Yes washoe, we know about Laurel Hubbard.
Yes, we know the competitive issue is in one direction (men who have transitioned). But, as is often the case, the issue is a little more complex than your summary as you jump into a thread.

As for this...

Did you read the article you linked? As far as I understand, she has won some international competitions, but has no world championships - she is not even close to dominating. She is ranked 7th in her division by the IWF.

She is an example worth discussing, and has already been much discussed, but let's stick to the facts when doing so.

I also don't think people fully grasp the admittedly confusing world of sports regulation, as evident by how a lot of arguments are made.

There isn't "one regulation for all sports". For the Olympics you have an organizing committee, the IOC. This committee chooses which international association which will represent the interests of the sport in question at the games. Beyond some general principles, it is mainly this association which specify the rules through which athletes can compete. Most sports have far more associations than one.

So if you have an issue with how weightlifting candidates quality for the Olympics, the International Weightlifting Federation regulations is where you go to quibble.

This also means that some issue in one given sport isn't automatically an issue in all sports.

There are no contradictions. There is your lack of comprehension.

I do not control the history books or record lists. I don't think you do either.

Some are simply lists. The name and record and there is no room for footnotes and none are made.

Where there are footnotes or room then for sure, use them. I would think it would and should be denoted.

In both incidents the records should be recorded accurately as per history in that moment in time.

Your recollection is you buying your own BS and what you have done consistently in this thre3ad. Assuming my position, condemning it and fighting against and then, as in this post above realizing you were wrong about it later.

Of course I support it immediately.
The only thing we discussed along these lines was me saying 'I hope punitive damages in these lawsuits are awarded RARELY'. You acted as if my opinion that they should be 'rare' was the worst type of discrimination and started comparing it to segregation.

I guess your view being 'punitive damages should be AMPLE!" and you not able to accept we can have differing opinions, agree to disagree, and move on.

Which is EXACTLY my position, now agreed to by uke, 10 pages after the arguments.

(the second 10 page dispute he NOW agrees with me on)

And this above is exactly it.

uke and Blades have been so eager to find and fight against that type of person that they were happy to assume and create it, in me if that is what it would take.

the above post is the perfect encapsulation. Yup, the "social conservative", "transphobe" QP was just hidden and they outed him even if they had to make up arguments he never said and attributed them to him.

The 3 major contentions that QP dares to hold that had to be attacked:

- I hope lawsuits in this emerging area award punitive damages "Rarely" until the law is clearer and more understood by all. (ZOMG how dare he say "rarely")

- I think Transwomen in sport have a competitive advantage that needs to be re-assessed (something that is happening as we speak and uke says he now agrees with)

- I think Point in Time historical references should be denoted factually as the person competed in that time frame and not adjusted (outside footnotes) based on current identification and feelings only. (uke now agrees with this too)


Yup, just like 57 on Red. The same.

As i've pointed out prior, from a pure math and pure statistical approach, the percent of transwomen in sport compared to the high level of success they achieve speaks to an unfair playing field.

In sport historically it would speak to steroid abuse. In poker it speaks to any of various forms of cheating.

It is exactly how math and statistics identify outlier populations that are almost certainly enjoying some kind of cheat to win at these disproportionate levels.



Trans Athletes Are Posting Victories and Shaking Up Sports
Transgender athletes at all levels of sport are winning medals, spurring a contentious debate over the future of gendered competition.

can't it be both?
Like if gender is both a social convention and also a state of mind, does it really matter?

What's already printed is already printed and is irrelevant. If you are writing now about Caitlyn Jenner's past, you should refer to her as she, and if that confuses someone you can either use a footnote or not care (confused people generally have access to Google and can get unconfused). In this very forum, you used he to refer to some past events of a trans woman. Are you claiming that your posts were records none of us control or that you were incapable of explaining more fully and so used he to avoid confusion?

sure. But there is one convention we have adopted as a society. If you read any article about Hubbard past they talk about HER past events when SHE competed as a male, not his past events when he competed as a male.

Ok, that is good. If you agree with me that trans people should immediately have unfettered access of all washrooms and changerooms as a matter of law and that on top of that organizations should include further safe spaces for trans people who may not feel comfortable, then great!

I really did not get that vibe. I'd normally ask you to quote it as I don't remember you saying this, but I'll admit the argument was sufficiently long ago that this would a somewhat unreasonable request so I'll just accept that indeed you have consistently meant this all along.

I don't think this is fair. The point of contention was never whether the official historical recordings should change their names, this was a pretty new introduction into the thread. The point of contention was your use of pronouns, in the present, when referring to a trans person's past.
In all cases we agree her past should be identified as competing as a male and no need to change any record books, but you have evolved the choice of pronouns you use when referencing her past.

