• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Biological male wins women’s cycling event

Mack Beggs went from a little known Texas trangender wrestler to a national celebrity overnight. It isn’t what he wanted, but it happened.
When Beggs captured the Texas University Interscholastic League (UIL) Class 6A girls 110-pound championship, he ignited an enormous debate about the fairness of a girl transitioning to a boy wrestling against female colleagues competing without the aid of testosterone.

Linky: http://usatodayhss.com/2017/transgender-teen-mack-beggs-wins-texas-state-wrestling-championship

Apparently he wanted to compete against the guys, but Texas rules required him to wrestle girls.
 
MysteryMen said:
1. This statement contradicts itself.

2. You knew this and you still cited them as a source in support of your position which you are keeping secret?
Click to expand...

What position am I keeping secret? I thought I was pretty clear on my position.
 
MysteryMen said:
I think you misunderstood the story. The child wrestling in Texas, while they see themselves as a boy, dress like a boy, and take testosterone, is biologically a girl. So that's why Texas made her wrestle girls. I thought that's what you and your ilk wanted? For biology to be the decisive factor?
Click to expand...

Discussed this issue the other day with my pretty liberal, left coast brother in law. He was not only of the opinion that a transitioning girl to boy should be barred from athletic competition as a girl (regardless of what state law requires) because of the obvious advantage there, but that they should also be barred from competing with the boys for the same reason (supplemental testosterone), which I thought was interesting. Basically, an all-around bar on trans participation in athletics due to the advantages of supplemental hormones, not just a ban on what is happening with this wrestler or guys who became girls but still retain all those muscle advantages of men. Only one man's opinion, of course, but it was fairly well thought out.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Discussed this issue the other day with my pretty liberal, left coast brother in law. He was not only of the opinion that a transitioning girl to boy should be barred from athletic competition as a girl (regardless of what state law requires) because of the obvious advantage there, but that they should also be barred from competing with the boys for the same reason (supplemental testosterone), which I thought was interesting. Basically, an all-around bar on trans participation in athletics due to the advantages of supplemental hormones, not just a ban on what is happening with this wrestler or guys who became girls but still retain all those muscle advantages of men. Only one man's opinion, of course, but it was fairly well thought out.
Click to expand...

1. You still haven't told us whether you think being transgender is a real psychological thing, despite being asked directly by multiple posters.

2. It would be pretty damn cruel to ban transgender children from competing in all sports. These are kids. Like I can't even adequately express in words how cruel this would be. If testosterone matters because it provides a competitive advantage, then let the child compete against others with similar levels of testosterone. If sex organs matter, then let the child compete against others with the same sex organs. But to fashion a rule that says that both matter is a results-oriented way to exclude transgender children from participating in the high school activities that their peers get to participate in.
 
MysteryMen said:
1. You still haven't told us whether you think being transgender is a real psychological thing, despite being asked directly by multiple posters.

2. It would be pretty damn cruel to ban transgender children from competing in all sports. These are kids. Like I can't even adequately express in words how cruel this would be. If testosterone matters because it provides a competitive advantage, then let the child compete against others with similar levels of testosterone. If sex organs matter, then let the child compete against others with the same sex organs. But to fashion a rule that says that both matter is a results-oriented way to exclude transgender children from participating in the high school activities that their peers get to participate in.
Click to expand...

1- Pardon me if I don't see every post or respond to every question. Is it a real psychological thing? I think some people have legitimate confusion, yes, absolutely. The question is what's the appropriate therapy. I think that sex change (or whatever the hell it's called these days) stems from the same mindset that drove so-called "sexual deviants" into the closet in the first place. Out of sight, out of mind. Make them a man or woman so that they'll be "fixed." It's a Frankenstein solution, and the official solution for homosexuals and others in countries such as Iran, where they can do something like that so they can claim to have no homosexuals and 100% manly men.

2- I don't care if it's cruel. Is it not cruel to others who are competing at a disadvantage? Their numbers are much higher than the one trans kid competing. It's a question of fairness, not cruelty.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
1- Pardon me if I don't see every post or respond to every question. Is it a real psychological thing? I think some people have legitimate confusion, yes, absolutely. The question is what's the appropriate therapy. I think that sex change (or whatever the hell it's called these days) stems from the same mindset that drove so-called "sexual deviants" into the closet in the first place. Out of sight, out of mind. Make them a man or woman so that they'll be "fixed." It's a Frankenstein solution, and the official solution for homosexuals and others in countries such as Iran, where they can do something like that so they can claim to have no homosexuals and 100% manly men.

