Crossfit Athlete Denied Acceptance

Off Topic
61

[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:
did anyone read that reaaallllyy long post?[/quote]

Yes.

I am curious as to why the author feels CrossFit is required to embrace a policy of universal over-accommodation to, for instance, be accepting of individuals afflicted with de la Chapelle syndrome, a disease affecting ~0.005% of the population.

But then, I am also curious as to why the author cites the meaninglessness of chromosomal determination of sex, yet fails to address the genetic significance underpinning its common usage (i.e., the presence of a Y chromosome is secondary to the genetic material it contains, such as the SRY gene; karyotyping is/was simply more accessible and convenient than genomic analysis, particularly before the driving mechanisms behind sex-differentiation were elucidated, and remains an extremely strong predictive test for sex). So, if he/she is all for throwing out the conventional means of determining sex (first phenotype, then basic chromosomal analysis), then why not resort to more nuanced genetic analysis (SRY, DHH, SF1, etc) as a concrete criterion? Forget chromosomes – if you have the necessary genes which are adequately functional to express a sexual phenotype, you are a member of that sex regardless of the X’s and Y’s.

I didn’t (and will not) read the linked articles, but I’m curious as to how the author jumped from the presence of the SRY gene to neurological abnormalities in transsexuals – MtF transsexuals may show female neurological characteristics, but they still have a functional SRY gene as evidenced by the M part of their transformation… what are we to make then of this when neurologically normal males with normal sexual orientations also sport similarly robust SRY genes? Why was this brought up, again?

Beyond that, CrossFit is not subject to the interpretation and opinion of the IOC and NCAA; therefore, their assessments of what constitute gender-related mismatches in athletic performance are irrelevant. But then, these committees only cite the primary (i.e., not sole) determinant of gender-specific mismatches in sport. So, even if we were to concede their position regarding hormones, it doesn’t necessarily negate CrossFit’s position that, without further explanation, could suggest that they suspect other possible advantages.

It’s interesting that transsexuals have never dominated any sport they have been allowed to participate in, but then the sample size is likely so small that it’s silly to take that into serious consideration. Even so, CrossFit isn’t the sporting world’s Petri dish and it is not their responsibility to advance others’ interpretation of social progress and acceptance.

I’ll get to the rest tomorrow, but for now I’ll just say that the funniest thing about all of this is that this gold-digging tranny decided to undergo surgery when she is such a big fucking cunt that no one would have mistaken her man-dick for anything more than a shriveled little rat clit had she decided to keep it. Instead of suing for cash, she should have fought a little harder to gain acceptance into the competition to blaze a trail for others whose “civil rights” might be compromised by this decision.

All she’s going it trying to make a quick buck while giving CrossFit ample time to add a little more fine print to their enrollment forms, all the while dumping her first menstrual cycle all over the headlines of national newspapers.

Yay, progress.

62

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Go tell David Reimer that gender is just a social construct

[/quote]
Yeah that one always messed me up, regardless of gender theory or anything. I mean, it just messed up. The only way I figure the 2 ideas (pro and con) can work in this case is if we are missing a bunch of info as to how he was raised, and also the level of acceptance from the community and society at the time. But man…

I can’t subscribe to the theory fully myself. Personally, one of my best friends is female, a bit of a girly girl, and displays a lot of tradtionally masculine qualities like assertiveness and ambition. Whereas I lift, I’m twice her size, and I find myself sometimes more empathic and sensitive to stuff. So I get confused over gender as identity, as biology, and the classifications of what we see as traditionally male and female qualities.

So after some thinking, I just go lift or eat.

63

[quote]talc wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Go tell David Reimer that gender is just a social construct

[/quote]
Yeah that one always messed me up, regardless of gender theory or anything. I mean, it just messed up. The only way I figure the 2 ideas (pro and con) can work in this case is if we are missing a bunch of info as to how he was raised, and also the level of acceptance from the community and society at the time. But man…

I can’t subscribe to the theory fully myself. Personally, one of my best friends is female, a bit of a girly girl, and displays a lot of tradtionally masculine qualities like assertiveness and ambition. Whereas I lift, I’m twice her size, and I find myself sometimes more empathic and sensitive to stuff. So I get confused over gender as identity, as biology, and the classifications of what we see as traditionally male and female qualities.