Are you saying that the phrase "when Laurel Hubbard was a cis male" does NOT mean that there was some point in time at which Laurel Hubbard was cis?

Because I think that's a very simple implication of the phrase.

Or is the objection that you didn't say that Laurel Hubbard was once a cis male (you did)?

You aren't actually engaging with the argument. That's why I have to keep repeating it. Just state in a sentence or two what it is you're objecting to.

Just to be clear, I wasn't really commenting either way on the impact of Laurel Hubbard (and I don't know that you were suggesting I was; you may have simply been using my post as a jumping-off point). I just think the discussion would be helped by sticking with the facts, which washoe had wandered away from.

At the highest levels, I honestly don't know what the answer is. I believe you are in favour of biology being the decider of how someone competes. I think the IOC uses testosterone levels. That seems the more sensible approach, but I don't feel I know enough about the pros and cons to believe I know best on this.

Where we disagree, greatly, is that I think there should be a line where we start worrying about this, and I don't believe you do. For example when kids are 12 years old, I don't think we should be spending our time concerning ourselves about whether someone with a penis is playing on the grade 7 girls soccer team - especially in schools. For kids, I think the benefits of an inclusive environment far outweigh the potential for upsetting competitive balance.

So just to clarify you say its wrong to say Bruce Jenner was one of the greatest men's Olympic athletes ?
You want us to say
Bruce Jenner was on the greatest women's athletes?

I'd say Caitlyn not Bruce, but otherwise this is fine. However, it doesn't use any pronouns and thus avoids the issue we have been having. So assuming the subject is known I'd say "she was one of the greatest men's Olympic athletes" as opposed to "he was one...".

The reason is that we are all conversing today, in the present, and right now Caitlyn identifies as a women. So when we use a pronoun as a stand-in for her name, we use female pronouns. It is totally find to make explicit that she was competing in male olympics.

were you in a lady boy state of mind when you crafted this post?

She won a championship in samoa here. She is a winner and I would call it pretty much dominating the competition. As you said she is ranked 7th in the world. Do you have any idea how hard that is to be 7th best in the world? She wouldn't be 7th in the world or anywhere near it in the male category imo.

"Hubbard won the overall title with a lift of 268kg, with Stowers and Sipaia completing the podium on 261kg and 255kg"

For reference thats what the males were lifting "Tonga’s Aisake Tuitupou delivered a surprise result in the men’s over 109kg event as he delivered his country’s maiden weightlifting title at the Games by lifting 330kg."


Well anyways I looked into Hubbard, an interview is in the below link. I kinda like Hubbard after watching this.
She is kind of an idiot and got into a reckless driving accident. I can relate to that.

"The 41-year-old entered the women’s over 87kg competition in Samoa fresh from the name suppression being lifted that she had been charged careless driving causing injury after her vehicle fishtailed on a sharp bend near Queenstown in October 2018.

Hubbard pleaded guilty in January to the charge and had to pay a five-figure fee in compensation.

Hubbard's car had collided with another vehicle which was carrying an Australian tourist couple in their 60s.

The driver suffered a spinal injury and had to be hospitalised for 12 days in Dunedin."


"Hubbard was favourite to win the gold medal at last year's Commonwealth Games in the Gold Coast but had to withdraw mid-competition due to an elbow injury, which later required surgery."


https://www.insidethegames.biz/artic...s-samoan-stars


Here is an interview "Laurel Hubbard’s Olympic dream dies under the world’s gaze" https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...er-worlds-gaze

Great. But that's not what you said - you said she was dominating the sport. She's not. She's not even the best in the sport, let alone dominating it. Michael Phelps dominated his sport. Michael Jordan dominated his sport. Laurel Hubbard is not remotely close to dominating her sport.

This might seem an issue of semantics, but when you are going to propose something as extreme as the possibility that she might have DQed on purpose, I think it's important that the flaws in your foundation for that suggestion are pointed out.

No. But men and women are metaphysically distinct, as noted above.

Complex Question Fallacy. DUCY?

That was my immediate reaction to the question as well.

I hope our resident Language Police doesn't correct your capitalization of CIS.

#defundthelanguagepolice

In all seriousness: All persons are made in the image of God, and should be treated as such. But insisting on grammar minutae can be off-putting and cause more harm than good, in my opinion.

What are you babbling about?

That's great. And others may prefer a different convention, and shouldn't be scolded for that.

Guilt by Association Fallacy. DUCY?

(Uke on a roll for logic fails.)

What are the essential properties of man or woman and how did you determine them?