-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Draft Hannah Mounsey to AFL women
- Thread starter Team Agg
- Start date
if you have two x chromosomes you are a female
if you have an x and y chromosome you are a male
anything else is window dressing.
in a contact sport, all it will take is for one 'real' girl to be injured seriously by someone with different bone structure and muscle mass and then the AFLW will be up against legal action.
if you have an x and y chromosome you are a male
anything else is window dressing.
in a contact sport, all it will take is for one 'real' girl to be injured seriously by someone with different bone structure and muscle mass and then the AFLW will be up against legal action.
roacheee said:
That's really untrue.
Forget gender, even in terms of biological sex, that's untrue.
If you both produce male determining hormones and have the appropriate receptors for those hormones, and if these are produced at the appropriate time during development then you will develop as biologically male. If any of those things don't happen, or happen insufficiently, you will develop as biologically female, or somewhere in between.
Generally, a y chromosome confers the genes to produce these hormones, but not always. In addition, there are people born XXY, XYY, or even just X.
And this is not to say that gender is decided by any of this.
It's a very complicated, multi faceted process. To assume your situation is everyone's situation is either supremely egocentric, wilfully ignorant, or both.
Coburgtiger said:
xxy (klinefelter syndrome) and xyy syndrome births are generally not going to produce elite athletes. so lets stick the vast majority of the population
so... xy = male ... xx = female
you can put on a dress and chop off the wedding tackle but it doesn't change your skeletal structure or your bone density or your muscle fibre characteristics
roacheee said:
Those are just two exceptions to your statement. What you have said is a generalisation. And as we are discussing trans people, we are inherently NOT discussing the vast majority of the population, so I'm not sure why you would ignore any concept because it only applies to a minority.
Again, xy individuals are not always phenotypically male, and xx individuals are not always phenotypically female, despite it being the most common outcome. There is a specific gene on the y chromosome that, when expressed, is translated into a regulatory protein which kicks off a whole bunch of proteins which create a male phenotype out of the 'default' human body (female). This is what creates all the other phenotypes you would normally associate with maleness but mainly, at early human development stage, it just kickstarts the development of the male gonads and genitals.
The rest of the changes you mention really just occur at puberty, when other genetic signals initiate another massive release of hormones such as oestrogen and testosterone (though not exclusively) which shapes things like skeletal structure, muscle mass etc. What's important to remember that these things create a difference of DEGREE not KIND. Even the testicles and *smile* are essentially the same structures as the clitoris and ovaries which have been shaped differently by hormones released in different quantities at different times.
This is where you get a spectrum of human beings. Not the binary system of one or the other. Because it's not a switch of male or female, it's a release of a certain amount of femaleness or maleness. Weird example, there's a tribe of people in the carribean (I think) where a significant percentage of their kids begin life looking phenotypically female because the initial release of male determining hormones is not detected as efficiently by the cells of the sexual organs. As a result, they spend their early lives (up until puberty) looking like biological females, then all of a sudden, with the big second release of the biologically encoded hormones, they develop some very male characteristics, including male looking genitalia.
In reality, none of this describes transgendered people very well. This is more about intersex individuals - those who don't biologically fit the binary male/female system. But the spectrum of humans highlights that biological sex, as well as associated gender, is not a simple situation. I would think most people could understand that if sometimes your biology is in conflict with itself, your psychology can be in conflict with your biology.
There are also always going to be some biological females who find it easier to put on strength and size than some biological males, because, again, it's not as simple as you make it.
roacheee said:
Actually, my comments are based on my genetics major, and I haven't offered any social or political views.
In all the situations above, the embryos are viable.
I'm not sure what you're on about.
Coburgtiger said:
Very interesting and detailed posting CT. But given all of that, can you see which type of sex cells they are producing? I know that sounds harsh but surely sporting bodies need to draw a line somewhere?
As difficult as it is, should sporting associations be forced to make these determinations? The difference in approach seen by IOC and IAAF suggests it could get very murky indeed. Right at a time when women's sport is starting to gain traction with TV broadcasts and representative competition. I feel sorry for the administrators of women's sport in all this.
At the same time I struggle to see the relevance of the advantage that "may" exist for a Caster Semenya? Surely a 6'3" high jumper has a biomechanical advantage over a 6' one?
KnightersRevenge said:
Some people don't produce any sex cells. It'd be a bit rough to be banned from sport because you're sterile.
If I were to offer a personal opinion, it would be that gendered sports are a bit arbitrary anyway. I'd do away with them and have the best sports people in the best competition. If you're own personal hormone levels, skeletal structure and general athleticism mean that you can't compete at the elite level, well, that's generally why people never get elite anyway. As far as I'm concerned elite sport has always discriminated on physicality.
I've played in a number of mixed leagues that work well.
Not sure what that would look like at the elite level, and I'm sure it would lead to possible discrimination and other issues. But it would be interesting. I'd be selecting Ellyse Perry for the ashes.
Perhaps we could do what a lot of amateur sporting competitions do, and have men, women and mixed. Who knows.
Coburgtiger said:
Would sound the death knell for the ambitions of women in most sports.
She'd be killed.
Coburgtiger said:
You can see what would happen, though? If all sports were decleared open most would be dominated by men. Equality and feminism and LGBTetc lobby groups would have a field day. Sponsors would fund only the elite levels which would be dominated by men so women's sports would lose money. It may look like segregation to some but it is probably benefiting women's sport at the moment.
The counter argument might be that playing in mixed squads all through your life might equalise the body type and endurance and skill levels and more women would make it? Who knows?
KnightersRevenge said:
You're probably right.
It would take gradual and universal change to work. I firmly believe that if the junior leagues never separated, there would be a smattering of women capable of being drafted into the seniors. It would probably only ever be in small numbers though. Just like not many short people get drafted. Or slow people. But that's what elite sport is. It discriminates against certain body types. What's great about AFL is that it takes a much wider variety of athletic ability than most sports.
I don't think endurance and skill level would ever be an issue. Just generally, women have less muscle mass and height, but that's only a generalisation. And footy can be played by people like Dion Prestia and Caleb Daniel, so height and weight aren't everything.
I think, in reality, if we were to suddenly make the league open to all genders, and lose the women's league, it would be, at this stage a step backwards for women in footy. We would have less women at the elite level. But, and I don't know, I wonder whether these women like the opportunity to compete in the highest quality league in Australia.
And, if you forget the AFL for a moment, I reckon it would lead to a huge uptake of female participation in things like the VFL.
I don't think there's a perfect solution, and to be honest, I haven't asked the opinion of female athletes in the sport, so I don't know.