So after some thinking, I just go lift or eat.[/quote]

Feminine <> lack assertion or ambition, Masculine <> lack empathy or sensitivity. This is pure nonsense.

64

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]talc wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Go tell David Reimer that gender is just a social construct

[/quote]
Yeah that one always messed me up, regardless of gender theory or anything. I mean, it just messed up. The only way I figure the 2 ideas (pro and con) can work in this case is if we are missing a bunch of info as to how he was raised, and also the level of acceptance from the community and society at the time. But man…

I can’t subscribe to the theory fully myself. Personally, one of my best friends is female, a bit of a girly girl, and displays a lot of tradtionally masculine qualities like assertiveness and ambition. Whereas I lift, I’m twice her size, and I find myself sometimes more empathic and sensitive to stuff. So I get confused over gender as identity, as biology, and the classifications of what we see as traditionally male and female qualities.

So after some thinking, I just go lift or eat.[/quote]

Feminine <> lack assertion or ambition, Masculine <> lack empathy or sensitivity. This is pure nonsense.[/quote]

I emphasize that it’s traditional associations, and not so much gender or sex related. It’s partly why I get confused and flustered.

65

[quote]talc wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]talc wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Go tell David Reimer that gender is just a social construct

[/quote]
Yeah that one always messed me up, regardless of gender theory or anything. I mean, it just messed up. The only way I figure the 2 ideas (pro and con) can work in this case is if we are missing a bunch of info as to how he was raised, and also the level of acceptance from the community and society at the time. But man…

I can’t subscribe to the theory fully myself. Personally, one of my best friends is female, a bit of a girly girl, and displays a lot of tradtionally masculine qualities like assertiveness and ambition. Whereas I lift, I’m twice her size, and I find myself sometimes more empathic and sensitive to stuff. So I get confused over gender as identity, as biology, and the classifications of what we see as traditionally male and female qualities.

So after some thinking, I just go lift or eat.[/quote]

Feminine <> lack assertion or ambition, Masculine <> lack empathy or sensitivity. This is pure nonsense.[/quote]

I emphasize that it’s traditional associations, and not so much gender or sex related. It’s partly why I get confused and flustered.
[/quote]

I agree. Masculinity is generally used as a punch line on TV. If you got your definitions of masculine and feminine from Hollywood, you’d end up thinking masculine meant stupid, inconsiderate, oafish, and mean. Feminine would be synonymous with caring, and able to easily outsmart anything masculine. Look at nudity. Female nudity is generally portrayed as sexy/desirable or beautiful. If you see male nudity, it’s generally used for comedic reasons.

66

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I don’t buy that bone and joint development reverts to female levels after it’s grown.[/quote]

I’m curious why you don’t. Do you believe that the overwhelming scientific literature suggests that this is the case, or are you just saying it because it makes sense in your head? You’re not a biologist, and neither am I, so for my part, I would leave this to science and not intuition.

67

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:
did anyone read that reaaallllyy long post?[/quote]

Yes.

I am curious as to why the author feels CrossFit is required to embrace a policy of universal over-accommodation to, for instance, be accepting of individuals afflicted with de la Chapelle syndrome, a disease affecting ~0.005% of the population.

But then, I am also curious as to why the author cites the meaninglessness of chromosomal determination of sex, yet fails to address the genetic significance underpinning its common usage (i.e., the presence of a Y chromosome is secondary to the genetic material it contains, such as the SRY gene; karyotyping is/was simply more accessible and convenient than genomic analysis, particularly before the driving mechanisms behind sex-differentiation were elucidated, and remains an extremely strong predictive test for sex). So, if he/she is all for throwing out the conventional means of determining sex (first phenotype, then basic chromosomal analysis), then why not resort to more nuanced genetic analysis (SRY, DHH, SF1, etc) as a concrete criterion? Forget chromosomes – if you have the necessary genes which are adequately functional to express a sexual phenotype, you are a member of that sex regardless of the X’s and Y’s.

