Joe Rogan on Fallon Fox

[The Butcher]

If you haven't heard of Fallon Fox, she's a post-op transgender (male-to-female) MMA fighter. She's had a few fights in which she has dominated her natural born female opponents. Not very long ago, her story started getting national attention, and it has raised numerous questions as to the fairness of a former man fighting women.

Like him or not, like it or not, Joe Rogan is one of the most outspoken and well-known voices in the world of Mixed Martial Arts. So when he voiced his opinion on Fox on a recent edition of his podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience, people took notice. Here's the video, I'll let you judge his comments for yourself:

[youtube]k6_7BOGUXHM&feature=player_embedded#![/youtube]

While very crudely stated, I think Joe has some well-reasoned arguments in there. I'm sure every MMA fan who is aware of this story has an opinion on it, and I'm curious as to what others think. Is Rogan a caveman or is he just saying what most people are thinking?

 

[Fizzy]

No fucking way should this "thing" be able to fight on a professional level against naturally born women. It was born a man, it went through puberty as a man, it has the build as a man, and it even fucking looks like a man. Blah blah blah, equality, good for you, i'm glad you're "following your heart" and I really don't give a fuck whether you want to be a pitcher or a catcher. I'm all for gay marriage and doing what you want with your body. If that's how you're comfortable, go for it 100%.

What I have a problem with is that this fucker thinks it can have a sex change and automatically be 100% equal to a women enough to the point where it thinks a fucking fist fight is a fair contest. Newsflash, you were born with male features, you were born with male bone structure, you were born with male hormones. Inverting your dick cannot change any of the aforementioned things. The fact that it thinks beating up women is an ok and fair thing should automatically send up a red flag. This isn't fair, this isn't safe, and this person should not be allowed to harm any women in the future. No way this shit should be sanctioned.

Sorry if I made it sound bad by referring to "it" as "it." I just have no respect for this piece of shit not because of its choice in life, but because it thinks its fair for it to go into an octagon and fight a naturally born women. I refuse to show respect for something like this. It's unacceptable and the only way i'll change my mind is if everything mentioned by Rogan and myself are proven wrong by a team of respected researchers. Until then, no fucking way. Totally unsafe.

 

[Slyfox696]

This is certainly a difficult topic. I haven't followed this story at all, so this is my first experience with it. Furthermore, I'm not going to listen to 7 minutes of Joe Rogan. So my comments come with an admittance to a certain bit of ignorance.

With that said, this is a very difficult situation. On one hand, I firmly believe sexuality exists far more in the mind than in the body. Assuming this person truly feels they are female, I understand and sympathize fully with her wanting to compete with women. She feels she is a woman, she wants to be treated as a woman.

The problem with this is her body does not agree with her mind. In other endeavors this does not matter, but in a combat sport, there are definite physical advantages for males over females. As much as I hate to say it, I do not believe this person should be considered a female for combat sports.

With that said, if there are females who are willing to fight her, then I have no problem with that either. But she could never be champion of my MMA promotion.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

There's a difference between gender and sex. Gender is what you think and believe yourself to be, sex is what you are biologically.

Fallon Fox has a Y chromosome. No amount of hormones will ever get rid of that chromosome. Therefore, "her" body biologically developed as a man.

Nobody gives a fuck what her gender is, but "she" should not be competing against biological women. That's no different than any man competing against women. No matter how much that man thinks he's a she, he's a he from a physical standpoint (muscle, body development, ability to build muscle). It's unfair to the other women.

If she really wants to compete and they can make money off it, fine but she should not be eligible for any championships or records.

That would be like Lebron James saying "I think I'm a woman" and therefore being allowed to play in the WNBA. Sure, Fallon Fox had the surgery but the surgery is just cosmetic, it doesn't eliminate that Y chromosome.

 

[The Butcher]

It seems most men are in agreement on this, even if a bit reluctantly. I haven't heard or read a good female perspective yet. It would be great if a Jemelle Hill or Jackie MacMullen would speak on the issue, because I respect their opinions a lot.

I'm with those who think that if a male wants to have sexual reassignment surgery, more power to him, but if that person wants to turn around and hit women, there's a problem with that. So, like I said, it seems that most men just aren't comfortable with it, which frankly is a good sign that chivalry isn't completely dead. Like Sly pointed out though, if a woman volunteers to take her on, that's that lady's prerogative.

