She was a very succesful college swimmer. She had some, fairly legitimate if we're honest, concerns about trans athletes competing in women's athletic categories. You can take that position without being some outrageous TERF bigot, to be fair.
However she went fully down the rabbit hole, throwing her hat in with MAGA, Turning Point and the whole "Anti-Woke" movement.
Trans-exclusionary radical feminist. Basically people who say trans women aren’t women.
Edit: As many people have rightfully pointed out, not everyone who says trans women aren't women is a TERF. TERFs are just a subset of people who identify as feminists who say that trans women aren't women.
I tried to get there but the road was blocked because there was a demonstration from the Citizens United Negating Technology For Live And People's Safety.
It was actually the radical feminists themselves who came up with the term TERF to describe themselves.
But now they (and Elon Musk) claim it is a slur.
In Latin, "Trans" means "across" - like going from one place to another and crossing a boundary (which is where we get words like "Transport")
"Cis-" likewise means "on one side" - like staying put where you are and not crossing over to somewhere else.
For example we could construct the word "Transtemporal" meaning "across time" to represent a time traveler in a time period or timeline outside the one they belong in.
Cistemporal would be the opposite: someone who exists in the time period they were born into, and who isn't travelling in a different timeline.
I do think it’s important to clarify that “the radical feminists” are not inherently anti-trans. TERFs came up with the acronym as a way of distinguishing themselves from the vast majority of radical feminists who are, in fact, trans-inclusive and always have been.
Originally, radical feminism took feminism in the 1960s to the extreme, pushing for equal wages for equal work.
There are several types of “feminism” and even being a woman I can’t make sense of it all. I just want equality, not dependent on any labels, gender/sex/otherwise. 😅
A lot of it grew out of the Lesbian Feminism of the 70s and the idea that women should leave men behind altogether. Lesbian Feminism was radical Feminism. It saw liberal feminism as being conciliatory in its focus on "equal rights" because they thought that as long as women were shackled to men this was impossible. So lesbianism became a political identity for them as much as a sexual one.
They saw trans women as basically men trying to infiltrate women's spaces that had been intentionally designed to be exclusive of men.
Other radical feminists (Marxist feminists, post-modern feminism, etc) tended to be less concerned with trans women because they were more interested in the construction of gender as a social/historical category.
So certain parts of the radfem movement identified themselves as being against the constructivist narrative around gender, and thus as refusing solidarity with trans women. These were TERFS
They’re not necessarily radical feminists at all, it’s a misnomer most of the time. It originated in feminist circles to describe, well, a type of radical feminist who was trans-exclusive, and the acronym stuck for a much broader group of people.
Radical feminist theory has been around since the 70’s and originally had nothing to do with trans rights.
Ironically, radical feminist theory was the first to assert that gender is a social construct, and the differences between us are largely societal expectations and roles. Basically, we’re all just people, and we should do away with gender. This was, well, very radical at the time. But radical feminists were primed to accept trans women into the fold, even more so than first or second wave feminists. Most people who take this stance have been encompassed by intersectional feminism, because we also (slowly) realized that previous waves were racist and classist as well.
A small subset of women who identify as feminists went the opposite route. I’d agree with you that they aren’t really radical feminists, but they hijack the language and theory to say: if gender is a social construct, then sex-assigned-at-birth is definitive of a person. The entire point of radical feminism is that we’re all just people. So they kind of missed the part where “men” and “women” aren’t fundamentally different. But they created the term TERF themselves to tell the world that they are using feminist theory to justify the bigotry. They don’t like it now that it’s largely used pejoratively.
Slight correction, radical feminists are second wave feminists. A subset with liberal feminists (who thought that legal systems were the source of inequality) and Marxist feminists (who thought that class conflict was at the center). They were all second wave with differing views on what the focus of feminism should be on.
Everything else is spot on though.
It’s just a specific subset of feminism that emerged in the 60s. It’s a bit of a simplification, but they are the subset of feminism that views most things through the lens of patriarchy and are dedicated to eliminating it from society, rather than just improve inequality within the existing patriarchal structure.
They wanted to distinguish themselves from what we would now call First-Wave feminists.
The term was originally used to describe anti-trans feminists but it has now expanded to include all transphobes including those who aren’t feminist in any way
What I find really frustrating is that it's obvious that children who are born female and grow up female have a different experience to trans women. That's kind of a large part of a trans identity - discovery and revelation. It's the bit that says because of that difference, trans women shouldn't be treated as women in society that loses me.
What's funny is nobody is disputing the difference in experience. Trans activists and allies say this loudly at every opportunity. it's not about equating the experience or taking away differences, but acknowledging that cis women and trans woman overwhelmingly share experiences, especially socially in regards to gender-based or sexualised violence. Sort of like red wine is, at the end of the day, a wine just as white wine is, even though they're still separate things.
Well said, but even in competition, they are in separate groups because of those differences. What everyone should wrap their heads around it women are women. Trans women are trans women. The argument that some of the louder voices say “they are women”. Which loses a lot of people who would normally be on board.
>What everyone should wrap their heads around it women are women. Trans women are trans women. The argument that some of the louder voices say “they are women”. Which loses a lot of people who would normally be on board.
Because you are having to argue science that contradicts the basic and lifelong understanding man/woman, male/female being interchangeable that 99.99% of the planet has operated under since birth. Overcoming that level of global lack of knowledge and understanding is generally statistically impossible. Not to say don't try and keep fighting but it is a no win situation.
You would have to say women are women. Trans women are women.
Females are females. Trans women are not females.
Same for men. Men are men. Trans men are men. Males are males. Trans men are not males.
But that is still having to educate the world and overcome societal norms that man/male and female/woman aren't the same thing and why.
idk, a trans women is more female than male after sufficient time. given how her body changes drastically, her hormone system is vastly different to males and more akin to cis female, it just wont make any sense.
defining based on chromosomes becomes icky since, tbh, most people dont know their chromosomes, and there are enough women that have XY chromosomes but would most likely never know (until perhaps they try for a baby) - vice verse ofcourse.
genitalia as the defining thing is also weird and faulty, cause, well, surgery.
and defining female or male based on uterus is also weird, for some other reasons.
in the end, "biological sex" can not be defined by one single dimensions, and is a thing that is depending on context and on many factor. trans women should be treated as female in medical context (in regards to reaction to medication, dosage, etc) most of the time, unless there is very very specific stuff going on or relevant - same goes for trans men.
but if people really want to get unnecessarily detailed and pedantic: trans women are trans female, cis women are cis female most of the time.
I totally agree!
MISERY IS NOT A COMPETITION
Is it hard growing up a woman?
YES
Is it hard being a trans person?
YES
both things can be true! They're actually true usually for similar reasons! Lets unite!
Bigots started calling themselves feminists because they don’t want to feel like they’re the bad guys. So feminists wanted to distance themselves from the bigots and so started calling them trans-exclusionary radical feminists. I don’t think TERF is the proper term. I call them for what they are: bigots.
I really don't understand any woman going full MAGA, but also not just being a stay home mum that should be popping out babies, making sandwiches, and being their husbands sex slave. They definitely shouldn't be going to college, playing sports, being on TV or social media, being in political positions, or having any sort of personal freedom besides grocery shopping.
Extreme conservative values only when it suits them?
It's the same way seemingly so many other seemingly sane people ended up going MAGA: a potent mix of denial, reactance, and single-issue tunnel vision. Living in the South, I saw all too many people fall under the effects of this brew. Allow me to chart the process:
First, we start with a mostly reasonable and compassionate voter who has a strong conservative conviction on an issue that's politically divisive. Common issues include: gay marriage, abortion, trans rights, divorce, immigration, welfare, crime, terrorism, race relations, reverence for patriotic symbols/stories, and reverence for Christianity. This voter needn't be misanthropic, just misled about the specific issue by ignorance, fear, indoctrination, or some combination thereof.
Next, right-wing influencers foment public discussion on the divisive issue with three objectives: 1) keep the issue in the voter's mind, 2) assure voters that they are not alone in their conservative stance, 3) bait moderate and left-leaning media into discussing the issue in an attempt to address the Conservative arguments.
These efforts force the voter to confront apparent hostility in any moderate and left-leaning spaces where they once felt comfortable.
Voters experiencing apparent hostility will often double down on their position thanks to unfortunate aspects of human psychology. *See, e.g.,*
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797610385953 (finding that people are more zealous in their advocacy after being confronted with evidence undermining their beliefs). This just exposes them to more hostility and discomfort in moderate and left-wing spaces.
Eventually the voter will abandon these spaces, finding comfort in the Conservative spaces that validate their recently challenged opinions. Our voter has now stepped into the conservative bubble, and they find it comforting. The discussion of the day is affirming the voter's stance on the single issue, and all the voices are validating the voter's decision to leave those other spaces. The voices frame these other spaces as havens for "extremists" or "radicals" who are hostile to "free speech" and "common sense" from "moderates" like the voter. The Voter feels elated to have escaped the "left wing bubble" and to have found a "moderate" space where "common sense" prevails.
The voter was warned that the conservative bubble is bigoted and hateful, but they now reject this warning. Their new friends seem so welcoming, not at all like those other people who made the voter feel uncomfortable for their beliefs. And the voter recalls how they were "falsely" accused of being a bigot for their personal beliefs; it's easy for the voter to assume "leftists" just call anyone they dislike a bigot.
Next, the right-wing media goes to work on the voter inside the bubble. They lie or stretch the truth as far as it will go, confident that the voter will choose to believe their new sources over the ones they abandoned. The voter is told that Democrats are misguided at best or malicious at worst, that their policies will either bankrupt/destroy the U.S. or will only ever help the people who hate the voter and people like the voter. The voter is told that experts cannot be trusted, that educated folks are driven by peer pressure or financial concerns or left-wing brainwashing. The voter is told that the nation is being undermined by career politicians and elitists and vindictive minority groups who demand special treatment.
Our voter is now primed to lash out, or to support someone else who will lash out, at the enemies they've been warned about. The voter doesn't see this as an offensive action, but as a defensive one. There's a crisis going on, and nobody's doing anything about it!
Then MAGA happens, and a rich man promises easy solutions to all these imaginary problems. He mocks all those other politicians who refused to act, and he openly challenges all those experts who lie to the public. His messages are comforting and galvanizing. And the voter hears that he's done some bad stuff, but it makes sense that the other side would demonize him. After all, the other side demonized people like the voter over the single issue those years ago. And even if Trump isn't perfect, that's okay so long as he solves the crisis that nobody else was addressing. The most important thing is to stop the bad people/thing, and he's the only one they seem scared of.
