Most people probably agree with Cuepee but they don't want to be emotionally badgered with the blood of dead kids on their hands.
But since they also don't want to be seen as advocating for the elimination of women's sports, they just have to stay out of this thread. There are no simple solutions.
Surely there are some good think pieces on this subject though. Have none been posted here?
Here is one I will read later. Going straight to substack: The Dishonest Trans Women in Sports Debate: Trans women have a natural advantage, so what?
I imagine calling cis women 'XX women' is only slightly less problematic than 'bio-women'.

There is no other option in my example.

Prior versions of the tech could not win or compete.

New versions of the tech have advanced past the ability of any able bodied participant to compete.

And somewhere in between, there are a range of what we would call 'competitive' tech.

When you have officials 'as you VERY CLEARLY say, examining them and making an assessment to CHOOSE where on the spectrum of competitiveness they will ALLOW the tech enhanced person to compete, that destroys the entire premise of competition.

You may try to do some type of semantic nitpick on the words 'toggle up and toggle down' but when they Officials can choose version 4 that allows for generally no better than 4th place or version 1 that allows for World records to be shattered they are doing exactly that.


If you saw the movie the Incredibles that is exactly what they are lampooning here.




it is 100% applicable. The Father, Mr Incredible is telling his son to not run so fast (which he can) so that he wins showing others had no chance, and not run so slow it looks comical. To toggle his speed to give the ILLUSION of competitiveness but to then win.


Your position is 'if that was a Commission instead telling Dash what speed
he could run and as long as they told him he had to scale back so as to remain in the competitive range' that is ok with you. As long as the Commission decides it.

That is absurd. You have become the joke of the cartoonist was lampooning there and prove you don't care about what MAKES a competition which is that it is the 'competitors determining who wins' and not some third party.

Cuepee,
You should probably stop telling people that they've become the joke of memes and cartoons fwiw.
Eta: substack piece basically says nothing, provides no solutions, and says that all sides in the debate are dishonest. I like it.

I have said exactly this all along and will always agree to disagree on areas of opinion such as what others might value or rank.

What I will not accept is a redefinition of the word 'competition' as a matter of opinion which is what is being done here.

Words do have meaning and 'competition' in the context of Competitive Sport has meaning and it EXLCUDES 3rd parties deciding outcomes that the participants cannot overcome and it excludes anyone bringing a specific or unique advantage to the playing field denied to the other participants.


That said I also understand that words and language can change if enough people simply accept the new definitions long enough.

And i think there absolutely is a very active campaign to redefine 'competitive sport' to include those things not currently included and it may succeed. I think that is driven by a 'good will' desire that sees 'inclusiveness' as simply the higher ideal or more important.

For those of us who will never agree that 'competitive sport' must be decided by the competitor on a fair playing field, or form of competitive sport will not exist and as I have said about the 'road to hell...', I suspect all sport called competitive sport will cease to exist.

The good willed and well intentioned will not buy that end product in enough volume to save it, just as I would not.

I have loved MMA since its inception and I would not watch Fallon Fox, a prior CIS Male who tried MMA and failed miserably, and who transitioned as an adult male and starting smashing CIS female competitors who were clearly more technical and skilled by simply over powering them and clubbing them.

And she would revel later in her interviews upon learning the CIS woman had a fractured skull (something that is NOT common amongst players in a level playing field of MMA) that "she loved fracturing the skulls of these CIS women who talked **** about her competing in MMA'.

Fallon Fox ascendance upon transition almost immediate to one of the top orgs for MMA fighters when as a CIS male he could never get close, shows what the biological advantage confers that the other does not have.


IF others are going to argue that is 'competitive' solely if a Commission says it is, and that is their definition fine. But I suspect the sport dies at that point. I know many fans boycotted watching her.

I believe if you have a future Olympic Soccer team from a country willing to entice certain males to cheat and declare and cross over so they can win gold (as certain countries had full internalized govt sponsored cheating for steroid use just so they could win) and that team that was never competitive prior, with just the addition of two or more competitive CIS males declaring they are Trans, now dominates the top US or any other top female team that is still all CIS, no one will respect the results or care to watch the sport.


Peoples usual counter to this is 'oh you and your fantasy situations' as if that could not happen and has not happened in parallel ways in the past when you have rules, or a lack thereof, to not prevent it.

Leaving things wide open to abuse on the belief it will not happen is foolish and bad management all around.

The Fallon Fox stuff sounds legitimately messed up and why do cis women fight her? Just for the paycheck?
Also: is it ok to judge mma fans?

The common rationalization here is that most deny CIS gals lose anything. That the playing field is fair to them as long as you consider a playing field to include other factors like 'inclusiveness, depression/happiness, etc'.

Once you accept a playing field does include those other elements and weight them accordingly then any loss of physical ability to compete is offset' and thus... 'FAIR'.


the reason for this rationalization, as i see it, is a recognition that if you simply brute force allow the Transwoman to compete but allow it to be said to be an 'unfair playing field' that too, just as exclusion does, could cause depression in diminishing the value of the win.

So step one is to say it is a 'fair playing field' if/when they compete.