I didn’t (and will not) read the linked articles, but I’m curious as to how the author jumped from the presence of the SRY gene to neurological abnormalities in transsexuals – MtF transsexuals may show female neurological characteristics, but they still have a functional SRY gene as evidenced by the M part of their transformation… what are we to make then of this when neurologically normal males with normal sexual orientations also sport similarly robust SRY genes? Why was this brought up, again?

Beyond that, CrossFit is not subject to the interpretation and opinion of the IOC and NCAA; therefore, their assessments of what constitute gender-related mismatches in athletic performance are irrelevant. But then, these committees only cite the primary (i.e., not sole) determinant of gender-specific mismatches in sport. So, even if we were to concede their position regarding hormones, it doesn’t necessarily negate CrossFit’s position that, without further explanation, could suggest that they suspect other possible advantages.

It’s interesting that transsexuals have never dominated any sport they have been allowed to participate in, but then the sample size is likely so small that it’s silly to take that into serious consideration. Even so, CrossFit isn’t the sporting world’s Petri dish and it is not their responsibility to advance others’ interpretation of social progress and acceptance.

I’ll get to the rest tomorrow, but for now I’ll just say that the funniest thing about all of this is that this gold-digging tranny decided to undergo surgery when she is such a big fucking cunt that no one would have mistaken her man-dick for anything more than a shriveled little rat clit had she decided to keep it. Instead of suing for cash, she should have fought a little harder to gain acceptance into the competition to blaze a trail for others whose “civil rights” might be compromised by this decision.

All she’s going it trying to make a quick buck while giving CrossFit ample time to add a little more fine print to their enrollment forms, all the while dumping her first menstrual cycle all over the headlines of national newspapers.

Yay, progress.[/quote]

For a seemingly smart person you are bigoted as fuck

" then why not resort to more nuanced genetic analysis (SRY, DHH, SF1, etc) as a concrete criterion? "

because gene activity is not solely dependent on the genomic presence of these genes but as a function of their expression levels and epigenetics. The G-signal protein cascade the happens after Testosterone’s binding to the AR is what confers the physiological advantage in men, in the presence of estrogen and absence of testosterone over sufficient period of time the overall gene products will be limited to female basal levels or as in the case of many trans-women sub basal levels compared to cis-women.

“meaninglessness of chromosomal determination of sex, yet fails to address the genetic significance underpinning its common usage (i.e., the presence of a Y chromosome is secondary to the genetic material it contains, such as the SRY gene; karyotyping is/was simply more accessible and convenient than genomic analysis, particularly before the driving mechanisms behind sex-differentiation were elucidated, and remains an extremely strong predictive test for sex).”

That was all covered no? It remains a strong predictor but not absolute which is the whole point. This is not a common case.

" Instead of suing for cash, she should have fought a little harder to gain acceptance"

by doing what? as you said we don’t know what happened so you are happy to defend crossfit based on that premise but not her? It was her lawyer that handled that part though.

Your language on the other hand is rather vile.

68

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I don’t buy that bone and joint development reverts to female levels after it’s grown.[/quote]

I’m curious why you don’t. Do you believe that the overwhelming scientific literature suggests that this is the case, or are you just saying it because it makes sense in your head? You’re not a biologist, and neither am I, so for my part, I would leave this to science and not intuition.[/quote]

69

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I don’t buy that bone and joint development reverts to female levels after it’s grown.[/quote]

I’m curious why you don’t. Do you believe that the overwhelming scientific literature suggests that this is the case, or are you just saying it because it makes sense in your head? You’re not a biologist, and neither am I, so for my part, I would leave this to science and not intuition.[/quote]

  1. you’re not doubleduce, you probably shouldn’t speak for him.