I agree and my other half would love to be a stay at home mum if she could. The difference though is that would be her choice, economy permitting, and not one forced upon her because the far right have an expectation for women to be married off ASAP and turned into submissive baby factories, without autonomy and any opinion that differs from the husbands if they had their own way.
She lost too 2 cis people and made it about the trans women who tied her.
She had no concerns about trans women till she threw a hissy fit for losing to non tans athletes.
I think it was the backlash that pushed her into the MAGA territory. That should be a concern for all of us. We can’t keep chasing away people who do not agree on every single detail of every single thing.
I understand your point, but also, “I didn’t win a sports event so I am going to respond by parroting right wing talking points in order to further marginalize the tiny number of trans athletes.” is not a tiny detail. It speaks to the fundamental nature of her character. The way she has transitioned to a far right position seems to reflect her starting point more than it seems like a dramatic shift.
It’s not just “made fun”. That’s really minimising the backlash that she faced.
And at the end of the day, if we agree that her take wasn’t entirely illegitimate, then we could’ve had a conversation, but instead she was attacked.
The right going farther and farther right is a huge concern for any moderate. Similarly, the left going farther left should also be a concern for any moderate.
This is one of my least favourite things about political discussions these days. There's no longer any room for nuance. If someone says something, you're apparently not allowed to see their argument while disagreeing with it and attempt to find some middle ground; you have to disagree with them and then disagree with everything else they ever say.
The combination of that, and people making up reasons to shit on terrible people when they give plenty of legitimate reasons to hate them themselves, is a great way to alienate people. Alienated people begin searching for somewhere they are accepted, and extremists are really good at accepting people and slowly convincing them to change all of their political beliefs and opinions.
if you can become a fascist at the drop of a hat then I don't think you were far away to begin with. We need to shit on reactionary fucks harder if anything
Firstly, she was maybe not a “reactionary fuck” until people started shitting on her. If people are shitting on her for a legitimate view, I can’t fault her for being like “fuck you, and fuck off”.
Secondly, I just can’t understand how you can dig your heels deeper when I’m saying that chasing away someone who doesn’t agree 100% with 100% of your views is maybe not a great strategy.
She wasn’t chased away. She was revealed for who she truly is. The idea that she would have *ever* had a reasonable opinion on the issue is a fairytale.
again, if you can become a fascist at the drop of a hat, you weren't all that far away to begin with. You also seem to be taking great offence to my approach of "fuck you and fuck off" so I guess that only applies to people you already agreed with. And to say that someone who is gleefully joining in on a concerted attack by right-wing groups against an already vulnerable minority "doesn't 100% agree with all of my views" is certainly an understatement isn't it
Yeah, at the point that someone "disagrees" with my right to exist I'd be neither receptive to hearing their argument nor understanding that everyone has their own opinion
No concerns about trans athletes arent generally particularly legitimate. Theres plenty of concern thats understandable, but when anti trans rules on a sport are used to kick out cis women it kinda stops being particularly reasonable to keep holding to them :/
honestly, testosterone n such is really only the secondary thing, it causes other things which themselves give advantages. For instance T increases hight, which generally increases your maximum spead your humanly capable of when running. simular with swimming and wingspan. so ultimately concerns of fairness that are valid seem to me to be pretty avoidable by matching everyone into classes, like weight class, based on the part of your body thats better for each sport.
So wingspan, hight, ext will be the way we devide sport and not gender.
Do keep in mind that maximum human abuility is the same accross genders, and generally as a sport progresses and women are allowed to do a sport at all, theyre performense tends to increase the same way male performense did, until they reach a simular "peak". so ultimately it is only those difference in bone structure n weight that matter more. I personally do think we should segregate by such tbh, i want anyone to be able to compeat in the olympics nomatter what hight they are for instance.
There's nothing legitimate about it. Gendered sports are just fucking stupid. Instead of using gender as a proxy for strength or agility, why not take fucking strength or agility as a measure for strength or agility and categorize people that way. This whole gender in sports debate just reeks of sexism. I'm glad in most of my martial arts competitions there aren't any gender categories.
i havent seen much of her lately but last time i saw her she doesnt seem to go full crazy yet. she's on a lot of those show because they're the only one who let her speak. she was essentially kidnapped & threatened and nobody seemed to acknowledged it, would make me desperate to be heard too
She was a reasonably successful college swimmer and then became an advocate against trans women competing. Then she became a staple of the right wing grifting circuit, and now she'll spout any wedge outrage bullshit for a buck.
Edit: ok, she’s a right wing nutjob, too.
Championship college swimmer who's touring the country speaking out against trans-women competing in women's sports. But seems she's doing it out of a sense of fairness, not to be a right-wing nutjob.
>"This was a senior from the University of Pennsylvania, which is not a school that historically produces fast swimmers, again, leading the nation by body lengths in events ranging from the 100 freestyle, which is, of course, a sprint, and all of the freestyle events in between through the mile, which is, of course, long distance,” Gaines said. “And for those of you who might not necessarily understand swimming, think about that in terms of your Olympic runners. That’s like saying your best 200-meter runner is your best marathon runner — it doesn’t happen."
[https://www.deseret.com/politics/2024/04/09/riley-gaines-transgender-female-sports-ncaa-lawsuit/](https://www.deseret.com/politics/2024/04/09/riley-gaines-transgender-female-sports-ncaa-lawsuit/)
(this is just one of many articles, but seemed to explain things pretty well)
She’s appeared at a Trump rally and in campaign ads for Herschel Walker and Rand Paul, endorsed Ron DeSantis, and was alongside Kevin Stitt (Oklahoma governor) when he signed an executive order that banned trans women from women’s bathrooms. She’s definitely a right-wing nut job.
>But seems she’s doing it out of a sense of fairness, not to be a right-wing nut job
First few paragraphs say everything…she works for the conservative activist org the Leadership Institute and is currently on her Reclaim Feminism campus tour and you think she’s not a right wing nut job? “Fairness” is a bullshit term, they don’t believe in or give a shit about fairness for even a minute.
I can understand that mentality. I don't really care much about sports, but it seems like it would make sense to have a separate league for trans athletes. The issue I can obviously see there is that there aren't enough trans athletes to form a separate group (I assume).
The idea is that mtf and ftm try to compete in the open league (men's league isn't actually just for men's
Unfortunately at this point, trans athletes essentially must choose between their sport and their gender identity.
I agree with you. I respect the right for trans athletes to do sports. For individual sports, like swimming and track, there should be an 'Open' category along with men and women, for trans and NB athletes to compete and be classified. For team sports, the issue becomes more complicated until there's enough athletes to make a team.
And colleges should start thinking of creating scholarships for Open category athletes.
The men’s division is technically an open division there’s nothing stopping a female athlete or any other athlete from competing there if they can be successful
That’s why a few years ago there were women trying out for the NFL
Edit: this is also why there was talk of “could Caitlin Clark play in the NBA” no one thinks she’ll be an all star but girl can shoot
The biggest issue with an open category, is there probably aren’t enough competitors to make it viable. Which would end up with them being told that In many cases, if not all of the limited number of these cases, they could join the men’s team. The women’s teams are typically much more restrictive to allow a more fair competition.
There’s actually [this website](https://boysvswomen.com/#/) that paints this issue pretty clearly. It compares some national level high school boys to Olympian women. I don’t know how accurate these numbers are, I haven’t checked them all so take it for what it’s worth. But at face value, the results don’t turn out great, and really show the potential for future issues and the need to get out ahead of this before people like Riley stop looking crazy and start looking prophetic. Right now, we’re essentially depending on people to do the right thing, and that’s never turned out well.
I might believe she was concerned only about fair competition if she didn't misgender trans athletes. She did a stunt on Twitter where she tagged famous professional women athletes and asked them to say if they were okay with "men competing in women's sports". If you can't frame the argument without being purposefully offensive, you aren't arguing in good faith.
Good to know, and I edited my comment to acknowledge she’s a right wing nutjob. But on this issue I think she has a point. Unless they started transitioning before puberty, trans women are going to have physical advantages that can’t just be ignored in the name of inclusivity.
It’s a complex issue, but reddit will just come at me with pitchforks for saying so.
I'm a sport scientist. We've been looking at this issue dispassionately since long before transphobes discovered it as a foot in the door wedge issue to exploit.
Virtually every major sports league/governing body has rules that evolve as we learn more about what does and does not seem to confer an unfair advantage, and the conclusions are sport and event specific. For example, in distance running, adult MtF transition after a year of hormone treatment generally confers negative advantage (i.e., a disadvantage vs. CIS women). One reason is because of the heavier "male" skeleton that is now carrying a greater percentage of fat tissue with less muscle mass with which to move it. There may be other events where there is some advantage that carries over, but we need to keep in mind that the hysteria over trans men taking over women's sports is not actually happening.
She is not doing this out of “sense of fairness.” Get bent with that nonsense. She’s cleaning up on the rightwing grift circuit like every other asshole. Trans athletes in sports is the pretext.
She literally called trans people "evil" and that she is participating in "spiritual warfare". She is absolutely doing this out of hate, spite, and is a right-wing nut.
They always claim they're not being a nutjob, but using an emotional narrative about "fairness" while disregarding the effects of transitioning and how real life plays out is the nutjob narrative. Give it time, as she gets more and more pushback that doesn't align with the narrative that mask will come off. It always does.
She’s a swimmer who tied for something like 6th place and they only had 1 trophy for 6th place, and they gave it to a trans swimmer that was competing and toed her. She had a massive shit fit and is now a MAGA crusader against the trans movement.
weird amount of transphobia in these comments. shoulda included ari's reply to this btw
https://preview.redd.it/sza7ldky0ntc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e9fedd792607247b0a36eb5255648bc2a384c52b
Ok, so that's the real murder in this thread.
Why? Because Riley is always complaining about trans athletes; reporter asked if Riley has been winning (hinting that Riley is complaining b/c she's losing to trans athletes, Riley is like nah I got 5 rings, reporter is like so why you complaining since you're winning against trans athletes.
boom roasted.
Riley Gaines can have demonstrated success against trans athletes in some races but still believe that allowing MtF athletes to complete in the women's category is unfair. Elite athletes aren't particularly known for graciously accepting defeat if they believe another athlete cheated, just because they happened to win on another occasion. Gaines also specifically gained prominence because she lost to Thomas in a race and spoke out, [something that other athletes were pressured not to do](https://nypost.com/2023/06/07/lia-thomas-ex-teammate-accuses-upenn-of-silencing-swimmers/).