2- I don't care if it's cruel. Is it not cruel to others who are competing at a disadvantage? Their numbers are much higher than the one trans kid competing. It's a question of fairness, not cruelty.
Click to expand...

How is it unfair to make a boy wrestle a biological girl who is receiving hormone treatment, as long as she wants to?
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Discussed this issue the other day with my pretty liberal, left coast brother in law. He was not only of the opinion that a transitioning girl to boy should be barred from athletic competition as a girl (regardless of what state law requires) because of the obvious advantage there, but that they should also be barred from competing with the boys for the same reason (supplemental testosterone), which I thought was interesting. Basically, an all-around bar on trans participation in athletics due to the advantages of supplemental hormones, not just a ban on what is happening with this wrestler or guys who became girls but still retain all those muscle advantages of men. Only one man's opinion, of course, but it was fairly well thought out.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's "fairly well thought out" to dismiss a trans boy as a girl on performance enhancing drugs.
 
I think that these conversations would go much better if people would do research before they venture into gross generalizations and common misconceptions about a topic they know very little about.
 
OK, I am going to clarify a couple things related to the difference between being transgender and gender dysphoria, because it is clouding a couple points that are being argued here, most importantly that being transgender is a purely mental thing.

Think of the difference between being transgender and having gender dysphoria as the difference between a square and a rhombus: all squares are rhombi, but not all rhombi are squares. Almost all people with gender dysphoria are transgender, but not all transgender people have gender dysphoria.

Gender dysphoria is diagnosed based on two main criteria. The first is having "a marked incongruence between one's experienced gender and assigned gender (by biological sex) of at least 6 month's duration." This incongruence must be manifested by at least two of the following:

  1. Incongruence between experienced gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics
  2. A strong desire to be rid of one's primary and/or secondary sex characteristics because of a marked incongruence with experienced gender
  3. A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender
  4. A strong desire to be of the other gender (or some other alternative gender different from assigned gender)
  5. A strong desire to be treated as the other gender
  6. A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender

Secondly, and most importantly, "the condition is associated with clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. Why that is important is that plenty of transgender people experience no distress from being trans. Many transition to their experienced gender and excel in their newfound comfort in their body. Without that distress, there is no gender dysphoria.

Being transgender is most likely is as natural as being gay, which is as natural as having blonde hair or brown eyes. The only thing we don't know is exactly what gene may carry this trait, or if their are prenatal developments that increase likelihood. Research is still preliminary as to the "why?" and "how?" What research has been rather unequivocal about is that being transgender is not itself a psychological disorder, and should not be considered as such.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
I think that these conversations would go much better if people would do research before they venture into gross generalizations and common misconceptions about a topic they know very little about.
Click to expand...

You must be new here
 
Why is it 'unequivocal' that it isn't a disorder? I have no psychology or medical degrees, but it would seem to me that if one's mind is at odds with the body one is given, then that is a disorder, it's not 'normal' (which doesn't mean it's not acceptable or fine or whatever), but it is something that is rare, outside of the norm, presents a challenge to healthy living for the individual, and often leads that individual to seek psychiatric or medical assistance. If that isn't a disorder, what is?
 
MysteryMen said:
How is it unfair to make a boy wrestle a biological girl who is receiving hormone treatment, as long as she wants to?
Click to expand...

I didn't necessarily agree with that part because I think the advantages of being a biological boy would *probably* offset the advantages of hormone treatment, but there is merit in thinking that any level of hormone treatment *may* create an unfair advantage, and there is merit in saying that there should just be an across the board ban so that you don't have to differentiate between cases where it was a biological boy competing as a girl versus a biological girl competing as a boy. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
 
AsesinoDeTortugas said:
OK, I am going to clarify a couple things related to the difference between being transgender and gender dysphoria, because it is clouding a couple points that are being argued here, most importantly that being transgender is a purely mental thing.

Think of the difference between being transgender and having gender dysphoria as the difference between a square and a rhombus: all squares are rhombi, but not all rhombi are squares. Almost all people with gender dysphoria are transgender, but not all transgender people have gender dysphoria.