 

[Remix]

Protip: most people opening their mouths on the subject are ill informed. At best. At worst, they're ignorant bigots. Should Fallon Fox be allowed to fight women? Absolutely she should. Legally, she is a woman. Physically, she is a woman. And if you think she woke up one day and decided "hey I think I should get a sex change so I can beat up women" logout of your account, fuck off and don't sign in again. Let's play Mythbusters here.

...there are definite physical advantages for males over females.

Do you know what gives men an advantage: testosterone, which increases bone density and muscle growth. Fallon Fox has had her gonads removed (where most testosterone is produced) and been taking oestrogen for at least three years. She has no physical advantages over other women. And that's not just my stance, that's the stance of an expert.

Most measures of physical strength minimize, muscle mass decreases, bone density decreases, and they become fairly comparable to women in their musculature. After as much time as has passed in her case, if tested, she would probably end up in the same muscle mass category as her biologically born female counterpart.

But she could never be champion of my MMA promotion.

Why not? She had no advantages over other women. Transgendered athletes can compete (and theoretically win) at the Olympics. The American Boxing Commission (which also governs MMA) has guidelines allowing transgendered fighters to, well fight. Not allowing her to fight for titles is discrimination. No more, no less.

it even fucking looks like a man.

No she doesn't.

Inverting your dick cannot change any of the aforementioned things.

No, but undergoing hormonal therapy (including testosterone blockers, oestrogen and progesterone, i.e. making her hormonally pretty fucking close to a women) and having your testies removed does. That's why transgendered people can compete in boxing, MMA and the Olympics.

No way this shit should be sanctioned.

Actually, it should. Both because the only arguments against Fallon are rooted in ignorance or prejudice, and also because there is no valid reason not to do so. The ABC has a policy in place that allows for transgendered fighters to compete, and not allowing them to do so would be hypocritical.

Sorry if I made it sound bad by referring to "it" as "it." I just have no respect for this piece of shit not because of its choice in life, but because it thinks its fair for it to go into an octagon and fight a naturally born women.

You realise that, just like sexuality being transgendered isn't a choice.

the only way i'll change my mind is if everything mentioned by Rogan and myself are proven wrong by a team of respected researchers.

The information's already out there.

Fallon Fox has a Y chromosome. No amount of hormones will ever get rid of that chromosome. Therefore, "her" body biologically developed as a man.

If you think it's that simple, you're sadly deluded. That is all I can say without insulting you.

Nobody gives a fuck what her gender is, but "she" should not be competing against biological women. That's no different than any man competing against women. No matter how much that man thinks he's a she, he's a he from a physical standpoint (muscle, body development, ability to build muscle). It's unfair to the other women.

I refer back to someone who knows about sexual reassignment. You are wrong.

Most measures of physical strength minimize, muscle mass decreases, bone density decreases, and they become fairly comparable to women in their musculature. After as much time as has passed in her case, if tested, she would probably end up in the same muscle mass category as her biologically born female counterpart.

That would be like Lebron James saying "I think I'm a woman" and therefore being allowed to play in the WNBA. Sure, Fallon Fox had the surgery but the surgery is just cosmetic, it doesn't eliminate that Y chromosome.

No. Just no.

 

[The Butcher]

Well done, Nu. I really appreciate you bringing some "Mythbusters" style fact checking on this. It doesn't take away my unease, but it at least opens this dialogue up to the science of it. Personally, I've followed the story just as an oddity, without having really done my homework. The Rogan diatribe was the most impassioned I'd heard anybody so far, so I thought I'd share.

Have there been studies that contradict what Dr. Bowers said? It seems that's always the way.

 

[Slyfox696]

Do you know what gives men an advantage

Yes, biology. A man's frame is larger, the hips are narrower, the bones are denser, all of which lead to greater potential for athleticism.

testosterone, which increases bone density and muscle growth. Fallon Fox has had her gonads removed (where most testosterone is produced) and been taking oestrogen for at least three years. She has no physical advantages over other women. And that's not just my stance, that's the stance of an expert.