Step two is 'redefine what a fair playing is' to make sure it holds up.


Thus your 'paying financial compensation' to the CIS women who are harmed or excluded will NEVER be acceptable to this group, as it would be considered accepted proof that a disadvantage was created and some suffered harm as a result and they are in full on rationalization mode to ensure that is never recognized. Not one IOTA.

Why messed up?

Those who advocate for Fallon Fox savaged those saying she should not be fighting CIS Women.

Any org that denied her competition would be similar savaged as Transphobic.

Here is the post I quoted earlier of her delighting in the news she had 'fractured the skull of her opponent who had made comments upon hearing she was going to be allowed to compete in the division that 'she thought that was not right or fair'.

Messed up because she's bragging about giving people skull fractures (apparently) and messed up that she is allowed to do that.
Like when this thread started people were bringing up mma and I didn't think that was a real thing that happened. (Trans women fighting cis women).
Cis women should just decide to not fight her but I get there is money involved.

And no one answers why 'Recreational Sport' cannot satisfy a TransAthlete.

Recreational Sport is not devoid of competition or results or the thrill of victory.

I created a co-ed Softball team at my company where we gay/straight, male/female, black/brown/white participants on our team that entered the league.

We tried very hard to win and took great pride in our wins. Most teams stuck to the required bare minimum of 3 required females on the team and fielded to play to increase their chances to be league champs whereas our team was just over 50% female due to our office makeup and we were fine with that.

We knew we were not going to be league champs but we were still competitive enough to have a ton of fun and feel that thrill of competition.


I believe that there is only a tiny segment within the Trans 'Sports' grouping that would not be just fine with this accommodation where inclusiveness, happiness/fun, and other factors alongside 'competition' mattered.

A tiny percent might want to 'test themselves as transwoman against CIS women and their records' and they might very well feel sad/great depression/suicidal if not allowed.

I just don't think that is a reason to destroy the 'competitive' aspect of CIS women sport and all the 'unintended consequences that could spawn for CIS women who find themselves now having gone from 'best in the world', 'record setters', 'stars' to 'unable to compete or even close to winning'.

Had Laurel Hubbard, who I highlight as an example here, at age 20 and in his CIS Male prime when he was setting records as a CIS Male been allowed to cross then, the very next day women's records would have been shattered and every CIS women who had spent her entire sporting life pursuing greatness, top finishes and records would find themselves no longer competitive. Not even close.

She still was able to instantly win 2 silver medals at Top world events despite being decades past her competitive CIS male prime.

Not just that, 20 years of CIS women contestants coming up the ranks would see records they were not even near competing with. 20 years of disenfranchisement for them unless someone believes that 'records' and an 'ability to even be within competitive range to aspire to them' do not matter.

It took 20 years for the first cisfemale (from China) to break, then CIS Male Laurel's record while in that same 20 years other CIS males outpaced that record too, meaning if another crossed over that CISwomen, even as they improved would never have a chance.

There is a willful blindness or casual dismissal of any of this mattering with most time a general handwave saying 'if it not reality today we should not make rules to prevent it tomorrow. Just let it play out knowing we allow it to happen if it does go there.'

Pure folly.

And what I absolutely see as the 'road to hell, paved with good intentions', by most.

Not all, as some are just mischievous and dishonest with an agenda, but I think the vast majority are simply 'well intentioned' and not thinking it through.

None of the people I am embroiled with here would agree it is messed up nor that CIS women should basically boycott the sport (which is what they would have to do if offered her as an opponent they refused).

They are arguing the CIS women would be being transphobic as long as the Commission ruled it was in the rules for her to compete. There argument is that it is the 'ruling' that makes it fair and not the attributes.

And it not "apparently" I can dig up video interviews where not only is she repeating the twitter comment but embracing and elaborating on it.

But it should not take a Transwoman brute forcing and shattering CIS womans skulls to expose the flaw, the 20 year past his prime powerlifter should also tell you how unfair the playing field is being distorted.

This prior highlighted rugby transfemale



shown in some videos dragging 3 or more females across the field until enough more join to bring her down, who is cited by many as key to their team making the world championships should also be considered.

One transplayer tilting a playing field of 15 aside.

Ok, but what if it does upset them?

Yuck, Cuepee doubling down on thinking cis should be capitalized as CIS. Better than his “bio women, but still pretty indicative of the utter lack of ability to incorporate even basic terminology when informed it is wrong.

Cuepee has suffered too much blunt force drama arguing with ToothSayer and IHIV, it's rubbing off. Don't remember him/her/they being this obtuse in the past.

You're projecting feelings onto cis women athletes that I'm not sure they have. It's similar to how Charles Barkley has been saying for a long time that gay people playing pro sports is a much bigger deal to non athletes because nba/nfl etc players have spent their whole life in locker rooms with 100s of teammates and get that some of them were probably gay. Athletes themselves, when they speak up, do not seem to voicing concerns about losing things to trans individuals but rather against trans exclusion.

