the death and destruction, and with it comes titles and hierarchical status. However, in women's sports, with no men present, it's perfect, and they dominate their harem, or pack, or with apes, it's called a 'shrewdness' of apes.
Biology has many examples of male sexual mimicry, it's present in all complex animals except amphibians. The male giant cuttlefish can control its chromatophores, presenting one half its body to a male as female, to avoid aggression, and the other half as male to a female in the harem to impregnate her with a tentacle (technically, an arm).
To the article, there is no purpose to men competing with women in sports other than to simultaneously promote the female imitation, and to establish paradoxical male physical supremacy over women without having to compete with males. It's not that they are stronger than women - that's almost irrelevant, it's a given. It's that males aren't present that is the key. It's very simple behavioral biology.
There are many other aspects to the behavior when you grasp it is just men compulsively imitating women - there are many things they must do to ensure the deception is not revealed. They redefine all sex around their behavior - it's not men and women, it's cis-men and cis-women. It's not mothers, it's pregnant people. The create sex ambiguity to keep the pretense up - it's not sex, its one of innumerable and meaningless genders. It's not teen anxiety about their bodies changing, it's that their sex is uncertain. It's not sex at conception, it's sex 'assigned' at birth.
I call the phenomenon, the behavior, 'mimisexuality'.
Does anyone know Barbra Banda’s background? It seems to have been obfuscated by gender ideology..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/ce81vjlge7vo
Kudos for your efforts. Seems to have had some quite positive effects -- probably instrumental in banning transwomen from women's cycling at least:
"Female transgender athletes banned from women’s events by world cycling’s governing body"
https://globalnews.ca/news/9833371/transgender-athletes-world-cycling-womens-races/
Though I do wish news magazines and the like would deprecate if not anathematize phrases like "female transgender athletes" as they're nothing of the sort. They're no more than male transvestites, at least if they still have their nuts, and sexless eunuchs if not.
But in some related news, you might also be interested in a story out of Oklahoma where the State has more or less fully endorsed the definitions for the sexes that you, along with Heather Heying and Colin Wright, had had published in the letter section of the UK Times:
KJRH: "For example, the Order defines 'female' as a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to produce ova. 'Male' is defined as a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to fertilize the ova of a female."
https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/gov-stitt-signs-womens-bill-of-rights-through-executive-order
UK Times: "Individuals that have developed anatomies [gonads?] for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively."
https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554
Both, of course, making it unnecessary to actually be able to reproduce, to actually produce gametes, to qualify as members of the male and female sex categories. Those definitions may well have some social utility -- even they may be a rather problematic if not a "poisoned chalice" -- but they ain't biology. They do not at all comport with the standard biological definitions "promulgated" in more reputable sources -- the UK Times certainly qualifies as a decent newspaper, but it hardly qualifies as any sort of a peer-reviewed biological journal. But, for some specifics, see these sources, including the tweet of the definitions in the Oxford Dictionary of Biology:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170902010637/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/female
https://web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990 (see their Glossary)
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441 (Oxford Dictionary of Biology)
If one assumes that DSDs such as 5-ARD, which confers significant advantage in athletics, are equally dispersed through the sports population, do you think
- someone with that sort of T advantage should have shown up by now
- or other factors are at work? It seems surprising that someone with such an advantage hasn’t shown up.
In weightlifting? Yes I’d predict male advantage (as in any athletic sport) but I think the demographic that picks up weightlifting might differ from that accessing track running?
Apropos of women's weightlifting and ICYMI, you might have some interest in the Wikipedia article on transwoman and Olympian weightlifter Laurel Hubbard. Of particular note therein:
Wikipedia: "In 2012, Hubbard transitioned to female. She began hormone therapy that year. Hubbard competed in international weightlifting for the first time in 2017."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurel_Hubbard
Their use of "female" has something of a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" aspect to it since they are using the word, or implying its use as a gender, but still something of a bait-and-switch fraud. Something which I, as a then Wikipedian editor, rather objected to, and for which I have now been exiled to the outer darkness:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/wikipedias-lysenkoism
I’d suspect that’s the reason - narrower demographic. Running is comparatively cheap (only needs shoes); lifting weights requires, well, weights.