(04-09-2017 01:10 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 12:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 05:33 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Tom,

Will you acknowledge that the male body has a substantial competitive advantage over the female body in track and field events?

If you are unable to accept and protect those that transition, then what's the point of debating the interior issues of that transition?

Not just directed at you, but at this board in general...

Tom, I asked a pretty specific question..

Is it true that the male body has a substantial competitive advantage over the female body in track and field events?

I'm more than willing to discuss protection of all people, like you I am 100% consistent on it, we just land in different spots. But I'm asking a simple question....

Does a fit 14 year old biological male have a distinct and huge advantage in a sport like Track?

dems don't respond when factual evidence stares dem in the face....dems don't admit wrongdoings...

dems only understand rhetorical/deflective rebuttals....it's all they have 'left' in the tank....

(04-09-2017 12:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 05:33 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Tom,

Will you acknowledge that the male body has a substantial competitive advantage over the female body in track and field events?

If you are unable to accept and protect those that transition, then what's the point of debating the interior issues of that transition?

Not just directed at you, but at this board in general...

If a person believes God has directed them to cut off their hand because they sinned should society accept and protect their transition in the name of tolerance.

What's the point of debating the interior issues of that transition...

(04-09-2017 12:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 05:33 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Tom,

Will you acknowledge that the male body has a substantial competitive advantage over the female body in track and field events?

If you are unable to accept and protect those that transition, then what's the point of debating the interior issues of that transition?

Not just directed at you, but at this board in general...

I've posted that I want to protect those considering transitioning from the butchers who are more than happy to take their money and mutilate their healthy bodies. I accept their mental disorder, same as all other mental disorders. Would hope they would find someone to intervene and treat their mental state before some despicable person with a surgical degree gets to them.

What's the point of debating you and like minded people who are absolute monsters backing such decisions as carving up genitals for a mental condition.

(04-09-2017 01:10 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 12:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 05:33 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Tom,

Will you acknowledge that the male body has a substantial competitive advantage over the female body in track and field events?

If you are unable to accept and protect those that transition, then what's the point of debating the interior issues of that transition?

Not just directed at you, but at this board in general...

Tom, I asked a pretty specific question..

Is it true that the male body has a substantial competitive advantage over the female body in track and field events?

I'm more than willing to discuss protection of all people, like you I am 100% consistent on it, we just land in different spots. But I'm asking a simple question....

Does a fit 14 year old biological male have a distinct and huge advantage in a sport like Track?

At that point, probably. But that's not a permanent condition since as they transition those gains will evaporate. No reason to ban Trans kids from competing simply as a result of their intent to transition. Those college scholarships aren't being taken from anyone.

Those male abilities may diminish somewhat but they don't evaporate. See: those boys on hormones with the genital mutilations still beating the girls.

Didn't the trans that won the women's powerlifting competition recently have 10x the testosterone levels of the average woman?

(04-09-2017 02:16 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  At that point, probably.

Ok so this individual has the potential to take away a D1 womans scholarship, as a freshman they are already running 100s that are 2-3 seconds faster than the girls who make state.

Quote:But that's not a permanent condition since as they transition those gains will evaporate.

I disagree with that assertion...

Firstly the T level of a man who transitions is still typically 2-3 times higher than a biological woman. If you accept the fact that Testosterone is a performance enhancing hormone then there are implications for this.

Secondly a life time of building lean muscle is not erased because your T level goes down. The upper threshold on the IOC guidelines on a trans woman for T level is still about 4 times higher than the average womans T level and more than double the top 10th percentile.

In fact the IOC guidelines for trans woman are higher than what would be considered a low but medically normal rate for a man past 25....

Quote:No reason to ban Trans kids from competing simply as a result of their intent to transition.

Who want's to ban them... Simply have people compete against their biological gender. Biology, and not psychology, is the big factor here.

This kid's times are actually really good against the guys. They are not currently state championship good, but I would bet the kid, as a freshman, would be scoring points in meets, it's not a stretch to think that by the time they are a senior a trip to states would be in order.

