Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just wondering what everyone thinks of the afls decision to exclude Hannah from this years draft? Clearly they have no coherent policy to deal with the situation but there is no doubt there will be many other Transgender people who will want to play footy at the elite level. Personally i think that at this stage even though her testosterone levels are low enough to meet the requirements of the IOC, she is still clearly at a huge physical advantage to her potential opponents. Interesting to see on Studio 10 this morning that Carlotta said she should not be allowed to play until she is "post op" and fully transitioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just another of the problems coming out of the IOC and the testosterone levels they set to allow Casta Semenya to run. 

We will have women athletes injecting testosterone legally as long as they stay below the ridiculous level that the IOC have deemed, a level that transgender people can meet as well. 

Edited by george_on_the_outer
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you need an X and Y chromosome to play footy.

But on one level I wouldn't mind seeing a bloke dressed as a woman playing footy. You might start to see a few complaints from the feminists when bones are broken and all the awards are won by trans-gender footy players.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in the awkward position of having no problem at all with transgender people, but also recognising the basic practicality of biological sex being a factor in body size and 'upper ceilings' of physical size, density and the like.

It is unfortunate for Hannah that she is right at the top end of the range of physical size, and I do think it is appropriate to exclude her from the top, professional level where incomes and greater glory are at stake.

I'm ok with the AFL's decision to prevent Hannah from entering the professional level AFLW while also not making any obstruction to her participation at amateur level.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is a bloke.

Blokes should not be allowed in the Womens competition

 

It's AFLW, not AFLTrans

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no issue at all with transgender people, whatever makes you happy. But, he has XY chromosomes, testicles and a penis. Call me ignorant I really don’t care, but that makes you a male. Obviously my opinion is that the AFL made the correct decision. I wish Hannah all the best. 

Edited by Ethan Tremblay
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I think you need an X and Y chromosome to play footy.

But on one level I wouldn't mind seeing a bloke dressed as a woman playing footy. You might start to see a few complaints from the feminists when bones are broken and all the awards are won by trans-gender footy players.

 

I'm happy for there to be a Trans comp, for the in-betweeners.

I am sickened by the thought of a dude in a dress smashing the girls on the footy field. They have been waiting an eternity for their time in the sun. Lets not turn it into a freak show as soon as it gets rolling.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Call me ignorant I really don’t care, but that makes you a male.

No, it doesn't make you a male, it makes you a person with male sex organs and XY chromosomes. Gender and sex are not the same - even though are commonly used interchangeably. Nor is male/female differentiation always a clearly-defined line.

Tricky one under the circumstances, feel for her.

  • Like 1
  • Shocked 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bing181 said:

No, it doesn't make you a male, it makes you a person with male sex organs and XY chromosomes. Gender and sex are not the same - even though are commonly used interchangeably. Nor is male/female differentiation always a clearly-defined line.

Tricky one under the circumstances, feel for her.

A person with male sex organs, and xy chromosomes is a MAN

Are you saying a man makes a mental choice to identify as a woman?

 

 

 

This thread is gunna get sooooooooo ugly.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Publicly most of the women have said they have no problem with it.

Privately I bet it's a different story.

My thoughts on this guy are not for polite company.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprised he wasn’t picked up by Port.

  • Like 6
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For once I think the AFL has got this one right. Have no issue with the individual but at the end of day we are talking about a male playing womens football.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any body got a photo of this bird?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Google is your friend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, jackaub said:

Any body got a photo of this bird?

cfb4a182667056ce794e06c2a5c2fc03?width=67674816-3x4-340x453.jpg3971D6EE00000578-3842118-image-m-13_1476NP1207541.jpg?d0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

cfb4a182667056ce794e06c2a5c2fc03?width=67674816-3x4-340x453.jpg3971D6EE00000578-3842118-image-m-13_1476NP1207541.jpg?d0

The guy is well hung.....for a girl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for reference, here's the formal classification which has been around for quite some decades and has not been controversial among psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists and any other relevant discipline that actually took an interest in these things before they became a massive political crapshoot -

Biological sex  Male/female

- is biologically of the relevant sex, as determined by chromosomes, reproductive organs and prevalent hormone ranges.

Social gender Man/woman, boy/girl, nanna/poppa, [censored]/stud etc

- identifies as the relevant gender, and/or is identified/accepted by society as being the relevant gender.