I'll see your "expert" and raise you an endocrinologist.

It's actually very complicated, and I believe that the Olympics actually takes these on a case by case basis. In this particular instance, Fox might potentially have an unfair advantage over the females she faces, because she developed all the way into adulthood as a male. There would be increased musculature, and an increased ability to build muscle, so an advantage might be present due to years of conditioning and becoming more masculine, which includes differences in endurance and strength. The male body develops differently, both in skeletal structure and muscularly.

When pitted against an average female, I would say that there were probably some advantages that the hormonal blockade and subsequent replacement can't take away 100%, simply because she lived so much of her life as a male, and developed fully as such.

Bone Density

Here's the thing. Estrogen is what actually causes bone growth. It's not the testosterone. Men convert testosterone peripherally to estrogen. That's why we think that men who have low testosterone levels become osteoporotic. It's not because of the lack of testosterone, but because that lack of test can't be converted to estrogen. When men go on hormonal blockers for other health concerns, they can get osteoporosis, but they're not getting estrogen.

So here you have a man, who was on hormonal blockers to block testosterone, but is now taking estrogen, which is then going to prevent osteoporosis, so there wouldn't be a great percentage of bone density loss, per se. Males have higher bone density and higher mass skeletons than females. It takes a long time for that to diminish.

Typically, you're looking at about 15 years after androgen suppression and SRS to really start to see significant changes in bone density. It's been too early for her to see much of a decrease in bone mass or to make her equal to that of a female. She started off with a much higher bone density than other women her same age, and therefore will maintain a lot of that for a while. Additionally, because she is taking estrogen, that will actually help to maintain that bone mass. She may even carry that higher density much longer because of the estrogen therapy.

Women also have lighter, child bearing hips because of the difference in hormones during the body's developmental years. Her skeleton and body mass and shape developed a long time ago. Those changes cannot be undone. They are permanent.

Muscle Mass

Her testosterone levels are more than likely in the normal female range, since her adrenals are the primary source for it now. Without seeing her labs, it's hard to say for certain. How are they maintaining her levels? Are they keeping them at the very high end or at the low end? There are huge normal ranges for those values.

She developed fully into a male with normal musculature and bone structure. She didn't undergo hormone therapy and surgery until she was fully developed, as compared to someone who completes therapy and surgery in their adolescence or very early adulthood, when they haven't completely developed. Men are completely developed by the age of 22, and she didn't start her therapy until several years later. She has the potential to be significantly stronger because her muscle development reached several years beyond full maturity, giving her the potential to be significantly stronger than other age matched women.

When you see the female bodybuilders, the ones that have built large amounts of muscle mass, they don't achieve that without androgen supplements. Women just do not have the ability to produce the same muscle mass that men do. The thing you need to consider is that everyone has different inborn abilities to develop muscle. It comes down to genetic potential and some people just have better abilities.

There's not really a way to determine how much her muscle mass will decrease over time. What can be said is that she has a naturally higher propensity to build and maintain muscle mass because she was once a fully developed, adult male. You can't ever take that away from her.

Imprinting

Something that also has to be considered is called imprinting of the brain. Male imprinting happens with testosterone during development. If no testosterone is present, you tend to have a female brain. Developing fetuses that have testosterone have male imprinting of the brain, and it does not go away after androgen suppression and sex change surgery. It is a permanent imprint on the brain.

Someone that has had male imprinting could have the potential for more aggression or more aggressive type behavior than a female brain. That's something that could affect her and possibly give her a mental edge in how she fights and how aggressive she might be, compared to a biologically born female.

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2013/3/2...-discusses-possible-advantages-fallon-fox-has

Why not? She had no advantages over other women.

But she does. You cannot argue she should be considered equal to others when the very discussion we're having is whether she has an unfair advantage.

Transgendered athletes can compete (and theoretically win) at the Olympics.

And male-to-female transgendered athletes cannot in the NCAA, based in part, due to a report put out by the National Center on Lesbian Rights and Women's Sport Foundation.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect...ws/2011/September/Transgender+policy+approved

Your arguments hold no water here.

Not allowing her to fight for titles is discrimination. No more, no less.