Quote:Those college scholarships aren't being taken from anyone.

They will, it's reality. Eventually when a decent percent of them end up going to tans folks and scammers, then women will come to resent the transsexual community.

(04-09-2017 02:40 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Didn't the trans that won the women's powerlifting competition recently have 10x the testosterone levels of the average woman?

If they were within the IOC guidelines is was 3-4...

Average womans T is 70, IOC guidelines for tans athletes is 240 for a period of 12 months.

The low end of "normal" for a 30yo man is 200...

The 11.99 that this freshman ran would not have gotten him to the state boys high school championships.... But, it would have been only a third of a second off the people who qualified for the NCAA championships this season.

(04-09-2017 01:17 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 01:10 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 12:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 05:33 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Tom,

Will you acknowledge that the male body has a substantial competitive advantage over the female body in track and field events?

If you are unable to accept and protect those that transition, then what's the point of debating the interior issues of that transition?

Not just directed at you, but at this board in general...

Tom, I asked a pretty specific question..

Is it true that the male body has a substantial competitive advantage over the female body in track and field events?

I'm more than willing to discuss protection of all people, like you I am 100% consistent on it, we just land in different spots. But I'm asking a simple question....

Does a fit 14 year old biological male have a distinct and huge advantage in a sport like Track?

dems don't respond when factual evidence stares dem in the face....dems don't admit wrongdoings...

dems only understand rhetorical/deflective rebuttals....it's all they have 'left' in the tank....

For people who don't like Marx, you guys certainly write like him.

(04-09-2017 05:23 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 01:17 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 01:10 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 12:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 05:33 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Tom,

Will you acknowledge that the male body has a substantial competitive advantage over the female body in track and field events?

If you are unable to accept and protect those that transition, then what's the point of debating the interior issues of that transition?

Not just directed at you, but at this board in general...

Tom, I asked a pretty specific question..

Is it true that the male body has a substantial competitive advantage over the female body in track and field events?

I'm more than willing to discuss protection of all people, like you I am 100% consistent on it, we just land in different spots. But I'm asking a simple question....

Does a fit 14 year old biological male have a distinct and huge advantage in a sport like Track?

dems don't respond when factual evidence stares dem in the face....dems don't admit wrongdoings...

dems only understand rhetorical/deflective rebuttals....it's all they have 'left' in the tank....

For people who don't like Marx, you guys certainly write like him.

I usually understand the subliminal connotations.....I'm clueless relative to the implied intent of my subliminal....

let me spell it out for you.....when a dem decides they want to answer direct questions without diverting, then I'll make an attempt to have a civil conversation with one....

I have yet to meet the person that can explain how socialism is a direct path to continued prosperity....

I'll never buy into converting to a socialistic economy as reasonable....

capiche?

(04-09-2017 02:32 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Those male abilities may diminish somewhat but they don't evaporate. See: those boys on hormones with the genital mutilations still beating the girls.

The science is still out on this. There was a study done which said that muscle does approach female levels along with testosterone.

It's one of those things that we don't have the answer to yet. We know the muscle goes away with time and the fat collects differently, but the bone structure stays the same. Nobody really knows what all of that means to the total athlete, anything else beyond that is a guess based on an understanding that is based on "common sense" which could turn out to be hokum.

An interesting take that I've heard about this was talked about on the radio the other day. Supposing the muscle and testosterone are around women's levels, is the bone structure difference enough to ban them? Differences in bone structure impact all athletes in every sport. How do you regulate bone structure?

(04-09-2017 05:38 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 02:32 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Those male abilities may diminish somewhat but they don't evaporate. See: those boys on hormones with the genital mutilations still beating the girls.

The science is still out on this. There was a study done which said that muscle does approach female levels along with testosterone.

It's one of those things that we don't have the answer to yet. We know the muscle goes away with time and the fat collects differently, but the bone structure stays the same. Nobody really knows what all of that means to the total athlete, anything else beyond that is a guess based on an understanding that is based on "common sense" which could turn out to be hokum.