I like Cuepee but I'm sad I never got to know him before.

again the biggest defense I have seen is "lol like you watch womens sports"

actually, I do watch WNBA especially in layoffs and collegiate final fours since they run offenses, have to rely on less PnR execution (college at least) and more on precision and you could make it more of an xs and os game, its why I always favored zone in womens game if you could get that type of activity (personally my philosophy) whiel the womens game has gotten more and more athletic and a bit more mult dimensional, its still diff than the mans game while being kidna hte same, being able to run the same offense liek princeton but its just two diffferent feels altho acton are the same , etc


you guys saying they should be allowed are, in my eyes, saying **** womens sports in general who cares, and then the your other defense is "lol sports who cares" I dont get why saying you dont care is a credible defense in some eyes.

Yeah, I sort of cringe when people bring logic into a conversation like this. If your sidewalk is wet, it's completely reasonable to conclude that it has rained even though it doesn't follow from "if it rains the sidewalk will be wet." The truth is science and really just common sense require you to make these reasonable, slant implications all the time to avoid simply being silent on everything.

I definitely agree

"The view that machines cannot give rise to surprises is due, I believe, to a fallacy to which philosophers and mathematicians are particularly subject. This is the assumption that as soon as a fact is presented to a mind all consequences of that fact spring into the mind simultaneously with it. It is a very useful assumption under many circumstances, but one too easily forgets that it is false." Alan Turing

But the commission is not making a decision based on who ends up winning or what place the bladed athlete gets, it's making a decision based on how the blade tech compares to human physiology. The reason for the decision is what's important.

It's like if I choose to eat chicken or steak based on what I want to eat that night but you keep saying that I am choosing what sort of animal should die for my meal. It really just misses the point. Why decisions are made is a very important factor in determining their fairness.

That's a complete lie. The argument is that when the discussion is about trans rights conservatives suddenly pretend to be the biggest backers and protectors of women's athletics when in reality they were against the civil rights act and title IX and are still working on gutting them today. So if you look at all of their positions it is easy to conclude they are motivated by a simple dislike of trans people.

Yes, you're quite right. I once believed it was, and that formed a bad habit I fall back into once in a while.

No, I don't think they are, but it's a little difficult to recognize some of the positions in this thread with the way the conversation is going. For my part, when I was wasting my time discussing this with Cuepee (I've pretty much given up on this discussion now), it was about 8-12 year old girls, who Cuepee apparently thinks also need to provide sex verification. I don't think your proposal really helps with this age group, but you may be like me (and I suspect a lot of people) in not thinking 8-12 year old girls needing to be part of this in the first place.

I'm not sure why they'd be worried about that, since no one is being emotionally badgered with the blood of dead kids on their hands. Perhaps you mistakenly think that's what's going on right now, but people who are saying that Cuepee doesn't care about trans girls are simply doing so to show him the problem with his assertion that others don't care about "humiliating women and girls and eliminating them from sport at any serious level".

Holy ****, dude. I'm talking to you about your assertion that people don't care about "humiliating women and girls and eliminating them from sport at any serious level", and you take that off into a 14 paragraph novella about the definition of the word "competition". None of that is relevant to my post. Are you incapable of seeing the issue here, or just unable to back down from something you've said?

Oh, and as uke has kindly pointed out to both of us - cis, not CIS.

i don't know what liberals or conservatives views are I was saying from when I read this discussions thats what i thought I see. and of course the last statement about being against trans rights has been discussed a lot in this topic I think.

we have trans haters whoa re gonna hate because of hatred then we have trans defenders who also dont believe they should participate

I mean.... you understand that we can tell you're lying right? No reasonable person would agree that "lol you don't watch women sports" is a fair summary of anyone's argument.

Based on the impact on the RESULTS of the participants.

Once they start winning or get close to winning then it becomes an issue that has to be litigated in court.

If the tech enabled athlete cannot win and is not close to winning it is easy to say 'obviously there is no advantage or he would be winning' and thus allow to be compete to be inclusive.

It is a flawed way to look at it to being with but when a COmmission or Court sees no harm they tend to defer to the inclusion. But as soon as 'harm' (able bodied) being able to compete is threatened they are forced to revisit 'if the tech NOW has an advantage that was not present prior'.

Again a mistake as I said if you use proper logic and consider that Tech will always improve and you rightly consider the extreme examples of 'how you will rule when it does'.


Again I offer 5 versions of blade tech that has advanced over a decade. 1 the tech athlete puts up no competitive times. Versions 2, 3 and 4 the times are competitive from the bottom of the winning results to the top Record breaking result. Version 5 allows the athlete to run 3X faster than any able bodied human.

In your view they are ONLY considering 2, 3 and 4 and have to pick which to go with and thus lock the athletes into a range of results. Option 5 would be seen as unfair.

At no point is Tech 5 considered absent of results, they approve it, the person hits the field and finishes 3 times faster than any able bodied human and they say 'ya that is good'. We checked the tech out in a bubble absent actual performance and found no advantage, this this guy running 3 times faster than Usain bolt is just normal phenom.

it has NOTHING to do with the tech giving him an advantage.

No, I literally just said that that is not what's being considered. I don't know how else to rephrase this that doesn't end with you just making up what was said. If you ever decide you want to debate what others are writing instead of what's in your head, I'll still be lurking this thread.