Absolutely it is. Just as it is discrimination when we don't let Jon Jones challenge Benson Henderson for the lightweight title. Why? Because Jon Jones has an inherent and unfair advantage in that fight.

Actually, it should. Both because the only arguments against Fallon are rooted in ignorance or prejudice, and also because there is no valid reason not to do so.

Completely false and I am offended at your insinuation I am either ignorant or prejudiced, especially considering the amount of evidence which sides with me. Furthermore, I have ZERO problems with a female to male competing in the men's division, because there is no inherent advantage. But there is in this case, which is why she would not be my champion.

Just because you refuse to look at anything but the here and now, it doesn't change the past. And I believe the article I quoted quite sufficiently explains why calling someone who disagrees with you on this ignorant or prejudice just makes you look like a raving jackass.

 

[Remy LaCroix]

Blah blah blah, equality, good for you, i'm glad you're "following your heart" and I really don't give a fuck whether you want to be a pitcher or a catcher. I'm all for gay marriage and doing what you want with your body. If that's how you're comfortable, go for it 100%.

Pitcher? Catcher? Gay marriage?? WTF are you talking about? They've nothing to do with this.

Sorry if I made it sound bad by referring to "it" as "it."

You really should be.

I just have no respect for this piece of shit not because of its choice in life, but because it thinks its fair for it to go into an octagon and fight a naturally born women. I refuse to show respect for something like this.

You're showing a lack of respect because you don't agree with her lifestyle choice? Way to come off as bigoted, dude.

 

[Fizzy]

No she doesn't

Eh, i'll admit they did a good job making her look as womanly as possible. You can't say she looks like a naturally born woman though.

You realise that, just like sexuality being transgendered isn't a choice.

I agree, I never said it wasn't. That doesn't mean she can go around beating up females. Like I said, my problem isn't with her lifestyle choice, good for her for following her heart. My problem is that she is fighting naturally born women as a naturally born man.

The information's already out there.

There is information both to support and belittle your case. Here are professional articles from well respected doctors regarding the physical advantages Fox can hold over a natural woman;

The whole transgender issue in female sports, is that people can't look at it rationally. It always becomes a huge social issue. 'Oh, you don't like transgender people.' I don't even know if I actually know any transgender people, but I certainly don't have hangups with people. Who you love, who you date ... I couldn't care less. I don't pick who you love, you don't pick who I love. That's a rule I live my life by. What a grown person does is there own business.

The issue here is if it's safe or not. That's the only thing I care about. Do we know enough about it to say if it's safe or not? The problem with the transgender issue, specifically male to female, is that there is not enough scientific information out there to say if it's safe enough to allow this to go on. If you don't know if it's safe, we have to err on the side of safety, which says until we get more information, we cannot go forward with this.

One of the things that's very interesting, is everyone says, 'Well there's been a few studies that say after two years this, that and the other...' That's not true. There's no studies for this. I've done the literature search. Then they come back with, 'The IOC knows.' The IOC knows what? The IOC caved to political and social pressure. The IOC didn't say, 'Because of firm scientific and medical evidence, that if you've had this SRS and you've taken hormones for two years, that's the magic number that all this is going to become safe.' That's not true at all.

There is no firm scientific basis to support that conclusion. They made an arbitrary determination in the face of social pressure. OK, I understand that, too. Who wanted to fight the fight? The IOC didn't want to, so they said. 'If you get the surgery and take the hormones for two years, that's good enough for us.' That doesn't mean it was made on a sound medical basis, because the sound medical basis doesn't exist. Those studies have not been done.

The surgeons that spoke towards bone density decreasing and so on and so forth - that doesn't say the person doesn't still have superior physiological abilities. The real question is, what was the sex at time of puberty? As we all know, boys and girls aren't that much different until they go through puberty.

Gender reassignment happens after puberty. One of the things that happens during puberty, is that boys grow 15-20 cm taller than girls. The average height of men is greater than the average height of women. In addition to bone density, there is also the issue of longer bones in men. Longer bones lead to some mechanical advantages that shorter bones don't have.

The argument is that "They've become a woman because they've had the surgery and taken the hormones.' The hormones will certainly make your phenotype. The different hormone therapies are very good at changing that, but they don't change those things that happen to you during puberty. The length of your bones don't change. The mean muscle surface area doesn't change a great deal.