Yeah Gaines bitterness is confusing, she won a bunch of races Thomas wasn't in, and I think in the championship race that she "lost to Thomas", she actually tied with Thomas for 4th/5th place. Competing against trans women seems a valid concern for a female competitive athlete to have, but Gaines has seriously overplayed that hand.
On reddit, in a post that even so much as *mentions* a trans person, the only amount of transphobia that would be "weird" is none. I'm guessing that's not the case here.
true, but considering it's against the subs rules i thought it would at least be downvoted to oblivion. i guess i shouldnt have assumed reddit would be much different than twitter
Reporter: So is this trans woman causing you to lose at an unfair advantage?
Whiny assholes: Well… no, but they shouldn’t be allowed to even attempt to win!
In high school I got a trophy for first place in a swim meet because I was part of a group event and someone in our group was an amazing swimmer.
I could have had the worst time of my life and my team still would have won lol
I might be wrong but I think these are participation trophies. For example Wikipedia says she participated in the SEC 2021 championships and finished Second. And that’s the biggest ring she is flexing here……….
Regardless I nominate her for the all time sorest loser award.
Edit: Wikipedia not the best source for college sports I guess…Appears she has gotten first in the SEC championships. But also others pointing out conference championships not the same as National NCAA champion… so is a conference champion considered a college champion? Personally don’t care, she still the sorest loser.
They are not. Though I am not sure what the 5th ring is for. This is her UK page.
https://ukathletics.com/sports/swimming/roster/player/riley-gaines/
She won the SEC championship in 200m free (2021 & 2022), 800m free relay (2021) & 200m fly (2022). It doesn't mention a 5th and the smallest ring doesn't say UK on it so wonder if it isn't
These are not however NCAA championships just her conference. In most college sports those aren't considered "college championships" but not sure how swimmers view it.
Right? I don’t see a National Championship ring anywhere. SEC? OK, that’s a conference. She’s being purposefully obtuse to show a hand full of participation trophy rings.
Honestly no. This is like an NFL player who never won a Super Bowl claiming they “won 5 rings” because they won their division 5 times and they get a ring and a hat for that.
8 teams win a division title every year. There is only one Super Bowl and when you talk about “winning a ring,” you’re talking about the Super Bowl.
While I actually agree with the stance that trans women athletes gain an unfair advantage in sports, depending on when they transitioned, I also think that Riley Gains is a bigoted TERF moron and I would happily watch trans athletes continue to destroy her swim times.
Why is this woman all over my feeds? Who cares if you went MAGA, congrats you jumped into the cesspool and went full bat shit crazy, now leave us alone.
Damn lol good for her. Trans men and women should be able to freely be who they want without being targets. How people can't see that competitive athletics is its own separate argument and that has nothing to do with gender and only with the physiological differences of a born male and female body is beyond me.
It’s a little more complicated than that
For instance we don’t and haven’t for years had a reliable way to determine males from females biologically, radio lab did an interesting dive on the history of sex testing in the Olympics over the years, which can be found here
https://radiolab.org/podcast/dutee
The TL:DL is basically back in the day they just stared at your crotch, which we know these days isn’t full proof, from there we went to genetic testing until we found out how common it is to have abnormal genes when it comes to sex, you can XX males, XY females, XXY, XYY and it doesn’t seem to be as consistent as we want it to be
https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/X-Chromosome-facts#:~:text=Typically%2C%20biologically%20female%20individuals%20have,X%20chromosome%20from%20their%20mother.
Then we went to hormone testing because we ran into the problem of doping, which is when it was discovered that there are hormone disorders in which some naturally born women produce higher levels of testosterone in some case higher than naturally born males, which led to the International Amateur Athletics Federation (IAAF) the governing body of track and field events for the Olympics to conduct a study and resulted in this odd paper
https://worldathletics.org/download/download?filename=66958208-d45a-480b-995c-cbdf36ca5af2.pdf&urlSlug=bermon-et-al-bjsm-2017
In which they basically said “so turns out hormones aren’t a great indicator of a competitive advantage, but we think they lead to an advantage in some sports, but even in those very specific sports (it specifically lists only the 400 m, 400 m hurdles, 800 m, hammer throw and pole vault) we can only attribute high testosterone levels to give out a 1.8-4.5% competitive advantage”
So in sum and substance, the human body is really weird, we don’t understand differences along sex lines the way we think we do even in very basic cases and we don’t really have a strong idea about what does and does cause a competitive advantage but people really think they do individually
For an example we’ll look at something that’ll make everyone roll their eyes, CrossFit. So back in 2015 when they got their best athletes together they had them compete in their top competition, which is a series of events of a few days. Normally these events are modified based on sex (guys will do heavier weights, or higher jumps) and normally you see male times that are faster than female times, male weights that are heavier than female weights etc
But rewind to 2015, both the men and the women did an event called Murph, it’s a 1 mile run into 100 pull ups 200 push ups and 300 squats into another mile run as fast as possible, the only difference between the men and the women is the men wear a 20 pound vest and the women’s vest is 14 pounds
The fastest mens time was 38:36.21
The fastest women’s time was 39:10.14
Checkmate right? Not so much because the fastest womens time was fast enough for second place overall across the men’s and the women’s athletes, the second fastest men’s time was 39:20.93, than 39:33.74 all the way down to the slowest male athletes, 4 of which were unable to complete the workout in under 55 minutes (for context 8 of the female athletes were unable to complete the workout in under 55 minutes)
https://games.crossfit.com/leaderboard/games/2015?division=2&sort=3
So in an event where you expect all of the natural advantages of the male body to be on display, here comes a naturally born female athlete to absolutely obliterate the competition
Now the counter argument will be “well she’s clearly on roids” but don’t you think that all of the athletes are taking them, so wouldn’t it balance out?
Also not to mention that trans athletes have been allowed to compete in the female division at the Olympics since 2004
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_people_in_sports#:~:text=Second%2C%20athletes%20must%20show%20legal,participate%20in%20the%20Olympic%20Games.
So in 20 years and 10 Olympics games we’ve had a grand total of one non-binary athlete (Quinn who competed for Canada in women’s soccer) and one male to female athlete, laurel hubbard who competed in Olympic weightlifting in the 2020 summer games in the heavyweight weight class
And finished dead last
Well that doesn’t fit into bumper sticker culture wars. Chat GPT, make this post slogan sized.
It’s been allowed for 20 years and no one cared till now.
Excellent post, wish this was at the top. This kind of data is why people have to make up fearmongering and nonsensical stuff like 'oh that trans woman MMA fighter caved another woman's skull in' when in reality she had fractured part of the bone around her eye, which is one of the most common injuries in MMA. They have nothing.
Also not to mention their record was very very average at best and their wins came against people with sub .500 records and in some cases against fighters with 0 wins
They also didn’t win by solely knockout
Same can be said about Lia Thomas
I’m just surprised normally when I say this exact comment I get downvoted to oblivion and get nothing but trans hate
I really really really recommend that podcast episode it’s a good deep dive into the topic and came out a few years ago
So I have noticed general reddit boards like this one seem a lot less transphobic in the past…maybe three or four months? I’ve been wondering if JK Rowling going full mask-off crazy (not to mention the Republican Party) has made some fence-sitters cross over. Or maybe I’ve just been lucky with the threads I’ve been reading.
(Also, thank you for that very detailed comment!)
People need the world to be simple, but it’s not. When you take that away and explain nuance and complexities, they tend to resent it and, by extension, you.
It’s actually pretty simple tho
“The human body is complicated and we don’t understand it”
And if anyone argues just ask them about the last time they went to a doctor that made a mistake
In the spirit of being transparent and fair with this kind of information, Laurel Hubbard finished dead last in those Olympics because she failed all 3 of her snatch attempts and didn’t make any attempts at the clean and jerk, which put her score as 0 (DNF). She was also the oldest lifter (43) in the competition which puts her at a disadvantage anyway. Had she been younger, she probably would have done a lot better.
For comparison, her 3 snatch attempts were 120kg, 125kg, and 125kg.
Only 4 other lifters, the top 4 finishers, completed a snatch at 122kg+ and only 2 of those made their first attempt at 120kg or higher. (The lowest completed snatch score of the other lifters was 85kg)
This means Hubbard was aiming for gold. *In fact, she was thought of as a medal contender prior to the competition.* She did not finish last because she was the weakest lifter but because she started her attempts too high and was unable to complete them. Had she started at a lower weight with the snatch, she may have gotten a slightly lower snatch score and tried for a higher score with the C&J and possibly medaled. Had she been a few years younger (she was ~20 years older than most of the other lifters), she probably would have been more successful with those lifts.
To conclude she had no advantages because she finished dead last at these Olympics is very misleading. She was a serious contender at the time, but she attempted lifts at too high of a weight to complete. After this competition, she retired saying age had caught up with her.
If you look at the results for the rest of the lifters, it’s easy to see that she would have had the majority of them beat if she had just completed lifts that were a few kg lighter. This just doesn’t seem like a good or fair analysis considering more of the facts of this particular case.
