AIBU to think that this child should be allowed to compete as a girl? Transgender topic.

[Cassort]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/48800075/transgender-skater-fighting-to-compete?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3SHOZZproHs8lkaYi9tz5VcKPnE9xQRt7AR8m8rRPu5lPTJkp1m1808Os

It's an 11 year old (born male) ice skater. There's a little video where to me she looks female.

I daren't put this on the feminism board, but AIBU to think that in 20 years time we will look back in shame at how we have treated transgendered individuals?

I just put myself in those shoes for 5 hours. What on earth would I think? How much hate would I feel? How fucked up/strange/weird would I feel?

I have a very uneasy feeling in my soul about the vociferous opposition to transgenderism on MN currently. It doesn't sit comfortably with me.

I came across this story just now and it's typical of I suppose what the feminist MNers want transgender people to face. I.e. that they can't...

Should she compete as a girl? Or AIBU?

I think denying her to compete with other girls is going to be better for her mental well-being than it will harm anyone potentially totally losing to her in a competition

Yes, never mind the mental well-being of the girls being beaten by unfair advantage, they just have to be nice and happy for this child.

NO, as has been said this child can compete as a girl in the boys competition where they have no biological advantage.

There was a study I recall (a simple ball throw) and in it, differences between male and females show as early as 6 years old, I'm sure someone will have more knowledge than me on this study, if they would be willing to expand as I can't remember the details.

11 year old girls are not weaker/worse/inferior to 11 year old boys. But what I read here from the majority is that girls are weaker than boys. Not in my world.

Dh when aged 11 could beat all the female competitors into their local hill race including adult female running club members...I doubt very much you'd find an 11 year old girl who could do the reverse.
Whether we like it or not, there are differences.

Surviving

Here you go:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02701367.1986.10608088

This study evaluated the influence of biological and environmental variables on the differences between the throwing performance of 5-year-old girls and boys. A total of 100 children (48 girls, 52 boys) were tested on throwing for distance and rated on two components of throwing formtrunk rotation, and foot action. Children were evaluated on eight biological characteristicsheight, weight, body mass index, ponderal index, sum of four skinfolds, body diameters, arm and leg girths, and somatotypesand four environmental characteristicsolder brother, older sister, presence of adult male, and playing with older children. Results indicated that boys threw farther than girls and exhibited more mature form. Boys had greater joint diameters than girls, a smaller sum of four skinfolds, and more estimated arm muscle. Boys were more likely to play regularly with older children. Girls' throwing performance was only 57% that of boys, but when throwing was adjusted for a linear composite of biological variables, girls' throwing performance increased to 69% of boys'. Thus, while the differences in most motor performance tasks between boys and girls prior to puberty have been attributed to environmental factors, some of the differences in throwing performance appears to reflect biological characteristics, even as early as 5 years of age.

Whether we like it or not, there are differences.

Yes, Norf seems to have taken strange offence over biological reality. Men and women are - shock horror - different.

Men are overall stronger, taller, faster, longer-legged, more powerful etc than women. Hence women's sports, because when women compete against women, that difference is utterly irrelevant precisely because there are no males competing there.

Yet Norf thinks that is wrong? And the way to deal with those biological facts is to add men to women's sports?

It's so far beyond baffling I can't even see the word any more.

Ive been involved with sports where girls compete against boys until around 10. The girls often beat the boys at 9 or 8. By 11 it was changing considerably and by 14 the differences were stark.

11 year old girls are not weaker/worse/inferior to 11 year old boys.

The only correct statement here is that girls are not inferior. Of course hey aren't, they are just different to boys.

But what I read here from the majority is that girls are weaker than boys.

They are.

Not in my world.

Then you do not live in this world.

My 13 year old DD is tall and strong. Her older brother was far stronger than her at that age and would have wiped the floor with her in competitive sports (although he was shorter!). She is far more flexible than he has ever been though. Different, not inferior.

I have no problem whatsoever with males wanting to live as females. I'm happy to call them "she" if they wish and I am in the group that has no issue sharing cubicled toilets or changing rooms with them. I don't agree with them competing as biological females in sport though.