When people say, 'That person has turned into a woman', I'm fine with that, but where is the hard scientific data that says their athletic performance capacity has now changed to that of a woman? That scientific research has not been done.

People might think I'm against transgender people. I'm not against anybody. That's a social issue. What I'm saying is that we don't know enough, and if you don't have that knowledge, if you don't have that scientific information, you have to err on the side of safety. Until we know for sure, I can't support it. We simply don't know what the safety issues are.

That's from Dr. Benjamin, a leading orthopedic surgeon.

Gender is more of an identity. It's how you identify yourself. Sex is multi-layered.

1. Chromosomally, what you are

2. Hormonally, what you are

3. Gender, how you're identifying yourself

It's actually very complicated, and I believe that the Olympics actually takes these on a case by case basis. In this particular instance, Fox might potentially have an unfair advantage over the females she faces, because she developed all the way into adulthood as a male. There would be increased musculature, and an increased ability to build muscle, so an advantage might be present due to years of conditioning and becoming more masculine, which includes differences in endurance and strength. The male body develops differently, both in skeletal structure and muscularly.

When pitted against an average female, I would say that there were probably some advantages that the hormonal blockade and subsequent replacement can't take away 100%, simply because she lived so much of her life as a male, and developed fully as such.

Bone Density

Here's the thing. Estrogen is what actually causes bone growth. It's not the testosterone. Men convert testosterone peripherally to estrogen. That's why we think that men who have low testosterone levels become osteoporotic. It's not because of the lack of testosterone, but because that lack of test can't be converted to estrogen. When men go on hormonal blockers for other health concerns, they can get osteoporosis, but they're not getting estrogen.

So here you have a man, who was on hormonal blockers to block testosterone, but is now taking estrogen, which is then going to prevent osteoporosis, so there wouldn't be a great percentage of bone density loss, per se. Males have higher bone density and higher mass skeletons than females. It takes a long time for that to diminish.

Typically, you're looking at about 15 years after androgen suppression and SRS to really start to see significant changes in bone density. It's been too early for her to see much of a decrease in bone mass or to make her equal to that of a female. She started off with a much higher bone density than other women her same age, and therefore will maintain a lot of that for a while. Additionally, because she is taking estrogen, that will actually help to maintain that bone mass. She may even carry that higher density much longer because of the estrogen therapy.

Women also have lighter, child bearing hips because of the difference in hormones during the body's developmental years. Her skeleton and body mass and shape developed a long time ago. Those changes cannot be undone. They are permanent.

Muscle Mass

Her testosterone levels are more than likely in the normal female range, since her adrenals are the primary source for it now. Without seeing her labs, it's hard to say for certain. How are they maintaining her levels? Are they keeping them at the very high end or at the low end? There are huge normal ranges for those values.

She developed fully into a male with normal musculature and bone structure. She didn't undergo hormone therapy and surgery until she was fully developed, as compared to someone who completes therapy and surgery in their adolescence or very early adulthood, when they haven't completely developed. Men are completely developed by the age of 22, and she didn't start her therapy until several years later. She has the potential to be significantly stronger because her muscle development reached several years beyond full maturity, giving her the potential to be significantly stronger than other age matched women.

When you see the female bodybuilders, the ones that have built large amounts of muscle mass, they don't achieve that without androgen supplements. Women just do not have the ability to produce the same muscle mass that men do. The thing you need to consider is that everyone has different inborn abilities to develop muscle. It comes down to genetic potential and some people just have better abilities.

There's not really a way to determine how much her muscle mass will decrease over time. What can be said is that she has a naturally higher propensity to build and maintain muscle mass because she was once a fully developed, adult male. You can't ever take that away from her.

Imprinting

Something that also has to be considered is called imprinting of the brain. Male imprinting happens with testosterone during development. If no testosterone is present, you tend to have a female brain. Developing fetuses that have testosterone have male imprinting of the brain, and it does not go away after androgen suppression and sex change surgery. It is a permanent imprint on the brain.

Someone that has had male imprinting could have the potential for more aggression or more aggressive type behavior than a female brain. That's something that could affect her and possibly give her a mental edge in how she fights and how aggressive she might be, compared to a biologically born female.