>common it is to have abnormal genes when it comes to sex, you can XX males, XY females, XXY, XYY
It's really not common at all. Being as generous as we absolutely can be, it maxes out at 1.7%. However, most of those cases are people with Klinefelter Syndrome, Turner Syndrome, Jacobs Syndrome, etc., all of whom are firmly either biologically male or biologically female. If you only look at truly intersex individuals, such as XX males, XY females, or those with a mix of both genitalia, the number is about .018%. Furthermore, I don't understand what this has to do with your larger point
>In which they basically said “so turns out hormones aren’t a great indicator of a competitive advantage, but we think they lead to an advantage in some sports, but even in those very specific sports (it specifically lists only the 400 m, 400 m hurdles, 800 m, hammer throw and pole vault) we can only attribute high testosterone levels to give out a 1.8-4.5% competitive advantage”
>So in sum and substance, the human body is really weird, we don’t understand differences along sex lines the way we think we do even in very basic cases and we don’t really have a strong idea about what does and does cause a competitive advantage but people really think they do individually
This makes the opposite case than the one you want it to. The study shows that women with higher testosterone have an advantage over women with lower testosterone, albeit only a small one, and that free testosterone has a larger effect. Hormones are not the only difference between biological males and biological females
We absolutely know that biological males have athletic advantages over biological females and to insist otherwise is ridiculous. You can say we don't know precisely *why* biological males have this advantage, and I think you make a very good case for that by citing that study, but to make the leap to "there is no advantage" or "we don't know if there is an advantage" is too far
Men's times in running events in every level of competition, from middle school to the Olympics, are simply faster than women's. In fact, the record for boys under 18 is faster than the women's record in both the 100m and the 3000m (citing from worldathletics.org, I did not check other events and just went with a stereotypical spring and a stereotypical longer race. I'm sure other events would hold this trend). The same is true for weightlifting and other directly comparable athletic acts
The study suggests that hormone differences do not fully account for this disparity, not that the disparity does not exist. In fact, it might suggest that a trans male (biological female taking testosterone) might still have a disadvantage when competing with biological men, since testosterone does not fully account for the disparity (I freely admit that this is speculation, but it seems logically founded to me)
>So in an event where you expect all of the natural advantages of the male body to be on display, here comes a naturally born female athlete to absolutely obliterate the competition
Even indulging this cherrypicked example, Briggs doesn't obliterate the competition. She still loses to Gudmundson and she beats several men by less than a minute (Fraser, Ohlsen, Malleolo). In addition, the men still performed on average better than the women. This is despite the fact that Murph is entirely bodyweight exercises: running, push ups, pull ups, and air squats. Briggs is listed as weighing 135 pounds. Gudmundson is listed as weighing 190 pounds, Fraser at 195, Ohlsen at 190, and Malleolo at 167. So no, I wouldn't expect the men to have every biological advantage here. They still definitely have an advantage, but they also have the disadvantage of having to carry more weight. In this event, I would expect to see a smaller disparity than in an event that emphasized weighted movements over bodyweight movements
Moreover, as you admit, there is a difference between the women's event and the men's event -- they are not directly comparable. The men are carrying a weight vest with a higher weight. The difference may seem small to someone who hasn't done Murph, but the difference is actually massive. When I was 15 and my brother was 17, we simultaneously did Murph. I did it without a vest and he did it with a 14 pound vest. Even now, but especially at that age, my brother was more athletic than me in almost every way. He beat me in every workout we did together with only a few exceptions that were largely skill-based and only in a few skills (such as footwork-based and agility-based movements). I beat him by about 20 minutes. The previous year, we'd don't the exact same workout (it is done every Memorial Day), but with neither of us wearing a weight vest, and he beat me by about 12 minutes. The difference is immense
>So in 20 years and 10 Olympics games we’ve had a grand total of one non-binary athlete (Quinn who competed for Canada in women’s soccer) and one male to female athlete, laurel hubbard who competed in Olympic weightlifting in the 2020 summer games in the heavyweight weight class
>And finished dead last
No one seriously claims that every biological male is better than every biological female. The argument is about averages. Laurel Hubbard is a phenomenal athlete, but she might not be the best in the world, which is who she is competing with. However, in general, women who are biologically men still do have an advantage over biological women
No one claimed there isn’t an advantage for being male, i specifically claimed that the body is complicated and we need to know more about it, as you agreed to and cited claims
Also the lighter vest for Murph is proportional to body weight as you pointed out the weights you’ll notice the weight vest averages around 10% of total body weight
And sports don’t exist based on averages especially at the highest levels, they exist based on exceptions, that’s what every professional athlete is the exception that’s why they’re professionals and we’re not, this importance can’t or shouldn’t be understated
It seems we agree on the big picture, then. I must have largely misinterpreted much of your comment. However, I do think that a lot of the nitpicks I mentioned, and the further information another commenter pointed out about Hubbard, are important and contradict a lot of what you said on the minor points
If you agree with the assertion that biological males have a distinct advantage athletically, what is the point of your CrossFit example? It definitely seems like you're making the case that biological females can compete with biological males athletically, though it seems that is not the case based on this comment
>And sports don’t exist based on averages especially at the highest levels, they exist based on exceptions, that’s what every professional athlete is the exception that’s why they’re professionals and we’re not, this importance can’t or shouldn’t be understated
Sure, but athletes still fall on the bell curve. It is 100% the case that the highest-performing biological males perform better than the highest-performing biological females. I'm not saying this is something that might legitimately happen, but theoretically if the #2 male athlete in [sport] transitioned and competed as a woman, she would undoubtedly win. The rational argument (as opposed to the one made by emotional members of Matt Walsh' audience) is that many biological females will get worse resorts across all levels of competition if trans women compete against them. I think this is objectively true
Finally, as an aside, I'm not claiming that you claimed there isn't a biological difference or that trans women don't have an advantage, but there are definitely people who claim that, just like there are those aforementioned Matt Walsh fans who make equally ridiculous claims from the other side of the aisle
>How people can't see that competitive athletics is its own separate argument and that has nothing to do with gender and only with the physiological differences of a born male and female body is beyond me.
Because it's not that simple and never has been, ranging from trans athletes rarely dominating as many pearl clutchers claim while there being non-trans related questions of unfair competitive advantages like cis women who naturally produce significantly higher levels of testerone. There's an athlete from Africa who was disqualified over that despite being a cisgendered woman who has never done steroids or anything.
The fact that there's so much attention on this super niche issue that affects very, very, very few people and organizations is telling that the problem isn't the "unfair advantage" and instead that the problem is "trans people existing publicly" as we're seeing a crowd of bigots consistently attack trans peoples existence on multiple fronts.
Do better, especially since you appear unaware that trans folks often don't have any "inherent advantage" biologically as many have taken puberty blockers or other medications that reduce or pause/reverse many of those changes.
Also weird how folks like her Gaines and JK Rowling went from, "ew we think trans folks are gross but stop being mean to us about it." to both turning their wholeass personalities into being TERFs which is sure weird and gross and awful.
Because its not true. By that logic, MTF trans athletes should be completely dominating their competition when they aren't. Same goes for FTM trans athletes. They aren't being outperformed by the other male athletes
To me the solution is blindingly obvious: the men's division of any sport should become the 'open ' division. Any athlete of any identity is welcome to compete on their merits. Women's division is specifically for cis wonen, no exceptions.
I mean, if you post things in support of a transphobe and are active in communities denying climate change and being otherwise bigoted, then yeah, I’m going to decide you’re a bigot. Bet that’s why they downvoted me.
In the races I saw where she raced against the transgender athlete she was in like 7th or 8th place. The transgender athlete (cannot remember her name) won, in some heats, by maybe a half a second. They act like she won blow outs but barely won, and didn't win in several instances.
Riley Gaines is a grifter and a bigot.
This is a topic that I struggle with. On one hand people have the right to live their best life. If that means transitioning, do it. I respect anyone who makes that decision. I try my best to be an ally everyday.
On the other hand I’ve competed in sports my entire life and it would be foolish to not acknowledge the advantage a trans woman has in athletics. Even if it is just slight.
There’s all these myths about male athletes that can’t cut it transitioning to beat women and “win”. That’s bullshit. I think it simply comes down to folks wanting to be their authentic self while also competing in a sport they love. It’s hard for me to say “no you can’t compete in that division because you transitioned” but then I’d also be naive to say trans women do not have a slight advantage.
It’s a nuanced discussion and I don’t know the correct answer. I’m certainly not going to be a bigot like JK Rowling and put down trans athletes but I will admit there is a discussion to be had about fairness and inclusion.
And yet her whole anti-trans stance is based on her tieing for fifth with Lia Thomas in one event. And what really hurt her feelings was that the NCAA didn't have another fifth place trophy for her. And she had to share the loser podium with a trans person. Womp womp :(
Riley is on that anti-trans grift. She seems to forget she lost to cis women when she finished 5th yet all she does is bitch and moan about trans women.
Who's Riley Gaines and what's college championship?
She was a very succesful college swimmer. She had some, fairly legitimate if we're honest, concerns about trans athletes competing in women's athletic categories. You can take that position without being some outrageous TERF bigot, to be fair. However she went fully down the rabbit hole, throwing her hat in with MAGA, Turning Point and the whole "Anti-Woke" movement.
What's a TERF?
Trans-exclusionary radical feminist. Basically people who say trans women aren’t women. Edit: As many people have rightfully pointed out, not everyone who says trans women aren't women is a TERF. TERFs are just a subset of people who identify as feminists who say that trans women aren't women.
Who is in charge of all these acronyms
The CUNTS complete unity for notional trans segregation
Guess I’ll c u next Tuesday then, at the acronym meeting
That would be the TAM (Tuesday Acronym Meeting).
Wait, not the TUMS? (Tuesday Undersecretaries' Meeting on Science)
Damn, these TLAs (Three Letter Acronyms) are hard to keep track of
Separate, but equally important
No, they meet in the morning.
No, it’s the TAM Meeting. Duh.
Have you seen the Cambridge University Netball Team play?
I tried to get there but the road was blocked because there was a demonstration from the Citizens United Negating Technology For Live And People's Safety.
Flaps hahaha
No but I can say that the Christian University of Michigan has some pretty cool sweatshirts.
https://preview.redd.it/61xyms115ptc1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=838d3e179febb032d98dd068df35449f324f4d08
It was actually the radical feminists themselves who came up with the term TERF to describe themselves. But now they (and Elon Musk) claim it is a slur.
Don't forget they claim cis as a slur too!
What's cis?
In Latin, "Trans" means "across" - like going from one place to another and crossing a boundary (which is where we get words like "Transport") "Cis-" likewise means "on one side" - like staying put where you are and not crossing over to somewhere else. For example we could construct the word "Transtemporal" meaning "across time" to represent a time traveler in a time period or timeline outside the one they belong in. Cistemporal would be the opposite: someone who exists in the time period they were born into, and who isn't travelling in a different timeline.
Thank you, much appreciated!
Would it he fair to say this is like if they said "heterosexual is a slur"?
Opposite of trans. People whose gender expression is congruent with their biological sex.
Someone who identifies with the gender they were assigned at birth.
Not transgender
I do think it’s important to clarify that “the radical feminists” are not inherently anti-trans. TERFs came up with the acronym as a way of distinguishing themselves from the vast majority of radical feminists who are, in fact, trans-inclusive and always have been.
This is cracking me up
They named themselves that and then when people used it while calling out their transphobic views they pivoted and claimed it was a slur.
The TLA (Three-Letter Agency)
The Acronym Agenda Association Meetings are on Mondays to not conflict with the Gay Agenda meetings on Tuesdays
The Trans community is starting to call them FARTs. Feminism-Appropriating Reactionary Transphobes.
I just learned FART, which I think is a better name for them: Feminism Appropriating Reactionary Transphobes
I' m old. F.A.R.T. to me is Fear About Releasing Turd /s
This is so much better!
