Crossfit Sued by Transgender Athlete

trojan_bb

No, being at the high range of normal as opposed to the low range will confer quite a few advantages. This is well documented in many studies. I'm referring to any steroid used in the transition process. All the hormonal drugs are steroids and affect strength levels.

Not going to read a word, huh? M'kay, stay ignorant.

learning to read a thread's post history still isn't your strong suit, I see. That post is not in response to you.

Lose the attitude.

BraveNewdGirl

learning to read a thread's post history still isn't your strong suit, I see. That post is not in response to you.

Lose the attitude.

You responded twice before I had a chance to reply. I merely quoted your second post, which was, as always, rife with ignorance.

I'll use as much attitude as I deem necessary when dealing with transphobic dudebros. Worry about yourself. There's a lot to worry about there.

When the strongest part of your argument is that there isn't enough research out there, you have failed to prove your point and don't get to make any loudmouthed statements without your transphobia readily apparent to those that read you.

trojan_bb

learning to read a thread's post history still isn't your strong suit, I see. That post is not in response to you.

Lose the attitude.

You responded twice before I had a chance to reply. I merely quoted your second post, which was, as always, rife with ignorance.

I'll use as much attitude as I deem necessary when dealing with transphobic dudebros. Worry about yourself. There's a lot to worry about there.

You have no idea what you're talking about regarding this topic, unfortunately. The link you showed me is among the most obvious things you could have posted. It doesn't even relate to my argument. Being a feminist does not make you knowledgeable about hormonal supplementation and it's effects on strength. There is not one thing I've said that is ignorant or incorrect.


Oh FYI, the UCLA doctor you quoted actually AGREES with me. After his remark on muscle mass changes, he went on to raise the same questions I raised. Read pg 2. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/18/sports/olympics/the-line-between-male-and-female-athletes-how-to-decide.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

" Is it a perfect parameter? Of course not. There are problems with it. The main one is that the levels of testosterone are relevant to sports performance only if the body (and the muscles in particular) is fully responsive to it. A small number of individuals have some degree of resistance to it, and what really matters is not just the raw level of testosterone but a combination of its amount and a measure of its functionality, which is not always easy to test for.

Another issue is that, unlike in our thought experiment, testosterone is not the unique explanation for sex differences in athletic performance. Others could be direct, sex-specific, genetic effects on motivation to win, aggressiveness or shape of the bones and joints. These are more complex to reliably measure than testosterone, and it is still unclear what relative proportion of sex differences these other factors will influence. But sports authorities should pursue a more complex algorithm of parameters. "

-DR. Eric Villain, UCLA

BraveNewdGirl

You have no idea what you're talking about regarding this topic, unfortunately. The link you showed me is among the most obvious things you could have posted. It doesn't even relate to my argument. Being a feminist does not make you knowledgeable about hormonal supplementation and it's effects on strength. There is not one thing I've said that is ignorant or incorrect.

No, but my work as a transgender advocate does. This is my job. Most of what you've said, especially regarding bone structure and steroid-use, is completely invalid.

KatieMae75

What type of steroids are you referring to when you say transgender people are on steroids? If I was told they were on steroids, I would assume it was referring to estrogen, progesterone, or testosterone (in a ftm), being as those are all steroids. Also, testicles are the primary secrete of testosterone (but, obviously not the only one), and they are removed during the transition surgery, therefore, immediately reducing testosterone. There are many cells and hormones that play a role in muscular hypertrophy (GH, Satellite cells, cortisol, IGF...), but in men, testosterone accounts for quite a bit of it. Though there is no two women who will have identical hormone levels, there is an "ideal" range, and being at the high end of that range will not serve as an advantage, as it's still within "normal".

No, being at the high range of normal as opposed to the low range will confer quite a few advantages. This is well documented in many studies. I'm referring to any steroid used in the transition process. All the hormonal drugs are steroids and affect strength levels.

I'm interested in seeing some of those studies that state being within the normal range can enhance performance. I can see being over the normal range having an advantage, but not being within the normal range. The steroid drugs you are referring to are the same steroid hormones found in the body, being used in a replacement manner, not an enhancement manner. When they give a man changing to a woman those steroids, they are simply supplementing what is normally found in the female body. I'm full of steroids. Sometimes they make me *****y for a few days at a time, but they've never given me man muscles or strength.

trojan_bb

What type of steroids are you referring to when you say transgender people are on steroids? If I was told they were on steroids, I would assume it was referring to estrogen, progesterone, or testosterone (in a ftm), being as those are all steroids. Also, testicles are the primary secrete of testosterone (but, obviously not the only one), and they are removed during the transition surgery, therefore, immediately reducing testosterone. There are many cells and hormones that play a role in muscular hypertrophy (GH, Satellite cells, cortisol, IGF...), but in men, testosterone accounts for quite a bit of it. Though there is no two women who will have identical hormone levels, there is an "ideal" range, and being at the high end of that range will not serve as an advantage, as it's still within "normal".