  2. In both articles you posted, the Dr’s admit that there AREN’T good studies available. The evidence is inconclusive.

  3. We’re talking about a different athlete in this context, transgender cases should be looked at case by case, and sport by sport. The particulars of hormone therapy for the individual are relevant.

  4. These are only 2 opinions, which both happen to be published on the same website. Dr. Vilain is one doctor who disagrees. I didn’t ask DD if he (or you I guess) could find sources that support the idea that she has an advantage (which these 2 articles don’t even really do. They just suggest a possibility). I asked if the overwhelming scientific literature supported the opinion. Since the literature is scarce/ non-existent, the answer seems at this point to be no.

70

I have so far not seen one peer reviewed study corroborating the point that she should not be allowed to compete
the following

  • I think
  • My buddy said
  • This doctor said
  • I know a trans person
  • I believe

do not count. The anecdote =/= evidence

71

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I don’t buy that bone and joint development reverts to female levels after it’s grown.[/quote]

I’m curious why you don’t. Do you believe that the overwhelming scientific literature suggests that this is the case, or are you just saying it because it makes sense in your head? You’re not a biologist, and neither am I, so for my part, I would leave this to science and not intuition.[/quote]

  1. you’re not doubleduce, you probably shouldn’t speak for him.

  2. In both articles you posted, the Dr’s admit that there AREN’T good studies available. The evidence is inconclusive.

  3. We’re talking about a different athlete in this context, transgender cases should be looked at case by case, and sport by sport. The particulars of hormone therapy for the individual are relevant.

  4. These are only 2 opinions, which both happen to be published on the same website. Dr. Vilain is one doctor who disagrees. I didn’t ask DD if he (or you I guess) could find sources that support the idea that she has an advantage (which these 2 articles don’t even really do. They just suggest a possibility). I asked if the overwhelming scientific literature supported the opinion. Since the literature is scarce/ non-existent, the answer seems at this point to be no.[/quote]

As stated it’s inconclusive so you’re not right in you assertions either. There is no overwhelming evidence like you think. It will remain a contentious issue. The only real method to see if they have an unfair advantage is to let them compete. If they start winning in high numbers then there is your answer. Learn to argue without being a jerk too bro. I quoted some links and you got all agro on me.

72

[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:
I have so far not seen one peer reviewed study corroborating the point that she should not be allowed to compete
the following

  • I think
  • My buddy said
  • This doctor said
  • I know a trans person
  • I believe

do not count. The anecdote =/= evidence[/quote]

In sport, the person who does not fit into one of two catagories should be in the one posing a potential disadvantage, not an advantage. POTENTIAL fairness to one is not worth potential unfairness to many.

This isn’t bigotry at all. This is XFit believing an athlete has an advantage competing against natural born women. So Xfit does not want said athlete competing against women. The athlete we are talking about is handling this in the most absolute shitty way possible. Another attention whore setting the gay/transgener/etc community back by trying to get media attention over something absolutely moronic at best.

Anonym also largely hit the nail on the head.

73

[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:
I have so far not seen one peer reviewed study corroborating the point that she should not be allowed to compete
the following

  • I think
  • My buddy said
  • This doctor said
  • I know a trans person
  • I believe

do not count. The anecdote =/= evidence[/quote]

It looks as if the extreme cases of this would have an advantage so crossfit is just siding on caution. If evidence is not 100% conclusive why does “allowing to compete” have to be the default?

74

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:

[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:
I have so far not seen one peer reviewed study corroborating the point that she should not be allowed to compete
the following

  • I think
  • My buddy said
  • This doctor said
  • I know a trans person
  • I believe

do not count. The anecdote =/= evidence[/quote]

In sport, the person who does not fit into one of two catagories should be in the one posing a potential disadvantage, not an advantage. POTENTIAL fairness to one is not worth potential unfairness to many.

This isn’t bigotry at all. This is XFit believing an athlete has an advantage competing against natural born women. So Xfit does not want said athlete competing against women. The athlete we are talking about is handling this in the most absolute shitty way possible. Another attention whore setting the gay/transgener/etc community back by trying to get media attention over something absolutely moronic at best.

