this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2025
435 points (98.0% liked)
Trans Memes
1700 readers
169 users here now
A place to post memes relating to the transgender experience.
Rules
- Follow lemmy.blahaj.zone community guidelines.
- Posts must be trans related.
- No bigotry.
- Do not post or link to pornography.
- If a post is tagged with a specific gender identity, keep the conversation centered on that identity.
- Posts that assume the viewer’s gender and/or contain potentially triggering content must be spoilered and tagged at the beginning of the post title. Example content-warning tags that you can copy include the following:
[CW: Assumes Viewer is Transmasc][CW: Assumes Viewer is Transfem][CW: Assumes Viewer is Nonbinary][CW: Transphobia][CW: Violence][CW: Weapons/Firearms][CW: Disturbing Imagery]
- Mods can be arbitrary.
Recommendations
- Include other tags in posts for example:
[Transfem/Transmasc/Non-binary]
- Include image description when possible.
- Link to source
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
ELI5 this for me, I'm not even on this sub but whatever.
Everyone loves Messi, the dude takes a metric shit ton of forbidden drugs because he has a medical issue, wins a WC and competes because everyone recognises and accepts a medical condition is an acceptable reason to have exceptions.
Then, enter trans athletes. They have a medical condition, they take drugs to remediate the fact they were born in the wrong body, they win because the karma for the immeasurable amount of suffering they endure is being good at a random sport. Everyone dislikes that and calls it cheating.
I'm not an ally or anything. Being in the EU and seeing the fandom of Messi, can someone please explain to me why that cunt of a tax dodger gets an exception and Mary from down the street, who just won the district football competition, and wants to live her life in peace, is called a cheater.
Just make it make sense, and while you're at it, explain why the fuck is this a discussion that permeates the airwaves almost weekly.
I'm gonna be killed for this, but is the number of successes the same for F2M as it is for M2F? I'm genuinely curious.
I'll gladly delete this if it's terrible.
No clue, nor am I inclined to use time to find out.
At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter. Success at sports is not only dedication, it's also luck in the genetic lottery, regardless of the sport.
I believe I'm an outlier in this thought, I think that segregation between male and female sports make no sense.
It really does matter though.
It's the entire point.
You realize that no woman will ever win in a physically demanding sport ever if you remove the separation, right? Its not an opinion, look at every swimming/Athletics/weight lifting/cycling/any sport with a physical component world record, to find the objective fact of the matter.
I respectfully disagree.
No women will ever "insert thing here" is completely nonsensical. Just like with the labour force, this divisive thinking exists to divide us so more companies can profit from someone elses labour. It's an excuse to maintain the patriarchy. I highly doubt that there won't be any women at the top given the same time and money investment as men. Furthermore, we're happy to separate women sports from men because women genetics, but you get shot if you suggest subsidised hygiene products for women. Why can't we be more consistent as a society?
Personally, sports involves way too much money and BS, play for fun, we're not collectively Charlie Sheen, winning is not the most important. ASICS is the most important in sports.
Do you want to see stats to prove I'm right? You're changing your argument to fit your own idea of what you think I'm saying. We are talking about sports, competing, about actually being THE objectively, easily measurably, best at something.
This isn't a philosophical stance to agree or disagree on. It's observably true, and has nothing to do with money in or out.
Here is a fitness study testing the physical differences between boys and girls, before and after puberty.
It has more than 2 million children tested between ages 9-17. As you might see, top 10th percentile of boys are objectively stronger than the top 1 percentile of girls. After puberty the difference increases. Girls perform better at the test involving flexibility. Which makes seense when you see top performing gymnastics, where women arguably are more popular and attracts greater audiences.
Here are all world records in athletics. The only record you are going to find where the womens record beat the mens, is discus. But the womens discus weighs half of what the mens does.
I see you missed the point.
It doesn't matter who is the top 1% when the monetary incentive doesn't climb exponentially.
Hypothetically, if the top 1% earnings were taxed at 90% meaning the distribution of sports wages was normalised where it doesn't change by several orders of magnitude for the top 1% performers, do you think women would have issue for being relegated to a 2nd Bundesliga? If pay didn't change significantly? Why do the 1% need to make 250M a year and the subsequent lower leagues have to survive with that same amount between themselves, all of them?
At the end of the day, what I'm saying is, if you change the incentive structure, being in the 1% will not mean retiring at 30yo.
I'm sorry, but what the fuck are you on about?
At no point has money been a part of the discussion, it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Or what the main part of the thread was about.
You said that you want to remove separation/segregation in sports. OK, i might have misread, but everything you said made it seem like you don't want to separate men and women in competition.
That will lead to women no longer being a part of sports, since no one wants to watch tier 6 football on TV. Which is where female football players might qualify to play. But even that is quite a high tier, considering the swedish womens football team lost to boys under 16 in a practice game. They will no longer be able to qualify for the olympics in any athletic competition, except perhaps for gymnastics, where there is physical advantage for being a woman.
You live in some kind of fantasyland where people watch sports "for fun". You might play sports for fun, but people want to watch the best. Women have fought for decades to have their own separate leagues in order for them to be a part of the best in a sport. You somehow think the only reason women don't compete with men in sport is because they don't get payed? That's an insult to all female athletes that worked their whole lives to be the best woman.
It would be like going up to Florence Griffith Joyner and saying "Nah, you just didn't try hard enough at trying to beat the men at 100m dash".
I recon you don't even like to watch sports.
Well if you don't do the segregation you will find that in some sports almost no afab people will ever reach the top.
Some sports are of course worse than others in this regard.
And even if there is no physical barrier, historically male dominated sports struggle to find female athletes/players. See for example chess.
How would you solve this?
It's not something that needs to be solved. It's sports. Tax sports income at 90% above 1M a year and watch it stabilise.
What has this to do with income? It's also amateur leagues that would be affected.
Less concern about winning, more concern about being inclusive and having fun? Sign me up for that shit.
Well for many winning and trying their hardest to win is the fun in sport :/
So go do that then. Complaining about the quality of your opponent is not good sportsmanship. Just try your best and see who wins.
Where do I complain "the quality" of my opponent? I am trying to understand their viewpoint with regard to non-segregated sports.
I've spoken to some athletes about this before -- women and men -- and I found the opinion that sports should be gender-segregated and that the decision of where trans-athletes should be able to participate in should depend on the specific sport in question.
In my mind good sportsmanship includes fairness and I want to figure out what is "fair" in this situation. Many reasonable people disagree in that regard I think.