No, being at the high range of normal as opposed to the low range will confer quite a few advantages. This is well documented in many studies. I'm referring to any steroid used in the transition process. All the hormonal drugs are steroids and affect strength levels.

I'm interested in seeing some of those studies that state being within the normal range can enhance performance. I can see being over the normal range having an advantage, but not being within the normal range. The steroid drugs you are referring to are the same steroid hormones found in the body, being used in a replacement manner, not an enhancement manner. When they give a man changing to a woman those steroids, they are simply supplementing what is normally found in the female body. I'm full of steroids. Sometimes they make me *****y for a few days at a time, but they've never given me man muscles or strength.

They mimic a desired level of that hormone. The level can be picked and chosen at will. It can be allowed by certain athletic commitiees if it is still within that normal range. But, that is still a range...and in men and tesosterone, it's a large range.

There is no such thing as pure replacement unless you have accurate baseline numbers from beforehand. something transgenders can never have...so it's becomes estimation and in sports, ...estimation becomes enhancement.

For the exact studies, I will have to find them later. There are TONS of studies on replacement therapy out there and on pubmed so it takes a long time to find exactly the ones I'm looking for, I'm sure you understand that. I pulled a few just now but they don't have the comparison groups I was looking for. I've been reading message boards and studies devoted to testosterone replacement for years, so lots of these studies get lost in the sea of stuff I've read. Takes a lot of digging to find.

Edit: here is one for older males. Compares those on the lowest range of 'normal' to the highest end of normal. http://biomedgerontology.oxfordjournals.org/content/56/5/M266.abstract

trojan_bb

They mimic a desired level of that hormone. The level can be picked and chosen at will. It can be allowed by certain athletic commitiees if it is still within that normal range. But, that is still a range...and in men and tesosterone, it's a large range.

There is no such thing as pure replacement unless you have accurate baseline numbers from beforehand. something transgenders can never have...so it's becomes estimation and in sports, ...estimation becomes enhancement.

Except that you've still failed to provide a single source that concludes there is any "enhancement". You make a lot of strong determinations without a single source to back you. If "the research just isn't there" and "it's a tough call" are the basis of your argument against transgender athletes competing in their gender-assigned brackets, you need to sit the f**k down.

No actually. Policy follows evidence. You have NO evidence that there is no enhancement or difference. So really, you need to shut up and wait for your studies to prove you right before telling athletes how they should compete.

There is no study or scientific evidence on either side. Which is exactly why my stance of waiting is reasonable.

BraveNewdGirl

No actually. Policy follows evidence. You have NO evidence that there is no enhancement or difference. So really, you need to shut up and wait for your studies to prove you right before telling athletes how they should compete.

Here's the difference between what I propose and what you propose:

1. Transgender athletes are not being shown, historically (see the first article I linked) to have an advantage over their cis-gendered counterparts.
2. Allowing transgender athletes to compete will not cause any harm to cis-gendered athletes or the transgendered athletes themselves.
3. Not allowing transgender athletes to compete (without providing adequate reason not to) only serves to promote transphobia.

Now, I get that transphobia doesn't affect you personally, so you don't frankly give a f**k what happens to transgender individuals, but it's a very real, horrific thing that leads to countless hate crimes yearly.

So, for the sake of being a decent human being, stop.

trojan_bb

No actually. Policy follows evidence. You have NO evidence that there is no enhancement or difference. So really, you need to shut up and wait for your studies to prove you right before telling athletes how they should compete.

Here's the difference between what I propose and what you propose:

1. Transgender athletes are not being shown, historically (see the first article I linked) to have an advantage over their cis-gendered counterparts.
2. Allowing transgendered athletes to compete will not cause any harm to cis-gendered athletes or the transgendered athletes themselves.
3. Not allowing transgendered athletes to compete (without providing adequate reason not to) only serves to promote transphobia.

Now, I get that transphobia doesn't affect you personally, so you don't frankly give a f**k what happens to transgendered individuals, but it's a very real, horrific thing that leads to countless hate crimes yearly.

So, for the sake of being a decent human being, stop.

1) your data set is weak. I'll wait for a real study
2) You have no evidence that it will not confer an advantage.
3) No, it serves to support proper policy administration.

This is about weightlifting performance, not transphobia. Your hyperbole is ridiculous. Not everything fits your world of phobias, ism's, and social inequalities.

There is nothing 'transphobic' about waiting for scientific proof before administering athletic regulation. I'm sure the world of transgenders is kept up at night wondering if they can too can compete in Olympic weightlifting event,...

ComradeTovarich

But guys, it's just crossfit.

BraveNewdGirl

1) your data set is weak. I'll wait for a real study
2) You have no evidence that it will not confer an advantage.
3) No, it serves to support proper policy administration.

This is about weightlifting performance, not transphobia. Your hyperbole is ridiculous. Not everything fits your world of phobias, ism's, and social inequalities.

There is nothing 'transphobic' about waiting for scientific proof before administering athletic regulation. I'm sure the world of transgenders is kept up at night wondering if they can too can compete in Olympic weightlifting event,...

