news

I wasn't aware I was justifying anything, I'm just trying to form an opinion that I can hold moving forward.

It seems I've caused offence here and that was never my intent.

You raise an interesting point about the burden of proof, as you put it.

I'm not entirely certain about your point, well made as it is (I like the Bigfoot analogy), that the default position should be that there is no advantage when there's lots of proof that, in certain activities, men have physical advantages over women.

I guess I just want to have a solid idea of when or if those advantages do in fact disappear to a point that it doesn't matter any more.

But as you've pointed out I'm really not sure how that can be proved, which leaves the argument open for those who do want total bans or whatever to argue that they will always be there.

As to the point about infringement of rights etc, I certainly want anyone to be able to do and be celebrated in whatever they put their time and effort into. I live with three women, all of whom have stated that they feel their rights to compete on an even playing field could be negated by trans athletes with possible advantages from their previous gender (I'm sorry if my phrasing is offensive, I don't mean it to be). How should this be answered? I'm not a woman and I've been slightly stumped tbh.

When it comes to sport by sport bans, the one I always have brought up to me is strength based sports, the skeletal differences, bone mass, differing physiological differences of muscle mass and such is often cited to me in these conversations.

Are these things that are completely negated through hormone therapy?

Thank you for engaging with me and not attacking me for asking, I really appreciate it.