Caveats:

The biological sex categorisation is mostly straightforward, though has the rare but significant problems of biological anomalies such as hermaphrodites, variable gene expression (ye olde genotype v phenotype) and incomplete genital formation (eg for very premature babies) causing apparent sex at birth to not actually match the underlying XY and all that jazz. There have been some really tragic cases where doctors have made the decision at birth on what the newborn appears most likely to be, have 'adjusted' the problem, and then some 12 years later it is off to hospital because little Jimmy just had his first period, or little Jenny's balls start trying to drop. But generally, biological sex is pretty easy.

The social gender categorisation is as complicated as a given society makes it. It is worth noting that the definition of 'manly' and 'womanly' has changed radically in the last half century and was already changing before that, and not in a linear progression. Consider this - in a society where there were no standard expectations of what a man or woman (or boy or girl) will behave like, be good at, wear, or how they will present themselves, then the transgender phenomenon would be basically redundant. I'm not saying that just to be flippant, I'm just trying to illustrate that there has already been great change in what 'gender' means.

It also varies from country to country, and again it is not some linear progress from 'Queen Victoria and her proper ladies and gentlemen' to 'anything goes'. Good example is Russia, where the pressure on women to be attractive, glamorous, and conform to 'feminine' behaviours in personal relationships is very strong compared to Australia, but where women are engaged in engineering, mathematics, IT and physics almost on parity with men, again in contrast to Australia, but this time in the 'other direction'.

You'd get the same definition of biological sex in both Russia and Australia, but the understanding of what social gender means and how it should affect people's roles and behaviours has real differences.

That's generally what the academics are referring to when they talk about '60+ identifiable genders', though frankly they are having a bit of a [Damien Barret] when they do that. As an anthropologist by background, I enjoy a good laugh at sociologists' obsession with trying to look more sciencey by putting everything into categories and attaching numbers.

 

So, clarifying my earlier comment. I'm perfectly happy for Hannah to identify and be accepted as whatever social gender feels right. It really isn't causing anyone any harm. But on the other hand, in a sports context, especially one with the type of physical demands as Australian Football, biological sex does play a meaningful part. Until such time as competition is actually mixed-sex (which at the top professional level seems a fantasy) then I do believe it is acceptable for the AFL to have the male/female competitions be aligned with biological sex.

Having said that, if Hannah had been able to access treatment from a young enough age, then original biological sex can be 'masked' so thoroughly that the issue would be, um, neutered? But that's opening the can of worms of 'how early is it appropriate to act upon body dysphoria/transgender identification', and that I've got no answers for.

 

Anyway, maybe this has been helpful for a few people who have been jammed out of the debate because of the sometimes stupid-sounding terminology.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C714696F-3997-4BB9-8D43-9A43F4372893.jpeg

  • Like 5
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

 

So, clarifying my earlier comment. I'm perfectly happy for Hannah to identify and be accepted as whatever social gender feels right. It really isn't causing anyone any harm. But on the other hand, in a sports context, especially one with the type of physical demands as Australian Football, biological sex does play a meaningful part. Until such time as competition is actually mixed-sex (which at the top professional level seems a fantasy) then I do believe it is acceptable for the AFL to have the male/female competitions be aligned with biological sex.

Having said that, if Hannah had been able to access treatment from a young enough age, then original biological sex can be 'masked' so thoroughly that the issue would be, um, neutered? But that's opening the can of worms of 'how early is it appropriate to act upon body dysphoria/transgender identification', and that I've got no answers for.

 

Anyway, maybe this has been helpful for a few people who have been jammed out of the debate because of the sometimes stupid-sounding terminology.

So it doesn't cause any harm, until it causes harm hey?

And you gotta love the "social gender" term. Another of these new inventions by modern society to mainstream mental illness, choosing what sex you are based on your feelings.

The issue is simple. Its a man in a dress, choosing to play with the girls. Give the bloke a dolly and let him dress it up, but keep him away from AFLW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a generation that has never been told no, therefore individuals think they can do whatever they want, just because they feel like it.

Hence the attitude of "Sure I have 99% of the physical characteristics of a man, but I feel like a woman, therefore I should be able to play football in the women's league".

There's plenty of things I would have liked to have done in my life, but wasn't able to because of rules and regulations that serve to protect the greater good. 

  • Like 4
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank god most people here are not buying into this pc rubbish.

If he/she wants to identify as a women thats fine but to say we all have to change facts and warp reality to make her feewings better is rubbish.

I guarantee if the aflw had an anonymous survey to the women if they are comfortable with a bloke playing a vast majority would say no.

I do find it interesting that none of the aflw players have made any sort of statement about this.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×