An interesting take that I've heard about this was talked about on the radio the other day. Supposing the muscle and testosterone are around women's levels, is the bone structure difference enough to ban them? Differences in bone structure impact all athletes in every sport. How do you regulate bone structure?

this entire thread is retarded....

if the science isn't clear, shouldn't one assume 'they' shouldn't be allowed to compete until it's settled?

jfc....

#uncle

(04-09-2017 05:41 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 05:38 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 02:32 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Those male abilities may diminish somewhat but they don't evaporate. See: those boys on hormones with the genital mutilations still beating the girls.

The science is still out on this. There was a study done which said that muscle does approach female levels along with testosterone.

It's one of those things that we don't have the answer to yet. We know the muscle goes away with time and the fat collects differently, but the bone structure stays the same. Nobody really knows what all of that means to the total athlete, anything else beyond that is a guess based on an understanding that is based on "common sense" which could turn out to be hokum.

An interesting take that I've heard about this was talked about on the radio the other day. Supposing the muscle and testosterone are around women's levels, is the bone structure difference enough to ban them? Differences in bone structure impact all athletes in every sport. How do you regulate bone structure?

this entire thread is retarded....

if the science isn't clear, shouldn't one assume 'they' shouldn't be allowed to compete until it's settled?

jfc....

#uncle

I really don't know. The organizations are in a no win situation either way.

(04-09-2017 05:38 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 02:32 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Those male abilities may diminish somewhat but they don't evaporate. See: those boys on hormones with the genital mutilations still beating the girls.

The science is still out on this. There was a study done which said that muscle does approach female levels along with testosterone.

It's one of those things that we don't have the answer to yet. We know the muscle goes away with time and the fat collects differently, but the bone structure stays the same. Nobody really knows what all of that means to the total athlete, anything else beyond that is a guess based on an understanding that is based on "common sense" which could turn out to be hokum.

An interesting take that I've heard about this was talked about on the radio the other day. Supposing the muscle and testosterone are around women's levels, is the bone structure difference enough to ban them? Differences in bone structure impact all athletes in every sport. How do you regulate bone structure?

I'd guess with time you'd have diminishing. But how much of that would be while it mattered during ones athletic career.

Bulls posted the numbers. Would think one would keep their testosterone as high as allowable while competing, and let it decline after their competitive years were over.

(04-09-2017 05:53 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 05:38 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 02:32 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Those male abilities may diminish somewhat but they don't evaporate. See: those boys on hormones with the genital mutilations still beating the girls.

The science is still out on this. There was a study done which said that muscle does approach female levels along with testosterone.

It's one of those things that we don't have the answer to yet. We know the muscle goes away with time and the fat collects differently, but the bone structure stays the same. Nobody really knows what all of that means to the total athlete, anything else beyond that is a guess based on an understanding that is based on "common sense" which could turn out to be hokum.

An interesting take that I've heard about this was talked about on the radio the other day. Supposing the muscle and testosterone are around women's levels, is the bone structure difference enough to ban them? Differences in bone structure impact all athletes in every sport. How do you regulate bone structure?

I'd guess with time you'd have diminishing. But how much of that would be while it mattered during ones athletic career.

Bulls posted the numbers. Would think one would keep their testosterone as high as allowable while competing, and let it decline after their competitive years were over.

Just test, research, and see.

(04-09-2017 05:49 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 05:41 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 05:38 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 02:32 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Those male abilities may diminish somewhat but they don't evaporate. See: those boys on hormones with the genital mutilations still beating the girls.

The science is still out on this. There was a study done which said that muscle does approach female levels along with testosterone.

It's one of those things that we don't have the answer to yet. We know the muscle goes away with time and the fat collects differently, but the bone structure stays the same. Nobody really knows what all of that means to the total athlete, anything else beyond that is a guess based on an understanding that is based on "common sense" which could turn out to be hokum.

An interesting take that I've heard about this was talked about on the radio the other day. Supposing the muscle and testosterone are around women's levels, is the bone structure difference enough to ban them? Differences in bone structure impact all athletes in every sport. How do you regulate bone structure?

this entire thread is retarded....

if the science isn't clear, shouldn't one assume 'they' shouldn't be allowed to compete until it's settled?

jfc....

