Woke DD and women in sports

I'm 45. I remember watching athletics when women did not pole vault, ran 3000m instead of 5000m, did not have a hammer throw, did not run a steeplechase, had a pentathlon (and we still don't have a full decathlon). I may be missing a few, but parity has only very recently come close.

It's not been that long since women could compete in a lot of sports. Think of the Boston marathon and the woman who entered illegally and was rugby tackled down and dragged off, by men. This wasn't hundreds of years ago it was late 1960s. Women have fought on her behalf for the right to compete and now we are giving it away in less than 50 years.
kathrineswitzer.com/1967-boston-marathon-the-real-story/

No, not penis/vagina, then those XY people who have had cosmetic surgery to flay and invert their penises are not excluded from women's spaces as they should be given their offending patterns are no different to any other men.

XX/XY, with exceptions only for those XYs who were born with DSDs that cause a mismatch between genotype and phenotype.

It would be so much easier if sports (and changing rooms and prisons etc) were all just recategorised as
Penis
Vagina

There is a bar in Manchester that doesn’t have any words on its toilet doors, just cartoons of a penis and a vagina.

Mack Beggs recognised the advantage he held over the women he had been competing against because of the testosterone he takes. In spite of the knowledge that he'd be at a disadvantage vs men due to going through female puberty, he still campaigned (successfully) to be allowed to compete in the category he felt would be more fair.

Depending on where they're competing and what sport they're competing in it can be really difficult for transmen to compete at all due to anti-doping laws as each individual sports federation or organisation decide on their own eligibility for trans athletes. For professional athletes to take tesosterone they'd also have to apply for a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) from the World Anti-Doping Agency and fulfil any other criteria the governing board demanded. So it's a bit tricky as they can either take testosterone and fulfil the checklist under regular monitoring or they can compete without any testosterone and have a really hard time.

I feel there's probably fewer transmen at professional levels due to all of the hoops they have to jump through, which is fair as it could be very easy for them to abuse testosterone while competing, but it also makes it very difficult for transmen who just want to take the testosterone they need to transition while competing in a sport they're passionate about.

Yes, but Mack Beggs competes against women -- or used to, not sure if still does.

Also not exactly fair, given that women are not allowed to dope with testosterone.

There are a few transmen in sport, they get talked about a lot less though as everyone sees them as at a disadvantage in Mens sports. Patricio Manuel in boxing, Chris Mosier in triathlon, Mack Beggs in wrestling and Harrison Browne who has now retired from professional ice hockey are just a few.

Edited to add: having googled myself, I see there are several similar things going on at the moment. Some aren't doing too well. This one was started today and it progressing quickly.

I think the one that most brings home male advantage to me is the shot putt world record.

For men it is 23.12 meters
For women it is 22.63 meters.

Sounds pretty close, right? Until you remember the men's shot putt weighs almost twice as much as the women's, 7.26 kilograms (16lbs) as opposed to 4 kilograms (8.8lbs).

I don't know if this has been posted yet but there's an unmentionable thing you might all be interested in, if you know what I mean. Developing quite quickly. Google is your friend.

ErrolTheDragon

Is it the one with the increased muscle mass and definition in their legs compared to the equally fit looking but smaller thigh and calf muscles? Or is that just a visual trick because they are very tall and if any biological woman of that height would have the same muscle mass in their legs?

I have to admit only recently did I realise the male advantage in athletic type sports. I used to cycle when younger and took it back up recently (40 now). Initially I was aggrieved when the middle aged men I would turn up to ride with would automatically assume I would be the slowest (I wasnt). It was only when I started looking at trying to improve that I realised, for example, a good V02 max for a 40YO female is that of a 65YO male. To be honest I was shocked and then decided that I had been unfair on taking humbridge to the men's assumptions cos really all they were thinking is 'if she is better than me I must be shite'!!!! Cant find the Garmin one that I used but this illustrates it pretty well..www.verywellfit.com/what-is-vo2-max-3120097

That’s a hard one... is it ‘legs akimbo’, front and centre?

Tell your daughter that you'll support her views that TWAW if she can't pick out which one is the male cyclist in that Dutch team photo.

The one on here, perhaps?

www.facebook.com/NatalieVanGoghPage/

Yes - the child rearing thing isn't a binary. Some women aren't good at it, some blokes are. Just like most other occupations etc.

women as a class are more likely to be temperamentally suited to, or interested in, childrearing.

Maybe, maybe not, but infinitely more likely to be physically suited to childbearing. That's the inescapable bit. And that's the bit that shapes the female body differently from the male.

OP, I was wondering if you'd seen this link. Might be worth a shot from this angle, if you haven't tried that.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3723819-Boys-women-com

I used to have a snapshot of the picture, now I can't find it online!

Tell your daughter that you'll support her views that TWAW if she can't pick out which one is the male cyclist in that Dutch team photo.

and any mention of female biology being suited for giving birth and nourishing babies was utter heresy.

Seriously? Couldn't you even point out that Male biology is utterly unsuited to those tasks?
Good thing we now live in the era of MumsNet feminism, at least in part 'By parents, for parents' and as such unapologetically realistic about biology.

I know it’s not spots but this report made me want to cry.

www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-jury-rules-against-dad-trying-to-save-his-7-year-old-from-gender-transition

The mum is playing god.

and any mention of female biology being suited for giving birth and nourishing babies was utter heresy.

There is still a lot of angst around this sort of question, just look at any discussion of whether women as a class are more likely to be temperamentally suited to, or interested in, childrearing. Discussions like that can get pretty heated.

Women will, both on average and at at the extreme top of the range, always be physically disadvantaged compared to men in many respects. This is the trade-off for having bodies evolved to do the awesome physical tasks of growing, birthing and feeding a baby. Our bodies aren't 'lesser' - they're great for an incredibly physically demanding challenge which men can't do at all.

^ Indeed. Back in the 70's feminism was all about "there are no physical differences between men and women" and any mention of female biology being suited for giving birth and nourishing babies was utter heresy. It's one of the reasons I turned my back on feminism, back then, because I could not buy into that view.

Like @Goosefoot I was also in the military at the same age and the fittest women were only ever at the level as the unfittest male when it can came to strength, runnjng, weighted marches etc.

Men are just stronger in that area due to their biology and however they "feel" inside doesn't change that 🤷🏻‍♀️

I wonder whether this infographic would be meaningful to her: