‘World’s Strongest Woman’ Has Crown Torn Away After Organizers Discover She Was Born Male

Sorry, but I disagree with you on this. They do have a right to expect people to call them by their chosen pronoun; one should treat people how they wish to be treated. That doesn't give them automatic rights to enter sports contests or safe spaces that are separated by s3x; but I'm sure you'd get narked if people referred to you as "doddery old Brit" all the time if that were not how you'd chosen to call yourself. There's nothing wrong with showing a bit of respect for others when it costs you nothing.

Nope.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

But I have the right to freedom of conscience and that includes not being compelled to say things that I know to not be true. Why should I be forced to pretend to believe that a man is a woman just to 'be nice'? That's a game I refuse to play and I make no apologies for that. EDIT: At least four people have downvoted this, which means that at least four people here are in favour of compelled speech.

UK, if we were new co-workers and you knew my name is Antoinette, but I asked you, kindly, please call me Sally, I'm not crazy about my given name, would you call me Antoinette or Sally?

That’s just a name preference, that doesn’t change your séx.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

I will call anybody by any forename they want to be called, but I do not and will not play the pronoun game.

It's not a "game", Grandad. It's very, very serious, and very important to the people who feel that their physical bodies and genitalia do not reflect the person that they actually are inside. By dismissing it as a "game", you are being facetious and dismissing not only the identities of trans people, but all of the suffering, hatred, and ábuse/ássáult that they have endured as well. If one of your grandchildren wished to transition, would you tell them to their face "I do not play the pronoun game"?

What should be very important - but clearly isn't - is treating the cause, not validating the effect. Nobody stops to ask why a trans person feels that he/she is in the 'wrong' body, let alone spell out the simple truth that there is no such thing as a 'wrong' body; it's just their body. Validating their ideas might sound as though it's being kind but it isn't; it's simply playing along with their delusion and preventing them from getting the help they need to help them understand and come to terms with the fact that the problem is in the mind, not the body.

I'm afraid this argument is pretty similar to the reaction to homosexuality 100 years ago, when they thought electric shock treatment or castration could "cure" the problem. I think it's more complicated than just saying "No you're not".

It's nothing like that. Gay men weren't claiming to be something that they weren't, they were just same-séx attracted, and that is entirely different from a man claiming that he's really a woman.

I'm pretty sure a lot of trans people see therapists and psychologists and those people *do* actually ask the trans people why they feel that they are in a body that doesn't match the gender they are. But I think you're implying "why they feel that way" in the sense of "so we can find a cure" - being trans doesn't need to be "cured" or "medicated" the way that schizophrenia or bipolar does. Body dysmorphia/gender dysmorphia needs to be TREATED, but allowing the trans person to identify and live as the gender they actually are (rather than what is between their legs) is the "treatment" ;) Trans people aren't deluded. They know very well that they are not the same gender as what their genitalia says. That's not a "delusion". Delusion is thinking your dog is talking to you or that you can flap your arms and you'll fly. Trans people aren't deluded, and transgender isn't a "delusion".

That might be true were it not for the fact that 'gender' is nothing more than a socially constructed, ever-changing set of ideas that have no material basis. 'Feeling' like something is in no way the same thing as being that something.

Who are you to decide if it is a delusion? Do you feel that gay people are suffering from delusion and shouldn't be validated because of their sèxuality?

Who you love, and what you are biologically, are two entirely different things. Not comparable at all.

So do you think that gay people are claiming to be something they are not? Or are you just incapable of making an argument without using false equivalents?

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

He/him for males and she/her for females. It’s very uncomplicated.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

They are men. I will not entertain their delusions.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

There you go, acting like a bigoted piece of s**t again. You've already proven time and time again how much you hate transgender people, why do you even bother to comment on this? Why do you expose your irrational prejudices to everyone?

They shouldn't have to expect to be treated like a person and be called by their preferred identity. You've already proven how much you hate transgender people. Why do you hate transgender people so much?

There’s a difference between hate and pointing out reality

Yes, and you hate.

Nope, you are just ignorant to nuance.

I'm not disputing or even arguing about those things, though. I literally said in my comment that athletes who are assigned male at birth and go through puberty while still physically male DO have a physical advantage in sports. You're calling me out on something I didn't even dispute. And I personally DO agree that Jammie Booker should be disqualified and stripped of her title, since she broke the competition's rules (it doesn't matter how I FEEL about those rules, the rules are the rules and Booker broke them.)

But how can you genuinely believe that trans women *are* women AND say that in certain circumstances they must be treated as if they aren't women? Either they really are women, in which case why would you want them disqualified from competing against women, or they aren't women, in which case the disqualification is fair, but they are either women or they aren't.

@Grandad You wouldn't have so many trans people ki‍lling themselves if it didn't matter to them that people see them as how they genuinely feel that they are. I doubt anyone has offed themselves because people didn't see them as a plane. (Happy to be proven wrong here, though.) Basically, you can feel like/see yourself as a woman, but you're still biologically male. However, if you feel like/see yourself as a woman, then you identify as a woman. This has nothing to do with biological se‍x. I hope that makes sense. It's stupid o'clock here and I couldn't sleep, so if this is incoherent I apologise. (#2)

@Grandad I normally agree with you, but I think you have it wrong here. The post clearly states that people need to compete in the category of their biological se‍x. Jammie is a biological male. She identifies as a woman, calls herself a woman etc... and that's fine, but she was born as a male with XY chromosomes. See my comments below on how I differentiate the two if you need. I think this bit where we're crossing wires -- you (and Timothy, seemingly) seem to believe that someone born biologically, say, male, can't call themselves a woman. I (and others here, I think, though I don't want to speak for anyone) think that a 'woman' is a social construct and a 'female' is someone born with XX chromosomes. I think you're seeing it more in the light of a kid sticking their arms out to the sides, running around shouting "I'm a plane!". I mean, obviously; kid ain't a plane. Your genuine identity is different though. (#1)

Emilu, I'm not saying that they can't call themselves women, people can call themselves anything they wish. What I'm saying is that they cannot expect other people to agree that they are women. As for 'woman' being a social construct, I cannot agree with that at all; it's a very recent corruption of a word that simply describes an adult female human in order to make it compatible with the new ideology that enforces the old gender norms in a muddle-headed way. I'll try to explain what I mean. The entire concept of 'gender' is an artificial social construct based around the notions of masculine and feminine. The 'traditional' ideas about gender are centred on the notion that boys and men, and girls and women, have different ways of thinking, acting, and being. The 'thinking' goes that girls and women think, act, etc. in feminine ways, and so they are taught, trained, coerced and even forced to follow the feminine gender rules. Essentially, if you are a girl or a woman (objectively factual states of being female) then you must follow the (entirely subjective) gender rules. That is pretty much how gender roles have been enforced since biblical times, and of course it's bullshít. However, the new ideology has turned this around. The new thinking goes that if you think, feel, etc. in the ways that are traditionally associated with being a girl or a woman then it follows that you are indeed a girl or a woman. It has turned the subjective social construct of gender into the objective fact, and the objective fact of being a girl or woman because you are a female into a subjective construct that applies regardless of your séx. So, for example, if a boy shows signs of 'feminine' ways, the 'traditional' gender enforcers tell him to 'grow a pair' and stop acting like a girl, while the new enforcers tell him that he's acting like a girl because he *is* a girl, just one in a boy's body. Both those ways of responding to the boy's nature are wrong. Unfortunately, those of us who would tell the boy that it's absolutely fine to be a boy who does 'girl things' because the rules around gender itself are nonsensical are called raging bigots and transphobes. On top of that, reassuring the boy that he's perfectly normal; that he isn't a girl in the wrong body, he's just a boy in his own body who acts and thinks as he does simply because that *is* how he acts and thinks; doing that will see one called a monster for forcing 'conversion therapy' on the boy.

@Grandad It's fine, I understand what you mean. Language does evolve, however. I mean, look at the word 'gay'. Once upon a time it just meant happy or merry, and now it refers to a homosexual person. I respect your opinion and see where you're coming from but I don't think we'll agree on this one, and that's okay.

Emilu, you posted that as I was editing my comment so I could fit it all into one rather than making a disjointed multiple post. I only hope that I have at the very least made it clear that my objections are far from those of an old geezer shouting at traffic because I don't like words changing 😉 Oh, and I will add that the respect is mutual. I appreciate you greatly for being one of the rare ones here who understand that differences of opinion can be discussed without getting angry and slinging insults, and I thank you for that .

@Grandad I'm not wholly sure I agree with you here, because eg: someone else seeing you as a woman doesn't make you a woman. But I do still see where you're coming from. I'm not picturing you as a stereotypical old man in a rocking chair on your porch yelling "get off my lawn!", I promise 😆 And you are very welcome. I also love that we can agree to disagree in a respectful manner, which a few people on here would do well to understand.

Emilu, here's another way of looking at it. When a boy says that he's really a girl (or a man says he's a woman, a girl says...etc.) because he 'feels' that he's a girl, what does he actually mean? What does 'feeling like a girl' even feel like? He can't know because he only knows what it feels like to be himself, in the same way that I, a man, cannot say what being a man feels like because I only know what it feels like to be me. So what measure is the boy using to come to the conclusion that he's a girl? There can only be one thing that he can compare his feelings with and that is the social construct of gender which has laid out a set of standards that are expected of people depending on their séx. Now, when those gendered attributes are presented not as subjective and non-binding (as we know they are) but as objective truths that are innate, then what the boy is really saying is that his feelings relate more to the 'feminine' gender characteristics. So, because those characteristics have in recent years been presented as objectively true markers of what one really is, while biological reality has been demoted to a subjective role, an irrelevant accident of birth that has no bearing on whether one is a boy or girl, he has come to believe that he really is a girl because that's what his 'gender' is most aligned to. This is despite the fact that nobody actually 'has' a gender at all because 'gender' is nothing but an arbitrary set of rules, and not even a universal set but one that differs greatly not only between cultures but between religions, social groups and classes, and so-on. Basically, the boy can only believe himself to be a girl because he has been conditioned to believe that the gender rules are objectively true, and so because his nature tends towards the 'feminine' side then it must follow that he really is a girl. The only real difference between 'traditional' and 'modern' gender extremists is that the traditionalists say that if your gendered behaviour doesn't match your séx, you must change your behaviour; the modernists say that if your gender doesn't align with your body then you're in the wrong body. Two ideologies, both of which can be psychologically and physically harmful, and yet the safe middle ground - saying that it doesn't matter where you think you are on the gender 'spectrum' (which is just more bullshít to muddy the water), you are you, you are in YOUR body and you don't need to change a thing - is the one that is deemed dangerous and harmful by adherents of both of the extreme gender ideologies.

@Grandad Okay, yep, that completely makes sense. This is leaning more into "I can't guarantee I'll respond appropriately as I'm not trans" but I'll respond because it's you and I know you won't hold that against me. From what I've gathered from the trans/non binary people I know, it's not so much as identifying with stereotypical characteristics of gender (or not, in the case of NB people). It's more that they don't feel as though they were born into the correct body. I agree with regarding your discussions regarding gender ideology, absolutely, and also how it can be harmful. Honestly, I agree with your summary that you are YOU and, frankly, in my opinion that should be enough, but it's an individual thing and if someone feels born into the wrong body then I believe that they should a) have the right to change that and b) people should acknowledge this out of respect to another human being, eg: using the person's preferred pronouns, even if it's not something about which you... (#1)

(#2 - I forgot your tip about making longer posts 😔) ... agree -- 'you' being general 'you', not you specifically. I mean, I'm atheist. It doesn't mean I go around telling anyone that believes in, say, Christianity is wrong and needs help. That's disrespectful, even though I don't believe in Christianity. Back onto the trans subject, if someone was to, say, tell people they identify as a Boeing 747 I'd call them out on their bull, and I know some people would therefore say "well, what's the difference?" The difference is that a) there's no plane social construct (as far as I'm aware, lol), and b) trans people obviously identify with the masculine/feminine social constructs so much that they are willing to go beyond that and say "no, I am not enough as I am right now, I don't feel comfortable; I want the world to see me as I see myself" which is okay. (Dam‍n this running out of space thing...)

(#3 - I think this is the longest post I've written, lol) Someone defining themselves as fitting into a social construct (and I agree with you most words are social constructs, eg: family, friend, etc etc) that doesn't align with their biological s*x doesn't mean that they suddenly turn into the biological se‍x that they wish they were. I just believe it's respectful to call someone by their preferred pronouns re. gender, even if they differ from their biological se‍x. I still think we're going to have to agree to disagree here, but please know I do agree with a lot of what you mentioned in your most recent post directed to me and thank you as always for being willing to have a nuanced yet civil discussion with me.

The character limits are a pain where the sun don't shine! Just to make my position absolutely clear, my problem is not with trans people, it's with the muddled, illogical ideology that is fuelling the movement, just as I have no problem with Christians while recognising the glaring inconsistencies in the theology they follow. If I have a problem with individual trans or Christians (or anybody) it's a problem with the person, not with any group they are a part of. You mentioned people feeling they are in the 'wrong' body; that is an idea that the trans ideology strongly promotes but when one thinks about it it becomes clear that it's nonsensical magical thinking bordering on the religious notion of a soul separate from the body, and it does loop back to people internalising gendered stereotypes. Why do they think they're in the wrong body? Because the way they see themselves is the opposite of what their body says they are. And why do they think that? Because the way they see themselves does not align with the gender stereotypes that they have come to believe a person with their particular body should conform to. That can only happen when the stereotypes are believed to be real and inherent and that the body and the person are separate entities. That 'body vs. gendered soul' idea that is at the root of the trans ideology is a very shaky foundation on which to build an entire narrative that takes people down the road to a lifetime of medicalisation and surgeries, sterility and health issues caused by the very medications they are told will help them be their 'true' selves, when instead coming to terms with the fact that there is no gendered 'soul' that is 'born into' a body, and that it is perfectly natural to not feel aligned with gender stereotypes because the stereotypes are complete inventions will allow them to express their 'true' selves in any way they wish without the need of medicines and surgeries. That is essentially what gender critical thought is - getting rid of the gender stereotypes to allow people to be themselves without having to believe that they are in the wrong bodies and that they really are a member of the opposite s*x, and by extension removing the very causes of all the conflict between trans rights and womens' rights.

I probably shouldn't comment right now as I've just woken up and may not be able to formulate a worthy reply, but I completely agree with everyone you've said in this post. I think it boils down to the only main difference in our beliefs is that I'm happy to use someone's preferred pronouns. Sidenote: I wonder how many kids who, eg: were labeled as children as a 'tomboy' etc actually grow up to be trans versus children who grew up saying "I'm a woman that doesn't like stereotypically woman-ish things, get over it"?

Good question, and I think that it would have had a very different answer 15 years ago. Today, the more relevant question would be more like 'why has there been an exponential rise in kids identifying as trans, and are they any different from the tomboys and their male equivalents of the past who grew up to be happy adults without feeling the need to change? I've no time right now to give my answer, but it's something that resonates with me for personal reasons so I will come back to it later.

I'm looking forward to it. (No sarcasm; I hope you already know that by now but just to ensure).

I'll start with the personal bit - if this site stops glitching for long enough for me to get it down before I get the 'Oh, Snap! Something went wrong' and lose it alll because the page needs to reload. I have three daughters and one of them was the quintessential tomboy. If you made a comparison list of 'boy' and 'girl' things, be it clothing, toys, sports, and anything else that can be considered 'gendered', everything she did from the minute she could speak would fall firmly in the 'boy' column. Nothing about that bothered my wife and me, we didn't make the mistake of trying to 'guide' her towards acting more like a girl, but more importantly, she was happy as she was and, despite us as a family being able to talk openly about personal things, regardless of what they may be, not once did she so much as suggest that she should have been a boy. On the contrary, she used to get frustrated with people who couldn't quite understand that she was just a girl who didn't like the 'girly' things and not a boy trapped in a girls body. As she got into the stage of developing crushes she made no secret of the fact that it was girls she was attracted to, and because we took this in our stride there was no need for a 'coming out' announcement; she knew, we knew, her sisters knew, no fuss required. Basically, we simply let her be herself. She is know a grown woman, approaching 40, happily married to a wonderful woman who is as much our daughter as the other three. BUT! She is horrified by the current situation with the gender movement because she is seeing girls who are just as she was but who are being and have been enticed into groups focussing on the gender aspect, and these girls are following an eerily similar pattern. Instead of being allowed to embrace themselves, they are 'coming out' first as 'non-binary' and then as trans 'boys'. She has told me that what frightens her the most is that she knows that had she been a child in today's climate where there are so many LGBT youths groups (that didn't really exist in their current form 30 years ago) she could have easily gone down the same path, because no matter how strong the family bond is, for kids peer pressure is stronger. OK, more later.

Grandad - again, you're cherry-picking my words to support YOUR beliefs and YOUR narrative (which you've set in stone; I know I'll never convince you with logic and reality.) I said that trans women are women. That is absolute. That is all-encompassing. What I said is that for ATHLETES, we need to consider whether or not it is FAIR to the other athletes to allow a trans woman to compete if she went through her transition post-puberty: as in, her body was shaped by the testosterone levels of a biological male. It doesn't mean she ISN'T a woman, it just means we must consider the situation and decide if it is fair to allow her to compete, since her physical body was shaped by different hormones and may be larger/stronger because of that.

Lakota, what you're doing there is cherry-picking the situations where a trans woman is or is not a woman. If 'trans women are women' is an absolute, as you stated, then it should apply to all situations: that's what 'absolute' means.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

"Woman" is a psychological and social gender construct and chosen identity

“Woman” is the everyday conversational word, that you use in place of female, the biological/medical term. Outside of a doctor’s office, you say woman instead of female. It’s about language, it has nothing to do with gender or “personal identity”. “Girl” for a human female child.

@Timothy I'd personally say that 'female' and 'male' are the biological terms, but I guess everyone has a different opinion in relation to this. Personally I'd say that 'woman'/'girl'/'man'/'boy' are the social constructs.

Emilu, they are only constructs in the sense that all words are constructs, but what 'girl' and 'woman' describe are females in different stages of development, the former being an immature female and the latter a mature female. There are no 'male' girls or women and no 'female' boys or men.

@Grandad Yes, but they're female or male as in XX or XY. They don't suddenly change chromosomes because they age sufficiently to go from being a 'girl' to a 'woman'. And there is a scientific difference between a biological woman and a transgender one, as I mentioned above -- I was simply stating how I would separate the two.

And I don’t think they’re constructs at all. Just words that mean the same thing but are used in different situations. “Hello Ladies and Gentlemen”, vs “Hello females and males”.

@Timothy I respectfully disagree with you... to a certain degree. One certainly wouldn't say "hello females and males" as we both know that's weird. From the other comments you've made here you're obviously transphobic and, well, I doubt some net rando will change your mind, so you do you. Taking that into account, I was stating above that I would say 'trans woman' indicates someone born male that identifies as female, but they're biologically male. You and I both agree that there is a difference between someone born as a woman and someone who says they're a woman. The above is how I would personally differentiate the two. I hope that makes more sense. And if you downvoted me because you disagree with me, please grow up. We can have a civilised discussion without that. I'm more than happy to return the favour if you want to play downvote city, but I'd rather not stoop to that level.

Her. Have some respect for her as a person

@Rick Fitz I deleted my previous comment because it was attacking you directly, which I try not to do. However, I agree with Don here -- even if you may not agree with their 'delusions' as you call them, it's plain respect to call someone by their preferred pronouns. I'll use this as a simplistic and crude example, would you like it if someone in your life addressed you as "stupid c**t" every time they spoke to you? If you say yes, then, well... I'm happy to contribute! But seriously. Treat others the way you'd like to be treated. It's not that difficult, and people appreciate it when you do.

This comment has been deleted.

Did ya catch the whole...Muscle and strength: You will likely experience a decrease in muscle mass and strength.

A decrease, yes, but the evidence shows that it merely reduces the gap between male and female, it doesn't close it completely.