Crossfit Athlete Denied Acceptance

Off Topic
81

[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:

[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.

The IOC and NCAA policies seem somewhat arbitrary based on the fact even transgender people don’t agree on the minor details of it. I don’t see what is ignorant about not making the same arbitrary decision which was most likely swayed by politics.

Do you think its productive to make CF change the policies to avoid being called ignorant/bigoted or being sued? Because if they reverse their decision in the near future I guarantee its one of those two reasons, not that they suddenly became educated on the biology of transgender people.

82

[quote]anonym wrote:

[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 surgically-induced 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.[/quote]

83

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:

[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:

[quote]talc wrote:
Sure, it’s their contest. If my gym decided on blacks/chinese/whites-only, or men/women-only, or Mensa-only, it’s illegal and/or offensive. It’s not a small douchey discrimination - it’s not like a bar where they don’t like your sneakers or baseball cap. This is a big deal for many people.
[/quote]

Yep, too bad people here don’t look at facts[/quote]

I’ve seen the facts. I’ve read the articles in the OP. I still believe Crossfit set up the rules without any discrimination or bigot ideology. To me it’s up to the organization to review THEIR rules and see if they need to be changed. Personally it really doesn’t matter to me either way. If they change their rules and she can compete as she desires, so be it, good for her. BUT, if they decide to keep the rules the way they are I don’t think it makes them bigots or discriminatory. Transgender people are still born physiologically as either males or females. They are just asking you to compete as how you were born. Despite gender reassignment surgery and hormones, some Transgender people still retain some male or female characteristics. Some more than others, everyone is different and not everyone’s chemistry is exactly the same. This is why I believe Xfit just rather have everyone compete as they were born. You don’t think some people would use this to their advantage? You think that all Transgender people would be completely honest and stay on their hormones and not use what little genetic advantage they have left to win either championship? Right. Because athletes never cheat in sports. Also, hormones complicate things…which is why I applaud the UFC for getting rid of TRT. Do some people need it? Yes. But to monitor if someone is taking the right amount and to determine if the hormones are giving someone an advantage is a sticky situation. I can completely understand why an organization would not want to deal with that. What if the situation was reversed? What if a FtM wanted to compete? On all the test He would be on can you say it wouldn’t give him an advantage? Maybe, but then again maybe not. But how will people respond to my post? By calling me ignorant, a bigot and a champion of discrimination. Personally, I think there is a type of hate in that of itself, calling people racist or hateful when it is truly undeserved.[/quote]

Based on that you obviously have not read the post, or you have not not understood a single thing/[/quote]

You’ve posted links, but you haven’t added any content yourself. Are you trying to make an argument, or are you just presenting facts about the argument others have made? I’ve read everything you’ve posted and linked to, and everything frozen ninja has posted, and it seems to me that he’s perfectly aware of the content you posted. I don’t think he’s arguing from a point of ignorance, just a different position. Your point of view, if I’m not mistaken, is that Johnson should be allowed to compete with the women (which I agree with). Frozen Ninja’s position is that Crossfit is entitled to enforce whatever competitive rules they wish to enforce within the context of their own competition, and that their reasons for taking the stance they have are fairly simple. In that sense, I also agree with Ninja. I don’t believe they have a moral obligation to change their rules, although I’m sure they’re exploring that possibility.

Is that a fair understanding of what’s going on here?[/quote]

Seriously. Hit the nail on the head. Insert slow clap here You put what I’ve been trying to say in shorter, better words.

84

[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:

[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:

[quote]talc wrote:
Sure, it’s their contest. If my gym decided on blacks/chinese/whites-only, or men/women-only, or Mensa-only, it’s illegal and/or offensive. It’s not a small douchey discrimination - it’s not like a bar where they don’t like your sneakers or baseball cap. This is a big deal for many people.
[/quote]

Yep, too bad people here don’t look at facts[/quote]

I’ve seen the facts. I’ve read the articles in the OP. I still believe Crossfit set up the rules without any discrimination or bigot ideology. To me it’s up to the organization to review THEIR rules and see if they need to be changed. Personally it really doesn’t matter to me either way. If they change their rules and she can compete as she desires, so be it, good for her. BUT, if they decide to keep the rules the way they are I don’t think it makes them bigots or discriminatory. Transgender people are still born physiologically as either males or females. They are just asking you to compete as how you were born. Despite gender reassignment surgery and hormones, some Transgender people still retain some male or female characteristics. Some more than others, everyone is different and not everyone’s chemistry is exactly the same. This is why I believe Xfit just rather have everyone compete as they were born. You don’t think some people would use this to their advantage? You think that all Transgender people would be completely honest and stay on their hormones and not use what little genetic advantage they have left to win either championship? Right. Because athletes never cheat in sports. Also, hormones complicate things…which is why I applaud the UFC for getting rid of TRT. Do some people need it? Yes. But to monitor if someone is taking the right amount and to determine if the hormones are giving someone an advantage is a sticky situation. I can completely understand why an organization would not want to deal with that. What if the situation was reversed? What if a FtM wanted to compete? On all the test He would be on can you say it wouldn’t give him an advantage? Maybe, but then again maybe not. But how will people respond to my post? By calling me ignorant, a bigot and a champion of discrimination. Personally, I think there is a type of hate in that of itself, calling people racist or hateful when it is truly undeserved.[/quote]