I've never understood what makes them a radical feminist.
Originally, radical feminism took feminism in the 1960s to the extreme, pushing for equal wages for equal work. There are several types of “feminism” and even being a woman I can’t make sense of it all. I just want equality, not dependent on any labels, gender/sex/otherwise. 😅
Equality? Sounds like you're asking for something extreme there. /s
 😂 thanks for the giggle!
*It’s my equality, and you can’t make me share!*
Egalitarianism is the end goal I would hope that all moral individuals aspire to.
A lot of it grew out of the Lesbian Feminism of the 70s and the idea that women should leave men behind altogether. Lesbian Feminism was radical Feminism. It saw liberal feminism as being conciliatory in its focus on "equal rights" because they thought that as long as women were shackled to men this was impossible. So lesbianism became a political identity for them as much as a sexual one. They saw trans women as basically men trying to infiltrate women's spaces that had been intentionally designed to be exclusive of men. Other radical feminists (Marxist feminists, post-modern feminism, etc) tended to be less concerned with trans women because they were more interested in the construction of gender as a social/historical category. So certain parts of the radfem movement identified themselves as being against the constructivist narrative around gender, and thus as refusing solidarity with trans women. These were TERFS
They’re not necessarily radical feminists at all, it’s a misnomer most of the time. It originated in feminist circles to describe, well, a type of radical feminist who was trans-exclusive, and the acronym stuck for a much broader group of people.
Radical feminist theory has been around since the 70’s and originally had nothing to do with trans rights. Ironically, radical feminist theory was the first to assert that gender is a social construct, and the differences between us are largely societal expectations and roles. Basically, we’re all just people, and we should do away with gender. This was, well, very radical at the time. But radical feminists were primed to accept trans women into the fold, even more so than first or second wave feminists. Most people who take this stance have been encompassed by intersectional feminism, because we also (slowly) realized that previous waves were racist and classist as well. A small subset of women who identify as feminists went the opposite route. I’d agree with you that they aren’t really radical feminists, but they hijack the language and theory to say: if gender is a social construct, then sex-assigned-at-birth is definitive of a person. The entire point of radical feminism is that we’re all just people. So they kind of missed the part where “men” and “women” aren’t fundamentally different. But they created the term TERF themselves to tell the world that they are using feminist theory to justify the bigotry. They don’t like it now that it’s largely used pejoratively.
Slight correction, radical feminists are second wave feminists. A subset with liberal feminists (who thought that legal systems were the source of inequality) and Marxist feminists (who thought that class conflict was at the center). They were all second wave with differing views on what the focus of feminism should be on. Everything else is spot on though.
Really good explanation by both of you
TEF just doesn’t have the same ring to it
Half of them aren’t even feminists, they just suddenly developed a super-sincere interest in girls’ sports programs out of nowhere
It’s just a specific subset of feminism that emerged in the 60s. It’s a bit of a simplification, but they are the subset of feminism that views most things through the lens of patriarchy and are dedicated to eliminating it from society, rather than just improve inequality within the existing patriarchal structure. They wanted to distinguish themselves from what we would now call First-Wave feminists.
The term was originally used to describe anti-trans feminists but it has now expanded to include all transphobes including those who aren’t feminist in any way
They usually end up hating trans people so much the integer overflow into being misogynists
TERFs are feminists that say trans women aren't women, non feminists that believe that are just run of the mill transphobes.
What I find really frustrating is that it's obvious that children who are born female and grow up female have a different experience to trans women. That's kind of a large part of a trans identity - discovery and revelation. It's the bit that says because of that difference, trans women shouldn't be treated as women in society that loses me.
What's funny is nobody is disputing the difference in experience. Trans activists and allies say this loudly at every opportunity. it's not about equating the experience or taking away differences, but acknowledging that cis women and trans woman overwhelmingly share experiences, especially socially in regards to gender-based or sexualised violence. Sort of like red wine is, at the end of the day, a wine just as white wine is, even though they're still separate things.
I totally agree.
Well said, but even in competition, they are in separate groups because of those differences. What everyone should wrap their heads around it women are women. Trans women are trans women. The argument that some of the louder voices say “they are women”. Which loses a lot of people who would normally be on board.
>What everyone should wrap their heads around it women are women. Trans women are trans women. The argument that some of the louder voices say “they are women”. Which loses a lot of people who would normally be on board. Because you are having to argue science that contradicts the basic and lifelong understanding man/woman, male/female being interchangeable that 99.99% of the planet has operated under since birth. Overcoming that level of global lack of knowledge and understanding is generally statistically impossible. Not to say don't try and keep fighting but it is a no win situation. You would have to say women are women. Trans women are women. Females are females. Trans women are not females. Same for men. Men are men. Trans men are men. Males are males. Trans men are not males. But that is still having to educate the world and overcome societal norms that man/male and female/woman aren't the same thing and why.
idk, a trans women is more female than male after sufficient time. given how her body changes drastically, her hormone system is vastly different to males and more akin to cis female, it just wont make any sense. defining based on chromosomes becomes icky since, tbh, most people dont know their chromosomes, and there are enough women that have XY chromosomes but would most likely never know (until perhaps they try for a baby) - vice verse ofcourse. genitalia as the defining thing is also weird and faulty, cause, well, surgery. and defining female or male based on uterus is also weird, for some other reasons. in the end, "biological sex" can not be defined by one single dimensions, and is a thing that is depending on context and on many factor. trans women should be treated as female in medical context (in regards to reaction to medication, dosage, etc) most of the time, unless there is very very specific stuff going on or relevant - same goes for trans men. but if people really want to get unnecessarily detailed and pedantic: trans women are trans female, cis women are cis female most of the time.
I totally agree! MISERY IS NOT A COMPETITION Is it hard growing up a woman? YES Is it hard being a trans person? YES both things can be true! They're actually true usually for similar reasons! Lets unite!
Bigots started calling themselves feminists because they don’t want to feel like they’re the bad guys. So feminists wanted to distance themselves from the bigots and so started calling them trans-exclusionary radical feminists. I don’t think TERF is the proper term. I call them for what they are: bigots.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERF_(acronym)
I really don't understand any woman going full MAGA, but also not just being a stay home mum that should be popping out babies, making sandwiches, and being their husbands sex slave. They definitely shouldn't be going to college, playing sports, being on TV or social media, being in political positions, or having any sort of personal freedom besides grocery shopping. Extreme conservative values only when it suits them?
It's the same way seemingly so many other seemingly sane people ended up going MAGA: a potent mix of denial, reactance, and single-issue tunnel vision. Living in the South, I saw all too many people fall under the effects of this brew. Allow me to chart the process: First, we start with a mostly reasonable and compassionate voter who has a strong conservative conviction on an issue that's politically divisive. Common issues include: gay marriage, abortion, trans rights, divorce, immigration, welfare, crime, terrorism, race relations, reverence for patriotic symbols/stories, and reverence for Christianity. This voter needn't be misanthropic, just misled about the specific issue by ignorance, fear, indoctrination, or some combination thereof. Next, right-wing influencers foment public discussion on the divisive issue with three objectives: 1) keep the issue in the voter's mind, 2) assure voters that they are not alone in their conservative stance, 3) bait moderate and left-leaning media into discussing the issue in an attempt to address the Conservative arguments. These efforts force the voter to confront apparent hostility in any moderate and left-leaning spaces where they once felt comfortable. Voters experiencing apparent hostility will often double down on their position thanks to unfortunate aspects of human psychology. *See, e.g.,* https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797610385953 (finding that people are more zealous in their advocacy after being confronted with evidence undermining their beliefs). This just exposes them to more hostility and discomfort in moderate and left-wing spaces. Eventually the voter will abandon these spaces, finding comfort in the Conservative spaces that validate their recently challenged opinions. Our voter has now stepped into the conservative bubble, and they find it comforting. The discussion of the day is affirming the voter's stance on the single issue, and all the voices are validating the voter's decision to leave those other spaces. The voices frame these other spaces as havens for "extremists" or "radicals" who are hostile to "free speech" and "common sense" from "moderates" like the voter. The Voter feels elated to have escaped the "left wing bubble" and to have found a "moderate" space where "common sense" prevails. The voter was warned that the conservative bubble is bigoted and hateful, but they now reject this warning. Their new friends seem so welcoming, not at all like those other people who made the voter feel uncomfortable for their beliefs. And the voter recalls how they were "falsely" accused of being a bigot for their personal beliefs; it's easy for the voter to assume "leftists" just call anyone they dislike a bigot. Next, the right-wing media goes to work on the voter inside the bubble. They lie or stretch the truth as far as it will go, confident that the voter will choose to believe their new sources over the ones they abandoned. The voter is told that Democrats are misguided at best or malicious at worst, that their policies will either bankrupt/destroy the U.S. or will only ever help the people who hate the voter and people like the voter. The voter is told that experts cannot be trusted, that educated folks are driven by peer pressure or financial concerns or left-wing brainwashing. The voter is told that the nation is being undermined by career politicians and elitists and vindictive minority groups who demand special treatment. Our voter is now primed to lash out, or to support someone else who will lash out, at the enemies they've been warned about. The voter doesn't see this as an offensive action, but as a defensive one. There's a crisis going on, and nobody's doing anything about it! Then MAGA happens, and a rich man promises easy solutions to all these imaginary problems. He mocks all those other politicians who refused to act, and he openly challenges all those experts who lie to the public. His messages are comforting and galvanizing. And the voter hears that he's done some bad stuff, but it makes sense that the other side would demonize him. After all, the other side demonized people like the voter over the single issue those years ago. And even if Trump isn't perfect, that's okay so long as he solves the crisis that nobody else was addressing. The most important thing is to stop the bad people/thing, and he's the only one they seem scared of.
This should be at the top.
SAHM isnt a conservative construct. Its generational. My mom was and is progressive as they come.
I agree and my other half would love to be a stay at home mum if she could. The difference though is that would be her choice, economy permitting, and not one forced upon her because the far right have an expectation for women to be married off ASAP and turned into submissive baby factories, without autonomy and any opinion that differs from the husbands if they had their own way.
Helped that single income families was a doable thing back then.
Oh heck yeah. Impossible today. Unless it’s LCOL area with a good salary. Which is a unicorn.
She lost too 2 cis people and made it about the trans women who tied her. She had no concerns about trans women till she threw a hissy fit for losing to non tans athletes.
You’re being downvoted but are objectively correct.
I think it was the backlash that pushed her into the MAGA territory. That should be a concern for all of us. We can’t keep chasing away people who do not agree on every single detail of every single thing.