#uncle

I really don't know. The organizations are in a no win situation either way.

No, Trans kids should NEVER be excluded from the popular team sports for being Trans.

(04-09-2017 07:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 05:49 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 05:41 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 05:38 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 02:32 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Those male abilities may diminish somewhat but they don't evaporate. See: those boys on hormones with the genital mutilations still beating the girls.

The science is still out on this. There was a study done which said that muscle does approach female levels along with testosterone.

It's one of those things that we don't have the answer to yet. We know the muscle goes away with time and the fat collects differently, but the bone structure stays the same. Nobody really knows what all of that means to the total athlete, anything else beyond that is a guess based on an understanding that is based on "common sense" which could turn out to be hokum.

An interesting take that I've heard about this was talked about on the radio the other day. Supposing the muscle and testosterone are around women's levels, is the bone structure difference enough to ban them? Differences in bone structure impact all athletes in every sport. How do you regulate bone structure?

this entire thread is retarded....

if the science isn't clear, shouldn't one assume 'they' shouldn't be allowed to compete until it's settled?

jfc....

#uncle

I really don't know. The organizations are in a no win situation either way.

No, Trans kids should NEVER be excluded from the popular team sports for being Trans.

What's the metric on popularity?

(04-09-2017 05:38 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 02:32 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Those male abilities may diminish somewhat but they don't evaporate. See: those boys on hormones with the genital mutilations still beating the girls.

The science is still out on this. There was a study done which said that muscle does approach female levels along with testosterone.

I'd live to see the citation here. "approach female levels" for muscle is really damn vague. A sprinter has less muscle than a weight lifter.... And "approach" can mean a lot of things.

Quote:It's one of those things that we don't have the answer to yet. We know the muscle goes away with time and the fat collects differently, but the bone structure stays the same.

No, we don't know that.... You have a study which said "approaches" But keep in mind that a tans person with a T level of 270 is two things

1 - Nearly four times as high as the average woman
2 - Still within the IOC guidelines for competition.

Quote:Nobody really knows what all of that means to the total athlete, anything else beyond that is a guess based on an understanding that is based on "common sense" which could turn out to be hokum.

Or... It could be totally accurate that someone who has a mans build will compete better. I'm pretty sure this 9th grader is not naturally a woman who is 2 seconds faster than all the other women in the state.

Quote:An interesting take that I've heard about this was talked about on the radio the other day. Supposing the muscle and testosterone are around women's levels, is the bone structure difference enough to ban them? Differences in bone structure impact all athletes in every sport. How do you regulate bone structure?

If you were born a male you compete against males, if born female you can compete against females...

You are proposing blowing up womens athletics for 49.98% of the population (women) to accommodate 0.02% of the population (men who transition).

(04-09-2017 07:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 05:49 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 05:41 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 05:38 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 02:32 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Those male abilities may diminish somewhat but they don't evaporate. See: those boys on hormones with the genital mutilations still beating the girls.

The science is still out on this. There was a study done which said that muscle does approach female levels along with testosterone.

It's one of those things that we don't have the answer to yet. We know the muscle goes away with time and the fat collects differently, but the bone structure stays the same. Nobody really knows what all of that means to the total athlete, anything else beyond that is a guess based on an understanding that is based on "common sense" which could turn out to be hokum.

An interesting take that I've heard about this was talked about on the radio the other day. Supposing the muscle and testosterone are around women's levels, is the bone structure difference enough to ban them? Differences in bone structure impact all athletes in every sport. How do you regulate bone structure?

this entire thread is retarded....

if the science isn't clear, shouldn't one assume 'they' shouldn't be allowed to compete until it's settled?

jfc....

#uncle

I really don't know. The organizations are in a no win situation either way.

No, Trans kids should NEVER be excluded from the popular team sports for being Trans.

Nobody said they could not compete.



What was said was this kid, who's times are very competitive with 9th grade boys, should be running against 9th grade boys. Not knocking a girl off the team, out of the state finals.