@DeRigueurMortis

That's the one!

My bad it was 5 not 6.

I do know a girl who was good enough to play in the school 1st or 2nd XI boys cricket team. I imagine they arranged special permission for this. I doubt they would have allowed a boy to play in a girls' team though.

In DS' football division there was an all girls team with connections to a local academy, so properly trained and coached. They were good and the team to beat. That all started to change at the age of 13/14, they were still technically superior but got beaten on physicality, speed and strength.

Wasn't there a football match between the USA women and a boys U15 team, where the women were beaten?

My dd played in the schools football team in year 6 and parents complained as she took a boys place
Fwiw

But there are biological differences in every single person.
There's no way that I could compete against a 6' female.

Should that 6' female be banned from competing against me as she has an unfair biological advantage?
I'm not sure why people are so incensed about trans women competing in sports?
There are always going to be differences in talent, strength, height, agility, dexterity, co-ordination etc.

What about A levels? Apparently guys have shown better ability in STEM subjects, girls in languages. Again - should there be a set number of places for girls and a set number for boys with the sexes segregated?

Why pick on sport alone?

Why pick on sport at all.

I am saddened to read the opinions on this thread. For all you are advocating for women's rights, you are in so doing denying transgender people their rights. I personally think that is transphobia.

I'm not sure why people are so incensed about trans women competing in sports?

I don't think anyone is incensed about transwomen competing in sports, it's just that they should compete in their own category (male) not against women.

For all you are advocating for women's rights, you are in so doing denying transgender people their rights.

What rights do you think transgender people should have that we are denying to them?

Also, Thump, do you understand why sports are segregated by sex?

Thump the point is a 6 ft woman is a very big lady even against an equally fit 6ft man he would have an advantage.
Stronger, different bone structure.

If you are happy to get rid of women sports bash in because that's what will happen!
If trans compete in women's sectors then why bother having womens sectors.

Being effeminate doesn't make your smaller, weaker, or change the angle of the thigh bones into your pelvis.

But there are biological differences in every single person.
There's no way that I could compete against a 6' female.

Not necessarily. In gymnastics (for example) or pairs skating, a 6' woman would be at a distinct disadvantage.

That's why certain body types are advantageous to certain sports.
The male body type would have an advantage over the female in every sport (with the possible exception of women's gymnastics).

What about A levels? Apparently guys have shown better ability in STEM subjects, girls in languages. Again - should there be a set number of places for girls and a set number for boys with the sexes segregated?

Nope. Girls outperform boys on all subjects including sciences at GCSE: www.theguardian.com/education/2018/aug/22/girls-top-science-gcse-deterred-study-higher-level-ifs-report

Actually thinking about it, I'm not even sure that women would be better than men at women's gymnastics, were men allowed to perform on the same apparatus.

There's no way that I could compete against a 6' female.
Should that 6' female be banned from competing against me as she has an unfair biological advantage?

They have the same physical biology though. Muscle and bone density, etc.

If you can't tell the difference between a 6ft woman and a man you have a problem. My 18 year old DS, who is not 6ft, could beat her at anything involving strength and probably speed. My niece is 6ft tall.

For all you are advocating for women's rights, you are in so doing denying transgender people their rights. I personally think that is transphobia.

In allowing transgender women to compete against females you are denying females their rights. Clearly you are not in favour of women's rights.

YABU.

Many sports have different divisions, I can't think anyone would think it sensible for a heavyweight boxer to fight a featherweight of any sex or gender

There will always be inequalities in life, we all need to find our niche.

Nope. Girls outperform boys on all subjects including sciences at GCSE:
So - surely that means boys are at a disadvantage then? Again - why not segregate the sexes in that case?

If you can't tell the difference between a 6ft woman and a man you have a problem.
And if you can't tell the difference between a 5' woman and a 6' woman, you have a problem.

I shouldn't have said inequalities, things we would dearly wish we could but for some reason out of our control we can't, would be better.