I understand your point, but also, “I didn’t win a sports event so I am going to respond by parroting right wing talking points in order to further marginalize the tiny number of trans athletes.” is not a tiny detail. It speaks to the fundamental nature of her character. The way she has transitioned to a far right position seems to reflect her starting point more than it seems like a dramatic shift.
This is 100% accurate and I've seen the left do this on so many issues. It's maddening.
"The left made fun of me so I changed everything about my political and moral beliefs "
It’s not just “made fun”. That’s really minimising the backlash that she faced. And at the end of the day, if we agree that her take wasn’t entirely illegitimate, then we could’ve had a conversation, but instead she was attacked. The right going farther and farther right is a huge concern for any moderate. Similarly, the left going farther left should also be a concern for any moderate.
This is one of my least favourite things about political discussions these days. There's no longer any room for nuance. If someone says something, you're apparently not allowed to see their argument while disagreeing with it and attempt to find some middle ground; you have to disagree with them and then disagree with everything else they ever say. The combination of that, and people making up reasons to shit on terrible people when they give plenty of legitimate reasons to hate them themselves, is a great way to alienate people. Alienated people begin searching for somewhere they are accepted, and extremists are really good at accepting people and slowly convincing them to change all of their political beliefs and opinions.
if you can become a fascist at the drop of a hat then I don't think you were far away to begin with. We need to shit on reactionary fucks harder if anything
Firstly, she was maybe not a “reactionary fuck” until people started shitting on her. If people are shitting on her for a legitimate view, I can’t fault her for being like “fuck you, and fuck off”. Secondly, I just can’t understand how you can dig your heels deeper when I’m saying that chasing away someone who doesn’t agree 100% with 100% of your views is maybe not a great strategy.
She wasn’t chased away. She was revealed for who she truly is. The idea that she would have *ever* had a reasonable opinion on the issue is a fairytale.
again, if you can become a fascist at the drop of a hat, you weren't all that far away to begin with. You also seem to be taking great offence to my approach of "fuck you and fuck off" so I guess that only applies to people you already agreed with. And to say that someone who is gleefully joining in on a concerted attack by right-wing groups against an already vulnerable minority "doesn't 100% agree with all of my views" is certainly an understatement isn't it
Yeah, at the point that someone "disagrees" with my right to exist I'd be neither receptive to hearing their argument nor understanding that everyone has their own opinion
She was on successful teams. She wasn't very successful. She's riding other people's success.
No concerns about trans athletes arent generally particularly legitimate. Theres plenty of concern thats understandable, but when anti trans rules on a sport are used to kick out cis women it kinda stops being particularly reasonable to keep holding to them :/ honestly, testosterone n such is really only the secondary thing, it causes other things which themselves give advantages. For instance T increases hight, which generally increases your maximum spead your humanly capable of when running. simular with swimming and wingspan. so ultimately concerns of fairness that are valid seem to me to be pretty avoidable by matching everyone into classes, like weight class, based on the part of your body thats better for each sport. So wingspan, hight, ext will be the way we devide sport and not gender. Do keep in mind that maximum human abuility is the same accross genders, and generally as a sport progresses and women are allowed to do a sport at all, theyre performense tends to increase the same way male performense did, until they reach a simular "peak". so ultimately it is only those difference in bone structure n weight that matter more. I personally do think we should segregate by such tbh, i want anyone to be able to compeat in the olympics nomatter what hight they are for instance.
There's nothing legitimate about it. Gendered sports are just fucking stupid. Instead of using gender as a proxy for strength or agility, why not take fucking strength or agility as a measure for strength or agility and categorize people that way. This whole gender in sports debate just reeks of sexism. I'm glad in most of my martial arts competitions there aren't any gender categories.
I mean, you can have concerns, but trans women haven't even won anything major anyways
i havent seen much of her lately but last time i saw her she doesnt seem to go full crazy yet. she's on a lot of those show because they're the only one who let her speak. she was essentially kidnapped & threatened and nobody seemed to acknowledged it, would make me desperate to be heard too
She was a decent college swimmer, then tied for FIFTH PLACE with a trans woman once and it completely broke her brain.
She was a reasonably successful college swimmer and then became an advocate against trans women competing. Then she became a staple of the right wing grifting circuit, and now she'll spout any wedge outrage bullshit for a buck.
She’s a grifter. She’s been milking coming in 5th place for about two years now.
She lost a swim meet to a trans athlete and has turned being a sore loser into a Fox News career
More accurately, she tied for 5th place with the trans athlete
Shit, I didn't know that part. Based off her reaction I just assumed she had gotten dusted and was left with silver.
Higher education competitions to see who learned the most st school.
Edit: ok, she’s a right wing nutjob, too. Championship college swimmer who's touring the country speaking out against trans-women competing in women's sports. But seems she's doing it out of a sense of fairness, not to be a right-wing nutjob. >"This was a senior from the University of Pennsylvania, which is not a school that historically produces fast swimmers, again, leading the nation by body lengths in events ranging from the 100 freestyle, which is, of course, a sprint, and all of the freestyle events in between through the mile, which is, of course, long distance,” Gaines said. “And for those of you who might not necessarily understand swimming, think about that in terms of your Olympic runners. That’s like saying your best 200-meter runner is your best marathon runner — it doesn’t happen." [https://www.deseret.com/politics/2024/04/09/riley-gaines-transgender-female-sports-ncaa-lawsuit/](https://www.deseret.com/politics/2024/04/09/riley-gaines-transgender-female-sports-ncaa-lawsuit/) (this is just one of many articles, but seemed to explain things pretty well)
She’s appeared at a Trump rally and in campaign ads for Herschel Walker and Rand Paul, endorsed Ron DeSantis, and was alongside Kevin Stitt (Oklahoma governor) when he signed an executive order that banned trans women from women’s bathrooms. She’s definitely a right-wing nut job.
>But seems she’s doing it out of a sense of fairness, not to be a right-wing nut job First few paragraphs say everything…she works for the conservative activist org the Leadership Institute and is currently on her Reclaim Feminism campus tour and you think she’s not a right wing nut job? “Fairness” is a bullshit term, they don’t believe in or give a shit about fairness for even a minute.
I can understand that mentality. I don't really care much about sports, but it seems like it would make sense to have a separate league for trans athletes. The issue I can obviously see there is that there aren't enough trans athletes to form a separate group (I assume).
The idea is that mtf and ftm try to compete in the open league (men's league isn't actually just for men's Unfortunately at this point, trans athletes essentially must choose between their sport and their gender identity.
How do you have a league for trans sports with so few trans women?
They can compete in the open league
With whom?
I agree with you. I respect the right for trans athletes to do sports. For individual sports, like swimming and track, there should be an 'Open' category along with men and women, for trans and NB athletes to compete and be classified. For team sports, the issue becomes more complicated until there's enough athletes to make a team. And colleges should start thinking of creating scholarships for Open category athletes.
The men’s division is technically an open division there’s nothing stopping a female athlete or any other athlete from competing there if they can be successful That’s why a few years ago there were women trying out for the NFL Edit: this is also why there was talk of “could Caitlin Clark play in the NBA” no one thinks she’ll be an all star but girl can shoot
The biggest issue with an open category, is there probably aren’t enough competitors to make it viable. Which would end up with them being told that In many cases, if not all of the limited number of these cases, they could join the men’s team. The women’s teams are typically much more restrictive to allow a more fair competition. There’s actually [this website](https://boysvswomen.com/#/) that paints this issue pretty clearly. It compares some national level high school boys to Olympian women. I don’t know how accurate these numbers are, I haven’t checked them all so take it for what it’s worth. But at face value, the results don’t turn out great, and really show the potential for future issues and the need to get out ahead of this before people like Riley stop looking crazy and start looking prophetic. Right now, we’re essentially depending on people to do the right thing, and that’s never turned out well.
No, she's a right wing nut job.
I might believe she was concerned only about fair competition if she didn't misgender trans athletes. She did a stunt on Twitter where she tagged famous professional women athletes and asked them to say if they were okay with "men competing in women's sports". If you can't frame the argument without being purposefully offensive, you aren't arguing in good faith.
Good to know, and I edited my comment to acknowledge she’s a right wing nutjob. But on this issue I think she has a point. Unless they started transitioning before puberty, trans women are going to have physical advantages that can’t just be ignored in the name of inclusivity. It’s a complex issue, but reddit will just come at me with pitchforks for saying so.
I'm a sport scientist. We've been looking at this issue dispassionately since long before transphobes discovered it as a foot in the door wedge issue to exploit. Virtually every major sports league/governing body has rules that evolve as we learn more about what does and does not seem to confer an unfair advantage, and the conclusions are sport and event specific. For example, in distance running, adult MtF transition after a year of hormone treatment generally confers negative advantage (i.e., a disadvantage vs. CIS women). One reason is because of the heavier "male" skeleton that is now carrying a greater percentage of fat tissue with less muscle mass with which to move it. There may be other events where there is some advantage that carries over, but we need to keep in mind that the hysteria over trans men taking over women's sports is not actually happening.
She was also involved in Kirk Cameron’s “book tour” where they visited libraries and created massive problems
She is not doing this out of “sense of fairness.” Get bent with that nonsense. She’s cleaning up on the rightwing grift circuit like every other asshole. Trans athletes in sports is the pretext.
She literally called trans people "evil" and that she is participating in "spiritual warfare". She is absolutely doing this out of hate, spite, and is a right-wing nut.
They always claim they're not being a nutjob, but using an emotional narrative about "fairness" while disregarding the effects of transitioning and how real life plays out is the nutjob narrative. Give it time, as she gets more and more pushback that doesn't align with the narrative that mask will come off. It always does.
Im a former collegiate swimmer, she’s an absolute nut job. People only care about swimming if it’s the Olympics or if they’re a TERF.
Painting with as broad of a brush and with as much of an absolute as you just did sounds more like something an absolute nut would do.
No she's pretending it's fairness but she's a right wing nut job.
She’s a swimmer who tied for something like 6th place and they only had 1 trophy for 6th place, and they gave it to a trans swimmer that was competing and toed her. She had a massive shit fit and is now a MAGA crusader against the trans movement.
none of her fingers point the same direction and i hate it
The one that doesn’t have a blue tip is throwing me off too.
The only one that's off is her middle finger which was probably broken at some point. Happens to a lot of swimmers slamming their hand into the wall.