From Dr. Ramona Krutzick.

So you see, i'll admit I was wrong with the vocabulary in my first post. I hadn't researched anything, it was my gut instinct. Now that i've calmed down, while my opinion hasn't changed, I still don't think the evidence is conclusively proving that Fox can compete against naturally born women without any unfair advantages. Is there a possibility that I could be wrong? Of course, and I admit that. I just think there is so much more testing that needs to be done in order to prove one side or the other correct as seen by the differing opinions of leading doctors we've both supplied. Until that research has been done, I don't think it is safe for her to compete against other women.

Pitcher? Catcher? Gay marriage?? WTF are you talking about? They've nothing to do with this.

Never said they do. Just getting my point across that bias has nothing to do with my post. I don't care who you have sex with, I don't care who you're in love with, and I don't care what you do to your body. In Fox's case, she is causing harm to other women when she has a potential unfair advantage.

You're showing a lack of respect because you don't agree with her lifestyle choice? Way to come off as bigoted, dude.

Not quite, maybe try re-reading what you quoted. I showed disrespect because I didn't agree with her ability to fight women as a naturally born man. Her lifestyle and decision to change her gender mean nothing to me. Was I wrong to show such disrespect? Yes, but it was a spur of the moment thing. Stop trying to pin me as anti-transgender because I am not. I don't agree with her fighting naturally born women. Is that so hard to understand for you?

 

[Remix]

Eh, i'll admit they did a good job making her look as womanly as possible. You can't say she looks like a naturally born woman though.

I've seen manlier looking women, actually.

As for the people you quoted, do you know what "longer bones" amount to? Being taller. Truly, this is a gamebreaking advantage considering Ronda Rousey is exactly the same height as Fox. Oh.

The second said nothing but conjecture regarding her hormones, which I shall ignore. At times she's also notably wrong. Oestrogen is linked to bone growth, the reduced production of it leads to osteoporosis in post menopausal women. However, evidence suggests that bone density does in fact reduce after five years not 15.

I agree, I never said it wasn't. That doesn't mean she can go around beating up females.

The ABC disagrees.

Like I said, my problem isn't with her lifestyle choice, good for her for following her heart.

Being transgendered is not a choice.

My problem is that she is fighting naturally born women as a naturally born man.

A naturally born man who is physically closer to a female, doesn't have as much strength, or muscle mass as a naturally born man.

So you see, i'll admit I was wrong with the vocabulary in my first post. I hadn't researched anything, it was my gut instinct. Now that i've calmed down, while my opinion hasn't changed,

Like I said, my problem isn't with her lifestyle choice, good for her for following her heart.

I can tell. You still think it's a choice.

I still don't think the evidence is conclusively proving that Fox can compete against naturally born women without any unfair advantages.

Except for the fact that other than her height (which is the same as current champion of her division) her born gender does not give her a significant advantage.

Is there a possibility that I could be wrong? Of course, and I admit that.

No you won't. You'll move the goal posts.

I just think there is so much more testing that needs to be done in order to prove one side or the other correct as seen by the differing opinions of leading doctors we've both supplied.

You know how research on whether transgendered people in sports have an advantage will be done? By letting them compete. There's little data on transgendered people in sports at the moment because other than Renee Richards in the 70s (whose natural gender certainly did not give her an unfair advantage over top players of her era), I can't think of another transgendered competitor in any sport other than Fallon Fox. There is no data because there has been no data to collect.

Until that research has been done, I don't think it is safe for her to compete against other women.

Bullshit.

Never said they do. Just getting my point across that bias has nothing to do with my post.

Says the guy who insisted on calling her an it until I called you on your shit.

I don't care who you have sex with, I don't care who you're in love with, and I don't care what you do to your body. In Fox's case, she is causing harm to other women when she has a potential unfair advantage.

She's got less of an advantage over other women than Ronda Rousey. Ronda has a world class ground and submission game, which nobody else in her division can match. That potentially unfair advantage has led to her causing harm to other women's arms.

