if you look at the mixed doubles matches at wimbledon, when the man serves against the woman it's hilarious. If they are lucky enough to get the ball back, the follow up smash ends the point

The issue there is in performance enhancement though, and it still disproportionately affects women’s sports. A biologically female transman who has been on testosterone for years will ALSO have a distinct strength advantage over unmedicated people. There’s a reason that various hormones are banned as performance enhancing drugs in most if not all sports.

The inverse would be true of men’s sports; if a top male Rugby player starts taking female hormones to transition, he will quickly lose the strength needed to compete in the top men’s tiers.

The problem is that hormones end up with a “half way point” that fits in neither category. Trans women taking hormones lose physical strength, so they’re not as strong as the men, but are still stronger than other women. Transmen gain an advantage over other biological females, but it’s unlikely to be to the extent that they can compete with biological males.

I can appreciate that it’s very complicated. But of course, the focus needs to always remain in no one gaining an unfair advantage, and (first and foremost) safety.

It makes for some really boring tennis matches in early rounds to be honest, the big-serve men’s games. Quarter finals and beyond is the only part that’s still good because the top tier players are the only ones who can reliably return a top tier serve and get into the part of the game that’s actually entertaining to watch.

Are you talking about transmen here or all women? If you're talking about transmen presumably that is what already happens

Tennis is pretty much the only sport I voluntarily watch for fun, as an interesting tidbit of TS info :joker:. But just the final stages of the big 4.

Was never into tennis at all, definitely more of a combat sport fan myself

As far as I know, there aren't any specific reles against sportspeople taking performance degrading drugs? Like, laws aside, the leagues don't specifically say "thou shalt not get stoned every night", even though doing so would damage their perfomance?

Transition hormones should be treated similarly. If a transwoman can't keep up with the other males as a result of taking the hormones, the choice should be a)give up the sport or b)stop taking the hormones.

Fury over decision to let transsexual enter Tokyo Olympics: New Zealand's female
weightlifters reveal they are 'told to be quiet' when they complain that a woman 'will lose
out'

1. New Zealand transgender athlete Laurel Hubbard is set to compete at Olympics
2. Hubbard competed in men's weightlifting competitions before transitioning
3. But former weightlifter Tracey Lambrechs has said women are being silenced
4. Those that complain, she says, are being 'told to be quiet' if they voice concern

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/05...0401785867.jpghttps://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/05...0410886134.jpg

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Olympics.html

top comment by miles:

I may be wrong but I have never heard of females who have trans to
males wanting to enter male competitions. I wonder why that is, is it
because they know they wouldn't stand a chance of winning.

:skull:

New Zealand are almost guaranteed a Gold medal in the "female" category, then...

Didn’t she literally kill someone and get away with it bc she’s rich :skull:

It was a car crash, presumably that was an accident?

no

I don't know much about it,but I assumed it was an accident aswell.

From good old wikipedia. It seems like there wasn't enough evidence that she was at fault for prosecutors to press charges, but some of the victims felt that she was at fault and filed civil lawsuits for damages which were settled out of court (so unknown how a court would have ruled on those too).

So definitely an accident but in terms of being at fault, an "unknown, not enough evidence either way" situation I think.

Being at fault doesn't stop it being an accident though (unless she was drink driving or something like that?) But she would surely have been Breathalyzed

Yeah and (I would have thought) definitely charged if there was proof of intoxication or reckless driving or anything like that. TBH sounds like she just ****ed up/made an error which obviously happens to all drivers at some point, but sadly someone died.

Then again, 25+ years ago my own grandmother was killed by a driver doing 60mph into a village over a blind summit which is pretty unambiguously reckless to me, but they didn't prosecute there either! So I understand families feeling differently I guess.

…it was (…apparently found by the Sheriff’s office investigations…)…that she was driving at an unfit or unsafe speed for the weather conditions but that no criminal charges would be made…

Thanks Ammi

…she did give a settlement of $800,000 to the family, though…

I guess when you can't argue against what she said, bring up something irrelevant to the topic to distract from it. :skull:

To be fair I think out of court settlements are often seen as an admission of guilt, when really it can just be people not wanting the situation to carry on any longer. Also I guess it sounds like she was considered to be at fault for the accident, but not to a criminal extent, which again I guess is often the case with traffic incidents - e.g. insurers will decide that one, both or neither driver was at fault and that decides liability for the claim but doesn't mean anyone broke the law. Must be hard to live with I suppose.

:/

wtaf

Purr as they should