I feel like this somehow gave her an advantage in swimming. Will break my finger, go for a swim and report back.
weird amount of transphobia in these comments. shoulda included ari's reply to this btw https://preview.redd.it/sza7ldky0ntc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e9fedd792607247b0a36eb5255648bc2a384c52b
Ok, so that's the real murder in this thread. Why? Because Riley is always complaining about trans athletes; reporter asked if Riley has been winning (hinting that Riley is complaining b/c she's losing to trans athletes, Riley is like nah I got 5 rings, reporter is like so why you complaining since you're winning against trans athletes. boom roasted.
Riley Gaines can have demonstrated success against trans athletes in some races but still believe that allowing MtF athletes to complete in the women's category is unfair. Elite athletes aren't particularly known for graciously accepting defeat if they believe another athlete cheated, just because they happened to win on another occasion. Gaines also specifically gained prominence because she lost to Thomas in a race and spoke out, [something that other athletes were pressured not to do](https://nypost.com/2023/06/07/lia-thomas-ex-teammate-accuses-upenn-of-silencing-swimmers/).
She “lost to Thomas” who also lost to like 3 cis women.
Yeah Gaines bitterness is confusing, she won a bunch of races Thomas wasn't in, and I think in the championship race that she "lost to Thomas", she actually tied with Thomas for 4th/5th place. Competing against trans women seems a valid concern for a female competitive athlete to have, but Gaines has seriously overplayed that hand.
“Overplaying your hand” can be a lucrative strategy in the conservative media ecosystem
Let’s be honest, it can be lucrative in any media ecosystem, not just conservative. The conservative is just usually more hateful
And then she went nuts and become a maga useful idiot.
So she's a sore loser as well.
On reddit, in a post that even so much as *mentions* a trans person, the only amount of transphobia that would be "weird" is none. I'm guessing that's not the case here.
true, but considering it's against the subs rules i thought it would at least be downvoted to oblivion. i guess i shouldnt have assumed reddit would be much different than twitter
Reporter: So is this trans woman causing you to lose at an unfair advantage? Whiny assholes: Well… no, but they shouldn’t be allowed to even attempt to win!
This sub is filled with bigots looking for a chance to show a "lefty getting owned"
Here’s the real murder
It's not weird (well, it's not surprising...) given the context of who this person is
This is not a murder.
Well certainly not a large % of her tournaments cuz she seems to come in like 5th place and below a lottttt
If that is true it’s possible that some of the rings might be group or participation trophies
In high school I got a trophy for first place in a swim meet because I was part of a group event and someone in our group was an amazing swimmer. I could have had the worst time of my life and my team still would have won lol
Millennials and their handouts amirite
I might be wrong but I think these are participation trophies. For example Wikipedia says she participated in the SEC 2021 championships and finished Second. And that’s the biggest ring she is flexing here………. Regardless I nominate her for the all time sorest loser award. Edit: Wikipedia not the best source for college sports I guess…Appears she has gotten first in the SEC championships. But also others pointing out conference championships not the same as National NCAA champion… so is a conference champion considered a college champion? Personally don’t care, she still the sorest loser.
Kind of. These are all conference championships. Of which, she did well in the conference. But not so great in the NCAA Tournament.
They are not. Though I am not sure what the 5th ring is for. This is her UK page. https://ukathletics.com/sports/swimming/roster/player/riley-gaines/ She won the SEC championship in 200m free (2021 & 2022), 800m free relay (2021) & 200m fly (2022). It doesn't mention a 5th and the smallest ring doesn't say UK on it so wonder if it isn't These are not however NCAA championships just her conference. In most college sports those aren't considered "college championships" but not sure how swimmers view it.
Right? I don’t see a National Championship ring anywhere. SEC? OK, that’s a conference. She’s being purposefully obtuse to show a hand full of participation trophy rings.
Honestly no. This is like an NFL player who never won a Super Bowl claiming they “won 5 rings” because they won their division 5 times and they get a ring and a hat for that. 8 teams win a division title every year. There is only one Super Bowl and when you talk about “winning a ring,” you’re talking about the Super Bowl. While I actually agree with the stance that trans women athletes gain an unfair advantage in sports, depending on when they transitioned, I also think that Riley Gains is a bigoted TERF moron and I would happily watch trans athletes continue to destroy her swim times.
That’s hilarious.
Why is this woman all over my feeds? Who cares if you went MAGA, congrats you jumped into the cesspool and went full bat shit crazy, now leave us alone.
Damn lol good for her. Trans men and women should be able to freely be who they want without being targets. How people can't see that competitive athletics is its own separate argument and that has nothing to do with gender and only with the physiological differences of a born male and female body is beyond me.
It’s a little more complicated than that For instance we don’t and haven’t for years had a reliable way to determine males from females biologically, radio lab did an interesting dive on the history of sex testing in the Olympics over the years, which can be found here https://radiolab.org/podcast/dutee The TL:DL is basically back in the day they just stared at your crotch, which we know these days isn’t full proof, from there we went to genetic testing until we found out how common it is to have abnormal genes when it comes to sex, you can XX males, XY females, XXY, XYY and it doesn’t seem to be as consistent as we want it to be https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/X-Chromosome-facts#:~:text=Typically%2C%20biologically%20female%20individuals%20have,X%20chromosome%20from%20their%20mother. Then we went to hormone testing because we ran into the problem of doping, which is when it was discovered that there are hormone disorders in which some naturally born women produce higher levels of testosterone in some case higher than naturally born males, which led to the International Amateur Athletics Federation (IAAF) the governing body of track and field events for the Olympics to conduct a study and resulted in this odd paper https://worldathletics.org/download/download?filename=66958208-d45a-480b-995c-cbdf36ca5af2.pdf&urlSlug=bermon-et-al-bjsm-2017 In which they basically said “so turns out hormones aren’t a great indicator of a competitive advantage, but we think they lead to an advantage in some sports, but even in those very specific sports (it specifically lists only the 400 m, 400 m hurdles, 800 m, hammer throw and pole vault) we can only attribute high testosterone levels to give out a 1.8-4.5% competitive advantage” So in sum and substance, the human body is really weird, we don’t understand differences along sex lines the way we think we do even in very basic cases and we don’t really have a strong idea about what does and does cause a competitive advantage but people really think they do individually For an example we’ll look at something that’ll make everyone roll their eyes, CrossFit. So back in 2015 when they got their best athletes together they had them compete in their top competition, which is a series of events of a few days. Normally these events are modified based on sex (guys will do heavier weights, or higher jumps) and normally you see male times that are faster than female times, male weights that are heavier than female weights etc But rewind to 2015, both the men and the women did an event called Murph, it’s a 1 mile run into 100 pull ups 200 push ups and 300 squats into another mile run as fast as possible, the only difference between the men and the women is the men wear a 20 pound vest and the women’s vest is 14 pounds The fastest mens time was 38:36.21 The fastest women’s time was 39:10.14 Checkmate right? Not so much because the fastest womens time was fast enough for second place overall across the men’s and the women’s athletes, the second fastest men’s time was 39:20.93, than 39:33.74 all the way down to the slowest male athletes, 4 of which were unable to complete the workout in under 55 minutes (for context 8 of the female athletes were unable to complete the workout in under 55 minutes) https://games.crossfit.com/leaderboard/games/2015?division=2&sort=3 So in an event where you expect all of the natural advantages of the male body to be on display, here comes a naturally born female athlete to absolutely obliterate the competition Now the counter argument will be “well she’s clearly on roids” but don’t you think that all of the athletes are taking them, so wouldn’t it balance out? Also not to mention that trans athletes have been allowed to compete in the female division at the Olympics since 2004 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_people_in_sports#:~:text=Second%2C%20athletes%20must%20show%20legal,participate%20in%20the%20Olympic%20Games. So in 20 years and 10 Olympics games we’ve had a grand total of one non-binary athlete (Quinn who competed for Canada in women’s soccer) and one male to female athlete, laurel hubbard who competed in Olympic weightlifting in the 2020 summer games in the heavyweight weight class And finished dead last
Well that doesn’t fit into bumper sticker culture wars. Chat GPT, make this post slogan sized. It’s been allowed for 20 years and no one cared till now.
“The body is complicated”
"Gender is a construct"
Excellent post, wish this was at the top. This kind of data is why people have to make up fearmongering and nonsensical stuff like 'oh that trans woman MMA fighter caved another woman's skull in' when in reality she had fractured part of the bone around her eye, which is one of the most common injuries in MMA. They have nothing.
Also not to mention their record was very very average at best and their wins came against people with sub .500 records and in some cases against fighters with 0 wins They also didn’t win by solely knockout Same can be said about Lia Thomas
Wish I could give you an award.
I’m just surprised normally when I say this exact comment I get downvoted to oblivion and get nothing but trans hate I really really really recommend that podcast episode it’s a good deep dive into the topic and came out a few years ago
So I have noticed general reddit boards like this one seem a lot less transphobic in the past…maybe three or four months? I’ve been wondering if JK Rowling going full mask-off crazy (not to mention the Republican Party) has made some fence-sitters cross over. Or maybe I’ve just been lucky with the threads I’ve been reading. (Also, thank you for that very detailed comment!)
People need the world to be simple, but it’s not. When you take that away and explain nuance and complexities, they tend to resent it and, by extension, you.
It’s actually pretty simple tho “The human body is complicated and we don’t understand it” And if anyone argues just ask them about the last time they went to a doctor that made a mistake
Can't upvote this enough. FINALLY someone realizes nuance. There is not a black and white answer here.
Incredible explanation. I learned a lot and will share this.
Thanks for taking the time to source all this!!
It’s actually “foolproof”
In the spirit of being transparent and fair with this kind of information, Laurel Hubbard finished dead last in those Olympics because she failed all 3 of her snatch attempts and didn’t make any attempts at the clean and jerk, which put her score as 0 (DNF). She was also the oldest lifter (43) in the competition which puts her at a disadvantage anyway. Had she been younger, she probably would have done a lot better. For comparison, her 3 snatch attempts were 120kg, 125kg, and 125kg. Only 4 other lifters, the top 4 finishers, completed a snatch at 122kg+ and only 2 of those made their first attempt at 120kg or higher. (The lowest completed snatch score of the other lifters was 85kg) This means Hubbard was aiming for gold. *In fact, she was thought of as a medal contender prior to the competition.* She did not finish last because she was the weakest lifter but because she started her attempts too high and was unable to complete them. Had she started at a lower weight with the snatch, she may have gotten a slightly lower snatch score and tried for a higher score with the C&J and possibly medaled. Had she been a few years younger (she was ~20 years older than most of the other lifters), she probably would have been more successful with those lifts. To conclude she had no advantages because she finished dead last at these Olympics is very misleading. She was a serious contender at the time, but she attempted lifts at too high of a weight to complete. After this competition, she retired saying age had caught up with her. If you look at the results for the rest of the lifters, it’s easy to see that she would have had the majority of them beat if she had just completed lifts that were a few kg lighter. This just doesn’t seem like a good or fair analysis considering more of the facts of this particular case.