1. Your "data set" is non-existant.
2. You have no evidence that it will confer an advantage. Furthermore, even if that advantage existed, it is not inherently harmful to any portion of the population.
3. You can go ahead and re-word transphobia all you want, it's still transphobia. No matter what you called it, it is what it is.

trojan_bb

1) your data set is weak. I'll wait for a real study
2) You have no evidence that it will not confer an advantage.
3) No, it serves to support proper policy administration.

This is about weightlifting performance, not transphobia. Your hyperbole is ridiculous. Not everything fits your world of phobias, ism's, and social inequalities.

There is nothing 'transphobic' about waiting for scientific proof before administering athletic regulation. I'm sure the world of transgenders is kept up at night wondering if they can too can compete in Olympic weightlifting event,...

1. Your "data set" is non-existant.
2. You have no evidence that it will confer an advantage. Furthermore, even if that advantage existed, it is not inherently harmful to any portion of the population.
3. You can go ahead and re-word transphobia all you want, it's still transphobia. No matter what you called it, it is what it is.

Testosterone replacement therapy in males with low testosterone is banned by many athletic committees. Regardless of that being a correct stance or not, are these committees guilty of some phobia or ism? No, they're not. They are wary of the exact thing I pointed out, hormonal optimization.

You have no case. Just as I have no evidence that there is an advantage, which I acknowledged earlier when I said I'm waiting for a study showing strength levels. So I'm sure you can now see how ridiculous your blatant personal attacks and hostility are. You are caught up in a world of perceived inequalities and hate and any critical thinker is immediately labeled and attacked. There is no place for that in science or this debate.

BraveNewdGirl

Testosterone replacement therapy in males with low testosterone is banned by many athletic committees. Regardless of that being a correct stance or not, are these committees guilty of some phobia or ism? No, they're not. They are wary of the exact thing I pointed out, hormonal optimization.

You have no case. Just as I have no evidence that there is an advantage, which I acknowledged earlier when I said I'm waiting for a study showing strength levels. So I'm sure you can now see how ridiculous your blatant personal attacks and hostility are. You are caught up in a world of perceived inequalities and hate and any critical thinker is immediately labeled and attacked. There is no place for that in science or this debate.

My case is a great deal stronger than yours. You would know this if you actually read the links that I provided. There are statements from medical professionals that feel that transgender athletes are at a disadvantage, if anything. Furthermore, there is historical precedent showing that transgender athletes have not, in fact, performed at the top of their brackets. Your inability to process information that doesn't align with your beliefs doesn't mean that information isn't factual.

The fact that you can say that I'm caught up in a world of perceived inequalities and hate shows just how blind to your privilege that you are. The world is a place full of inequalities and hate and that's something that you clearly don't concern yourself with as long as you're not directly affected.

SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish

They've done studies that show that the size and amount of muscle gained from steroids in the past is still a clear advantage years later in people that have been clean for many years. This is a similar situation, its the same as not allowing a past heavy steroid user into a steroid free competition, and is correct, its a huge advantage.

angel5561

What I get from all of your post is this ... this person is still a MAN . If you are born a man with male skeletal structure hormones parts inside and out I don't care what doctor you go to to have yourself altered you are still a man and the fact that we are even arguing this fact is crazy .we have a lot more to worry about then a body building competition.

BraveNewdGirl

What I get from all of your post is this ... this person is still a MAN . If you are born a man with male skeletal structure hormones parts inside and out I don't care what doctor you go to to have yourself altered you are still a man and the fact that we are even arguing this fact is crazy .we have a lot more to worry about then a body building competition.

Patently wrong. Do you like being called a man?

pseudomuffin

I read the article about it, and it said that she's been on hormones for long enough that it doesn't give her an advantage. They also said the Olympics and collegiate levels allow for transgender athletes to compete in their current gender as long as they have completed transition.

Before I read that, I wasn't ok with it, but if the levels of hormones truly have changed her body composition to not give an advantage, then I'm ok.

This makes perfect sense. If she's completed her transition from male to female I don't see what the issue is.

David_AUS

What about people are born with an intersex condition (x, y, xxy, yyx. xxx chromosomes?). I know there is little likelihood of unanimous consensus and for the individual (in this case) - my thoughts are that they are not on equal ground to the male league and it is obviously something they are passionate about so should the circumstances mean they are excluded from participating in something they love to do?

No amount of scientific research will ever change the genes at birth. Without conclusive evidence to support whether the genes at birth offer a competitive advantage I would have to say that you would have to rule in favour of "reasonable assumption" towards the individual involved.

When further research is available the rules can be revised as appropriate but in my opinion this should not be applied retrospectively. They have not set out to deceive and have been open from the start with what they want to do - let the sport focus on personal excellence and personal achievement.

BusyRaeNOTBusty

But guys, it's just crossfit.

That too.

CassandraBurgos83

I just wish my chest was as pretty as hers... I'm guessing that's because of a DR and not r/t hormone therapy.

T_R_A_V

I agree with it from an outside looking in but by no means my decision is concrete

same reason brittany grimer wldnt play for the womens olympic team cause she refused the testing