Based on that you obviously have not read the post, or you have not not understood a single thing/[/quote]

I have a college degree from a good school, rest assured, my reading comprehension is just fine. I have a different opinion than you. I stated my opinion… Doesn’t mean I can’t grasp the words in the articles you posted or their meaning. Your response to all of this has been very emotional, claiming paucity of understanding on my part because I don’t agree with you. At the end of the day, Crossfit doesn’t have to kowtow to everyone’s whims on how they should compete. There’s nothing of a discriminatory nature in this, which is my opinion. I’ll second what someone posted earlier in saying that this is a piss poor way of handling the situation on her part. It’s a grasping for straws excuse, a desperate attempt at a money grab, and not doing anything to further the LBGT equality cause.

85

[quote]anonym wrote:

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]

"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. "

That’s from your post, again everyone has screamed, cussed, thrown hissy fits but no one has come forth with any scientific evidence but I am the one getting called out on objectivity…right…

86

[quote]sardines12 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

You’re lumping me in with Rehanbl. I never asserted that the evidence was overwhelming in either direction, and I haven’t advocated that Crossfit needs to do anything differently. Read my post again with this in mind, and you’ll see what I was saying. I said specifically that the evidence is inconclusive, so we’re in agreement on that.

My opinion is that, in this athlete’s case, I wouldn’t have a problem with her competing against the women, but I also said I fully respect and understand Crossfit’s decision NOT to allow her to compete. And you’re right, if this particular athlete demolished the competition, there would be a clear issue. I don’t think this would be the case here. I’m sorry you took my response as being a jerk, that wasn’t my intention. I don’t know what ‘getting all agro’ means.

87

[quote]flipcollar wrote:
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?
[/quote]

I can’t even touch the lack of knowledge of even basic biology (never mind exercise physiology, endocrinology and genetics).

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
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.
[/quote]

Um yeh like the one they use for the olympics? you know it’s not just a bunch of monkeys flinging shit they hire people with actual Phd’s and MD’s to investigate research and make decisions on these topics.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
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?
[/quote]

If you’re willing to cut off a leg just to compete in the special olympics then well good luck, but yes because you would no more or no less impaired than them.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
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.[/quote]

How the fuck would you know? you know there are thousands of people making a living doing exactly that. Intra-gender variations is so big that there is no way you can exclude it without significant accurate proof of which there is currently NONE (in fact most point the other direction). With that logic, only people with the exact same hormone profile, height, bone density, weight, genetic predisposition VO2 capacity and neuromuscular strength should compete against each other.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
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]

Again pure CONJECTURE, the fact that you used the word probably to making a sweeping generalization again proves my point. It’s painfully obvious to anyone without any objectivity and knowledge of the scientific method that up until now all arguments for disallowing her to compete come with a COMPLETE lack of evidence.

The funny thing is the competition is so strong she would’ve had a hard time making regionals.

88

[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]

I’ll address some of this.

As has been discussed here, the bone density thing is still an open question, the research is lacking. Although I’m not sure what the nasal passages have to do with athletic performance.

Your comparison of surgery and not training are not comparable. You know better, this is a bad argument. Not training hard or having a genetic predisposition to not train hard would make you an amateur athlete, not a woman. Surgery accompanied by radical hormonal manipulation is not in the same ballpark as “I don’t like to work out”.

I think transgender cases can be addressed individually in most sports at this point, with a backbone of strict conditions. There doesn’t have to be just one condition, such as ‘performance level’ or ‘hormone levels’, as you mentioned. I agree that just using one of the above would be foolish. And I’m not necessarily ‘against’ classification by genetic gender, I just believe it’s possible that a transgender individual could compete fairly in their chosen gender’s field.

I’ve already addressed your cut-off hand argument. Cutting off your hand doesn’t make you a woman, it makes you an amputee. And yes, if you cut off your own leg, I would think you would be eligible for amputee competitions, such as those held in the special olympics. Do you really believe that’s an issue that needs addressing?

There’s a lot of truth in your last 2 paragraphs. It would obviously be very difficult to find a scientific consensus on the total ramifications of gender reassignment, regarding bone structure, mental abilities, etc. This is why I’ve said that I think Crossfit is justified in their decision. It’s simply my opinion that, if Crossfit had allowed this athlete to compete as a woman, they would have been justified as well.

The IOC is terrible. We can agree on this.