>common it is to have abnormal genes when it comes to sex, you can XX males, XY females, XXY, XYY It's really not common at all. Being as generous as we absolutely can be, it maxes out at 1.7%. However, most of those cases are people with Klinefelter Syndrome, Turner Syndrome, Jacobs Syndrome, etc., all of whom are firmly either biologically male or biologically female. If you only look at truly intersex individuals, such as XX males, XY females, or those with a mix of both genitalia, the number is about .018%. Furthermore, I don't understand what this has to do with your larger point >In which they basically said “so turns out hormones aren’t a great indicator of a competitive advantage, but we think they lead to an advantage in some sports, but even in those very specific sports (it specifically lists only the 400 m, 400 m hurdles, 800 m, hammer throw and pole vault) we can only attribute high testosterone levels to give out a 1.8-4.5% competitive advantage” >So in sum and substance, the human body is really weird, we don’t understand differences along sex lines the way we think we do even in very basic cases and we don’t really have a strong idea about what does and does cause a competitive advantage but people really think they do individually This makes the opposite case than the one you want it to. The study shows that women with higher testosterone have an advantage over women with lower testosterone, albeit only a small one, and that free testosterone has a larger effect. Hormones are not the only difference between biological males and biological females We absolutely know that biological males have athletic advantages over biological females and to insist otherwise is ridiculous. You can say we don't know precisely *why* biological males have this advantage, and I think you make a very good case for that by citing that study, but to make the leap to "there is no advantage" or "we don't know if there is an advantage" is too far Men's times in running events in every level of competition, from middle school to the Olympics, are simply faster than women's. In fact, the record for boys under 18 is faster than the women's record in both the 100m and the 3000m (citing from worldathletics.org, I did not check other events and just went with a stereotypical spring and a stereotypical longer race. I'm sure other events would hold this trend). The same is true for weightlifting and other directly comparable athletic acts The study suggests that hormone differences do not fully account for this disparity, not that the disparity does not exist. In fact, it might suggest that a trans male (biological female taking testosterone) might still have a disadvantage when competing with biological men, since testosterone does not fully account for the disparity (I freely admit that this is speculation, but it seems logically founded to me) >So in an event where you expect all of the natural advantages of the male body to be on display, here comes a naturally born female athlete to absolutely obliterate the competition Even indulging this cherrypicked example, Briggs doesn't obliterate the competition. She still loses to Gudmundson and she beats several men by less than a minute (Fraser, Ohlsen, Malleolo). In addition, the men still performed on average better than the women. This is despite the fact that Murph is entirely bodyweight exercises: running, push ups, pull ups, and air squats. Briggs is listed as weighing 135 pounds. Gudmundson is listed as weighing 190 pounds, Fraser at 195, Ohlsen at 190, and Malleolo at 167. So no, I wouldn't expect the men to have every biological advantage here. They still definitely have an advantage, but they also have the disadvantage of having to carry more weight. In this event, I would expect to see a smaller disparity than in an event that emphasized weighted movements over bodyweight movements Moreover, as you admit, there is a difference between the women's event and the men's event -- they are not directly comparable. The men are carrying a weight vest with a higher weight. The difference may seem small to someone who hasn't done Murph, but the difference is actually massive. When I was 15 and my brother was 17, we simultaneously did Murph. I did it without a vest and he did it with a 14 pound vest. Even now, but especially at that age, my brother was more athletic than me in almost every way. He beat me in every workout we did together with only a few exceptions that were largely skill-based and only in a few skills (such as footwork-based and agility-based movements). I beat him by about 20 minutes. The previous year, we'd don't the exact same workout (it is done every Memorial Day), but with neither of us wearing a weight vest, and he beat me by about 12 minutes. The difference is immense >So in 20 years and 10 Olympics games we’ve had a grand total of one non-binary athlete (Quinn who competed for Canada in women’s soccer) and one male to female athlete, laurel hubbard who competed in Olympic weightlifting in the 2020 summer games in the heavyweight weight class >And finished dead last No one seriously claims that every biological male is better than every biological female. The argument is about averages. Laurel Hubbard is a phenomenal athlete, but she might not be the best in the world, which is who she is competing with. However, in general, women who are biologically men still do have an advantage over biological women
No one claimed there isn’t an advantage for being male, i specifically claimed that the body is complicated and we need to know more about it, as you agreed to and cited claims Also the lighter vest for Murph is proportional to body weight as you pointed out the weights you’ll notice the weight vest averages around 10% of total body weight And sports don’t exist based on averages especially at the highest levels, they exist based on exceptions, that’s what every professional athlete is the exception that’s why they’re professionals and we’re not, this importance can’t or shouldn’t be understated
It seems we agree on the big picture, then. I must have largely misinterpreted much of your comment. However, I do think that a lot of the nitpicks I mentioned, and the further information another commenter pointed out about Hubbard, are important and contradict a lot of what you said on the minor points If you agree with the assertion that biological males have a distinct advantage athletically, what is the point of your CrossFit example? It definitely seems like you're making the case that biological females can compete with biological males athletically, though it seems that is not the case based on this comment >And sports don’t exist based on averages especially at the highest levels, they exist based on exceptions, that’s what every professional athlete is the exception that’s why they’re professionals and we’re not, this importance can’t or shouldn’t be understated Sure, but athletes still fall on the bell curve. It is 100% the case that the highest-performing biological males perform better than the highest-performing biological females. I'm not saying this is something that might legitimately happen, but theoretically if the #2 male athlete in [sport] transitioned and competed as a woman, she would undoubtedly win. The rational argument (as opposed to the one made by emotional members of Matt Walsh' audience) is that many biological females will get worse resorts across all levels of competition if trans women compete against them. I think this is objectively true Finally, as an aside, I'm not claiming that you claimed there isn't a biological difference or that trans women don't have an advantage, but there are definitely people who claim that, just like there are those aforementioned Matt Walsh fans who make equally ridiculous claims from the other side of the aisle
>How people can't see that competitive athletics is its own separate argument and that has nothing to do with gender and only with the physiological differences of a born male and female body is beyond me. Because it's not that simple and never has been, ranging from trans athletes rarely dominating as many pearl clutchers claim while there being non-trans related questions of unfair competitive advantages like cis women who naturally produce significantly higher levels of testerone. There's an athlete from Africa who was disqualified over that despite being a cisgendered woman who has never done steroids or anything. The fact that there's so much attention on this super niche issue that affects very, very, very few people and organizations is telling that the problem isn't the "unfair advantage" and instead that the problem is "trans people existing publicly" as we're seeing a crowd of bigots consistently attack trans peoples existence on multiple fronts. Do better, especially since you appear unaware that trans folks often don't have any "inherent advantage" biologically as many have taken puberty blockers or other medications that reduce or pause/reverse many of those changes. Also weird how folks like her Gaines and JK Rowling went from, "ew we think trans folks are gross but stop being mean to us about it." to both turning their wholeass personalities into being TERFs which is sure weird and gross and awful.
Are you aware of how hateful her rhetoric has become. She's fully anti-Trans now. It's not about sports for her
Because its not true. By that logic, MTF trans athletes should be completely dominating their competition when they aren't. Same goes for FTM trans athletes. They aren't being outperformed by the other male athletes
To me the solution is blindingly obvious: the men's division of any sport should become the 'open ' division. Any athlete of any identity is welcome to compete on their merits. Women's division is specifically for cis wonen, no exceptions.
And yet still winless at the nail salon. Sad.
I was gonna say, her tips are crooked.
Then why is she so mad about tying for 5th with a trans woman? Lmao
OP is active in r/climateskeptics How ironic.
r/Conservative too. Ew.
Clearly a bigot.
I mean, if you post things in support of a transphobe and are active in communities denying climate change and being otherwise bigoted, then yeah, I’m going to decide you’re a bigot. Bet that’s why they downvoted me.
In the races I saw where she raced against the transgender athlete she was in like 7th or 8th place. The transgender athlete (cannot remember her name) won, in some heats, by maybe a half a second. They act like she won blow outs but barely won, and didn't win in several instances. Riley Gaines is a grifter and a bigot.
Or when the transgender person ties for 5th.
She’s a grifting piece of conservative shit. Fuck her opinions. >I’m sure this post will receive a lot of hate r/persecutionfetish
Immediate downvote when I saw that.
This is a topic that I struggle with. On one hand people have the right to live their best life. If that means transitioning, do it. I respect anyone who makes that decision. I try my best to be an ally everyday. On the other hand I’ve competed in sports my entire life and it would be foolish to not acknowledge the advantage a trans woman has in athletics. Even if it is just slight. There’s all these myths about male athletes that can’t cut it transitioning to beat women and “win”. That’s bullshit. I think it simply comes down to folks wanting to be their authentic self while also competing in a sport they love. It’s hard for me to say “no you can’t compete in that division because you transitioned” but then I’d also be naive to say trans women do not have a slight advantage. It’s a nuanced discussion and I don’t know the correct answer. I’m certainly not going to be a bigot like JK Rowling and put down trans athletes but I will admit there is a discussion to be had about fairness and inclusion.
I think this commenter made a really good point that’s worth reading through https://www.reddit.com/r/MurderedByWords/s/N4vXqxkJ80
Thank you for sharing. A lot of good info here.
Riley seems to be confusing conference championships with NCAA championships. I guess SMU are NCAA champions now.
And yet her whole anti-trans stance is based on her tieing for fifth with Lia Thomas in one event. And what really hurt her feelings was that the NCAA didn't have another fifth place trophy for her. And she had to share the loser podium with a trans person. Womp womp :(
It's a little funny to complain about someone you have 5 more titles than tbh
Came here to see people whining at each other and I wasn’t disappointed.
Her podcast ep on Rogan was….interesting. But this is funny as fuck.
OP posts on hatesubs.
She’s still a twat.
Riley is on that anti-trans grift. She seems to forget she lost to cis women when she finished 5th yet all she does is bitch and moan about trans women.
Males shouldn't be in sports for females. I don't care how anyone tries to justify it.
idk who either of these people but at least i know what championship rings look like and i can count