Not quite, maybe try re-reading what you quoted. I showed disrespect because I didn't agree with her ability to fight women as a naturally born man. Her lifestyle and decision to change her gender mean nothing to me. Was I wrong to show such disrespect? Yes, but it was a spur of the moment thing. Stop trying to pin me as anti-transgender because I am not. I don't agree with her fighting naturally born women. Is that so hard to understand for you?

Oh fuck off, you came off as bigoted because you referred to her as an it, referred to her gender as a "lifestyle choice" and deflected being prejudiced because you're not homophobic. You've already admitted that you formed your opinion based on nothing other than "she was born a man, therefore her fighting women is the same thing as a man fighting a woman". Please, do us all a favour and shut the fuck up.

 

[Slyfox696]

I've seen manlier looking women, actually.

As for the people you quoted, do you know what "longer bones" amount to? Being taller.

It's not just longer bones (which is an advantage), it's also stronger bones, which is also an advantage.

The second said nothing but conjecture regarding her hormones

Bullshit. It wasn't conjecture at all, it was a description of the differences in physical development between men and women. Just because it show you to be completely wrong, that doesn't mean it is conjecture.

At times she's also notably wrong. Oestrogen is linked to bone growth

That's what she said.

However, evidence suggests that bone density does in fact reduce after five years not 15.

The word "evidence" indicates theory, not fact. Thus you cannot say she is "notably wrong". Again, you are wrong.

Being transgendered is not a choice.

But going through Sexual Reassignment Surgery is. Competing in MMA is.

A naturally born man who is physically closer to a female, doesn't have as much strength, or muscle mass as a naturally born man.

But still possess the capacity for greater strength than most naturally born females.

You're playing word games.

Except for the fact that other than her height (which is the same as current champion of her division) her born gender does not give her a significant advantage.

Which is, in most people's opinions, unequivocally false, as supported by plenty of medical/scientific research.

The fact you tried to dismiss someone who's expertise is in how hormones affect the human body, while simultaneously touting the "expert" opinion of someone who is effectively a plastic surgeon is downright humorous.

No you won't. You'll move the goal posts.

As opposed to you, who wanted so desperately for someone to play Mythbusters, at least until the myths being busted were your own.

You know how research on whether transgendered people in sports have an advantage will be done? By letting them compete. There's little data on transgendered people in sports at the moment because other than Renee Richards in the 70s (whose natural gender certainly did not give her an unfair advantage over top players of her era), I can't think of another transgendered competitor in any sport other than Fallon Fox. There is no data because there has been no data to collect.

This is just downright dishonest. Maybe we don't have research on the advantages of transgendered people in sports, but we DO have plenty of research on the physical inequalities between men and women. And if this person truly lived her life as a man until she was in her 20s, then to argue she no longer benefits from the advantages her physical development as a man brought is simply beyond any rational thought.

Bullshit.

No, it's not. It's a very real concern, and just because you're being an ass about it doesn't change the fact the concern exists.

Says the guy who insisted on calling her an it until I called you on your shit.

Says the person who dismissed the medically supported expertise of an endocrinologist after touting the expert opinion of a plastic surgeon.

She's got less of an advantage over other women than Ronda Rousey. Ronda has a world class ground and submission game, which nobody else in her division can match. That potentially unfair advantage has led to her causing harm to other women's arms.

But that is not an advantage which came from differences in development between men and women. That difference has come from her hard work.

But you knew that already, didn't you?

Oh fuck off, you came off as bigoted because you referred to her as an it

He did, and it was wrong.

But your refusal to accept common sense, logic and medical opinion from people whose lives are dedicated to the impact of hormones on the body is no less ignorant.

Please, do us all a favour and shut the fuck up.

Consider the same offer extended to you, unless you can quit ranting like an ignorant jackass.

 

[Big Sexy]

So am I the only one who noticed that Nu Sexier Noun completely ignored Slyfox's second post from the first page and didn't respond to any of his arguments? If you're going to feel so strongly on a subject and be hurling insults left and right, you better be willing to respond to everyone, especially the people who provide factual evidence with sources that dispute your claims. I'm not a Sly fan by any means but I figured I'd point that out.

To stay on topic, it's clear that the playing field is not 100% equal for this woman to be competing with other women, so as long as she finds willing opponents then it isn't a big deal but I doubt she ever gets to do anything in a major promotion.