Anonym also largely hit the nail on the head.
[/quote]

Holy shit! can you read? You did what I just said is worthless

Holy fuck nut, I believe the universe rotates around my asshole.

I believe it, so it is unequivocally true.

75

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

It looks as if the extreme cases of this would have an advantage so crossfit is just siding on caution. If evidence is not 100% conclusive why does “allowing to compete” have to be the default?[/quote]

look at the IOC or NCAA precedent. Also crossfit doesn’t have to but it sure shows a shit ton of ignorance from HQ

Just read this, this is their response and totally fucking laughable, a lawyer citing the encyclopedia Britannica and unable to distinguish between you’re and your.

76

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I don’t buy that bone and joint development reverts to female levels after it’s grown.[/quote]

I’m curious why you don’t. Do you believe that the overwhelming scientific literature suggests that this is the case, or are you just saying it because it makes sense in your head? You’re not a biologist, and neither am I, so for my part, I would leave this to science and not intuition.[/quote]

I only saw a couple of studies cited about bone density. Is there one saying things like that the shoulders and nasal passages narrow and stuff?

Besides. It is an elective procedure that diminishes performance to the level of a woman. I could do they same thing by not training. If i really feel like a person who doesn’t train and I even have a genetic predisposition that causes me to avoid training, should I get to compete with women?

No one is giving me any response. If you are against classification by genetic gender, what are you proposing the classification standard should be? By hormone level or performance level? Cause that’s the only alternative I’ve heard. And those are retarded standards.

If I’m one of those people that really feels that I’m an amputee and I electively cut off a hand, can I compete against women if my performance drops to the level of a woman? Could I have a leg cut off then compete in the special olympics?

There is absolutely no way to prove that you have no advantages. lung/wind pipe capacity. VO2 max, bone and joint size, est. There is no way to prove that you’d get the same results with the same effort if you’d been born a woman. absolutely no way. And it being elective… the burden is on you. Sorry, it sucks, but if you want to change it you must either delete the rule and not have gender classification, or apply the same performance or hormone level to EVERYONE, regardless of genes.

And the olympic committee policy is driven more by politics than science, probably the NCAA too. It’s why after testing showed that the blade runner guy required significantly less energy to run the same sprint as an abled body person, they went ahead and let him run anyway. Again, can he run faster with the blades than he would otherwise? not sure, but sprinting taxes his body in a different way than people without the energy recovery aid of the springs. It ain’t the same race. It’s proved by science, and they overruled the testing anyway.

77

[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:

[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:
I have so far not seen one peer reviewed study corroborating the point that she should not be allowed to compete
the following

  • I think
  • My buddy said
  • This doctor said
  • I know a trans person
  • I believe

do not count. The anecdote =/= evidence[/quote]

In sport, the person who does not fit into one of two catagories should be in the one posing a potential disadvantage, not an advantage. POTENTIAL fairness to one is not worth potential unfairness to many.

This isn’t bigotry at all. This is XFit believing an athlete has an advantage competing against natural born women. So Xfit does not want said athlete competing against women. The athlete we are talking about is handling this in the most absolute shitty way possible. Another attention whore setting the gay/transgener/etc community back by trying to get media attention over something absolutely moronic at best.

Anonym also largely hit the nail on the head.
[/quote]

Holy shit! can you read? You did what I just said is worthless

Holy fuck nut, I believe the universe rotates around my asshole.

I believe it, so it is unequivocally true. [/quote]

You said it is worthless because it doesn’t agree with your POV. Your POV doesn’t decide what is/what should be. You’re an ignorant little shit with an emotional draw to every (falsely) perceived injustice any transsexual experiences.

Congratulations, you’re the cancer killing the acceptance movement.