Gender dysphoria is diagnosed based on two main criteria. The first is having "a marked incongruence between one's experienced gender and assigned gender (by biological sex) of at least 6 month's duration." This incongruence must be manifested by at least two of the following:

  1. Incongruence between experienced gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics
  2. A strong desire to be rid of one's primary and/or secondary sex characteristics because of a marked incongruence with experienced gender
  3. A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender
  4. A strong desire to be of the other gender (or some other alternative gender different from assigned gender)
  5. A strong desire to be treated as the other gender
  6. A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender

Secondly, and most importantly, "the condition is associated with clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. Why that is important is that plenty of transgender people experience no distress from being trans. Many transition to their experienced gender and excel in their newfound comfort in their body. Without that distress, there is no gender dysphoria.

Being transgender is most likely is as natural as being gay, which is as natural as having blonde hair or brown eyes. The only thing we don't know is exactly what gene may carry this trait, or if their are prenatal developments that increase likelihood. Research is still preliminary as to the "why?" and "how?" What research has been rather unequivocal about is that being transgender is not itself a psychological disorder, and should not be considered as such.
Click to expand...

Nice use of "rhombi" btw...

Upon reading all that, I'm not sure why that second point is the most important. Obviously, somehow that solidifies the definition of gender dysphoria and I get that much. But you seem to be saying that plenty of people are not distressed by being trans but still transition. Why would they transition if they weren't distressed enough to do so?

I also am reluctant to call something "natural" just because it exists. I mean, manic depression is a huge problem and very commonplace, but we still treat it. Same with schizophrenia. It seems to me like gender dysphoria is tieing itself to being gay in order to rid itself of the stigma of mental illness (and because there has been an enormous advancement in gay rights issues in recent years). That maybe made sense as a strategy 30 years ago. Not so much anymore. One can have a mental disorder these days and not be thought of as a pariah. Gender dysphoria would seem to have a lot more in common with body dysmorphic disorder or body integrity identity disorder.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Nice use of "rhombi" btw...

Upon reading all that, I'm not sure why that second point is the most important. Obviously, somehow that solidifies the definition of gender dysphoria and I get that much. But you seem to be saying that plenty of people are not distressed by being trans but still transition. Why would they transition if they weren't distressed enough to do so?

I also am reluctant to call something "natural" just because it exists. I mean, manic depression is a huge problem and very commonplace, but we still treat it. Same with schizophrenia. It seems to me like gender dysphoria is tieing itself to being gay in order to rid itself of the stigma of mental illness (and because there has been an enormous advancement in gay rights issues in recent years). That maybe made sense as a strategy 30 years ago. Not so much anymore. One can have a mental disorder these days and not be thought of as a pariah. Gender dysphoria would seem to have a lot more in common with body dysmorphic disorder or body integrity identity disorder.
Click to expand...

The rhombus is my favorite shape. If I can reference it, I will.

The second point is most important because pigeonholing all transgender people as having gender dysphoria would insinuate that being transgender is a psychological disorder, when the evidence has shown that not to be the case. The theory is that by providing services to those transgender people with gender dysphoria, you can eliminate the distress surrounding being trans and allow them to transition in a healthy, supportive environment.
 
See, here's the thing though. Disorder has a meaning already. You can't just cite a condition or concept that meets all of the criteria of a certain word, then say its not that word.

Also, acting like transitioning is the same for everyone and that the treatments are well vetted and uniform is also dishonest. There are widely varying levels of care, treatment and monitoring out there. None of them seem to be well researched, and a lot of them may simply be dangerous to the patient.
 
TheTwinAndreBen said:
See, here's the thing though. Disorder has a meaning already. You can't just cite a condition or concept that meets all of the criteria of a certain word, then say its not that word.
Click to expand...

You are correct. But being transgender does not necessarily meet the requirements of gender dysphoria.

(I didn't know if you were directing this at me or not)
 
I read your explanation, but it doesn't logically follow. However comfortable someone is now that they have taken whatever transition actions does not mean there was no disorder to begin with. It like saying there was an answer without a problem. Some sort of dysphoria to begin with or the individual would not have taken action to remedy it. Whether they are happy now or not is irrelevant.
 
I feel like the last few pages could be summarized as ELC doesn't believe in gender transitioning, ever, but rather than coming out and saying that, he's point to a number of dubious sources that seem to reach that conclusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top