78

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I don’t buy that bone and joint development reverts to female levels after it’s grown.[/quote]

I’m curious why you don’t. Do you believe that the overwhelming scientific literature suggests that this is the case, or are you just saying it because it makes sense in your head? You’re not a biologist, and neither am I, so for my part, I would leave this to science and not intuition.[/quote]

I only saw a couple of studies cited about bone density. Is there one saying things like that the shoulders and nasal passages narrow and stuff?

Besides. It is an elective procedure that diminishes performance to the level of a woman. I could do they same thing by not training. If i really feel like a person who doesn’t train and I even have a genetic predisposition that causes me to avoid training, should I get to compete with women?

No one is giving me any response. If you are against classification by genetic gender, what are you proposing the classification standard should be? By hormone level or performance level? Cause that’s the only alternative I’ve heard. And those are retarded standards.

If I’m one of those people that really feels that I’m an amputee and I electively cut off a hand, can I compete against women if my performance drops to the level of a woman? Could I have a leg cut off then compete in the special olympics?

There is absolutely no way to prove that you have no advantages. lung/wind pipe capacity. VO2 max, bone and joint size, est. There is no way to prove that you’d get the same results with the same effort if you’d been born a woman. absolutely no way. And it being elective… the burden is on you. Sorry, it sucks, but if you want to change it you must either delete the rule and not have gender classification, or apply the same performance or hormone level to EVERYONE, regardless of genes.

And the olympic committee policy is driven more by politics than science, probably the NCAA too. It’s why after testing showed that the blade runner guy required significantly less energy to run the same sprint as an abled body person, they went ahead and let him run anyway. Again, can he run faster with the blades than he would otherwise? not sure, but sprinting taxes his body in a different way than people without the energy recovery aid of the springs. It ain’t the same race. It’s proved by science, and they overruled the testing anyway.[/quote]

Holy shit, common sense.

79

What was wrong with that reply letter?
Why doesn’t Chloie try to get more transgender competitors together so they can have a category that would be more appropriate for them and everyone else involved?

Just because you see yourself as a female, doesn’t mean I or anyone else is obligated to.

80

[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:
For a seemingly smart person…[/quote]

There’s your first mistake. On a bright day I’m somewhere on the ass-end of mediocre.

[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:
…you are bigoted as fuck[/quote]

And there’s your second.

Please note that throughout my entire post I referred Jonsson as a “she.” Not a “he,” not an “it.” I am extending her the courtesy of showing respect for the social recognition she feels is appropriate for her lifestyle choice; while you might not like the opinion I have of her, I assure you it has everything to do with the chip on her shoulder and not the gash between her legs.

[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:
" then why not resort to more nuanced genetic analysis (SRY, DHH, SF1, etc) as a concrete criterion? "

because gene activity is not solely dependent on the genomic presence of these genes but as a function of their expression levels and epigenetics. The G-signal protein cascade the happens after Testosterone’s binding to the AR is what confers the physiological advantage in men, in the presence of estrogen and absence of testosterone over sufficient period of time the overall gene products will be limited to female basal levels or as in the case of many trans-women sub basal levels compared to cis-women.[/quote]

You seem confused – the genes I listed have associations (direct or indirect) with sexual development. Their presence and function (yes, you must have missed the part where I explicitly wrote about the "necessary genes which are adequately functional to express a sexual phenotype), in the context of my post, are important during gestation, not hormonal modulation of adult physiology.

[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:
“meaninglessness of chromosomal determination of sex, yet fails to address the genetic significance underpinning its common usage (i.e., the presence of a Y chromosome is secondary to the genetic material it contains, such as the SRY gene; karyotyping is/was simply more accessible and convenient than genomic analysis, particularly before the driving mechanisms behind sex-differentiation were elucidated, and remains an extremely strong predictive test for sex).”

That was all covered no? It remains a strong predictor but not absolute which is the whole point. This is not a common case.[/quote]

Again, you are confused. This is why I (again, explicitly) mentioned that, to address situations like these, we should perhaps focus on the presence and function of the GENES related to sexual development and not simply the chromosomes.

[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:
as you said we don’t know what happened[/quote]

Once again, confusion on your part. I never wrote that.