I am an avid follower of Holly Holm because I know her personally. I cannot WAIT for the day that UFC matches her up with current bantamweight champion Ronda Rousey. However....I have a HUGE amount of respect for Ronda Rousey also. Even though I know when the day comes Holly's going to knock her out.....still......
But as I have been following to sport waiting for Holly's next fight as she's recovering from a broken arm, I ran across this.....
So they have a transgender female named Fallon Fox fighting as a female....
OK. I for one think this is bull shit. Just because she may have undergone some surgery, and taken some hormones doesn't take away the fact that she IS as strong as a man. So basically the women UFC fighters are now contending against a man. (biologically speaking)....
While I LOVE Ronda Rousey's attitude towards this, "I'll knock her out anyway" I'm not so sure.
Here was Tamikka Brent's response after fighting against Fallon Fox:
“I’ve fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night," Brents said in a Whoa TV interview. "I can’t answer whether it’s because she was born a man or not because I’m not a doctor. I can only say, I’ve never felt so overpowered...
Would the UFC even consider allowing a transgendered man fight against men? I don't think so. So why are they allowing a man fight women? That is what this is basically.
What is the future of Transgender women and men in sports? Do you think that the individual should compete as the gender they were born?
I think Fallon Fox should compete as a man. End of story.
What do you think?
We just got done talking on TA about Rice beating his wife and that he could have killed her. Is it possible that Fallon Fox could kill a woman that he....I mean she....fights against?
PLEASE!!!! I mean absolutely NOOOOOOO disrespect to transgendered men and women reading this. But what we're talking about here is MMA FIGHTING!!!!!! if Fallon Fox is good enough to be in the UFC, why don't they have her competing with the men?
Do you think this is fair???? This is more of a biological question. Should women be expected in sports to fight against transgendered people who were born male????
Correction. Her record with MMA is 7-0-0
One of the hardest things about being transgender is the constant struggle with society over how you are and are not allowed to consider yourself. It's easy to try and deny Fallon Fox her womanhood, even easier if you ignore the fact that she's had to struggle and sacrifice just to be able to express herself.
Who is the true arbiter of an individual's identity? The individual, or society? If the answer is truly society then I understand the high suicide rate among other transgender people. I could understand how a smart, strong young women might choose to fade away into a shadow of herself, or how a loving, joyful, nurturing man could harden himself like piss on a winter sidewalk, begging for death every step of the way.
RE: I've already explained that an expert on transsexuals and endocrinology examined Fox's medical history and found that after years as a post-operative transsexual her physiology had changed sufficiently enough to classify her as a woman.
Gallup: It sounds like 'Fox is setting the stage' is a euphemism for holding Fox responsible for any injuries inflicted by future transsexual fighters. That's not only unfair to Fox, it's also a slippery slope fallacy.
Belle: That is a strawman fallacy. I said nothing of the sort.
You do not get to claim you 'said nothing of the sort' after being quoted saying it, Belle.
I would like you to point out the part where I said that Fallon Fox should be held responsible for any injuries inflicted by future transsexual fighters. Those words never left my mouth onto this thread. This is STILL a strawman fallacy. Dismissed.
I appreciate that Brent is acknowledging her lack of medical expertise as a reason not to engage in speculation. Fox might be the strongest opponent she has ever faced. But the fact remains: Fox has already been instigated thoroughly.
No she has not. Fox's initial application to fight in California was never officially approved. The California State Athletic Commission merely received her application, but never granted her a license to fight. Fallon then submitted an application in Florida and was granted to fight based on her having supposedly fought in California with license, but no one did a fact check on the validity of her claim to having had a license in California. This didn't come about until she had already entered the ring twice. She failed to mention on her application in the state of Florida that she was a transgendered woman. The only investigation of Fox at this time was to determine if she had committed fraud under the Florida Commission Chapter 548 guidelines which state: Section 548.071 (2) of Florida’s combat sports statutes states the boxing commission may suspend or revoke a combatant’s license if it’s found he or she has “committed fraud or deceit in securing any license or permit.” The issue of her medical strength and whether or not it would pose an unusual threat to the other women UFC fighters was not addressed, and Fallon was allowed to keep fighting. Source: http://mmajunkie.com/2013/04/florida-regulator-finds-no-fraud-with-...
Here's what the REAL expert on this subject has to say about the matter. Dr. Johnny Benjamin quotes,
The whole transgender issue in female sports, is that people can't look at it rationally. It always becomes a huge social issue. 'Oh, you don't like transgender people.' I don't even know if I actually know any transgender people, but I certainly don't have hangups with people. Who you love, who you date ... I couldn't care less. I don't pick who you love, you don't pick who I love. That's a rule I live my life by. What a grown person does is there own business.
The issue here is if it's safe or not. That's the only thing I care about. Do we know enough about it to say if it's safe or not? The problem with the transgender issue, specifically male to female, is that there is not enough scientific information out there to say if it's safe enough to allow this to go on. If you don't know if it's safe, we have to err on the side of safety, which says until we get more information, we cannot go forward with this.
One of the things that's very interesting, is everyone says, 'Well there's been a few studies that say after two years this, that and the other...' That's not true. There's no studies for this. I've done the literature search. Then they come back with, 'The IOC knows.' The IOC knows what? The IOC caved to political and social pressure. The IOC didn't say, 'Because of firm scientific and medical evidence, that if you've had this SRS and you've taken hormones for two years, that's the magic number that all this is going to become safe.' That's not true at all.
There is no firm scientific basis to support that conclusion. They made an arbitrary determination in the face of social pressure. OK, I understand that, too. Who wanted to fight the fight? The IOC didn't want to, so they said. 'If you get the surgery and take the hormones for two years, that's good enough for us.' That doesn't mean it was made on a sound medical basis, because the sound medical basis doesn't exist. Those studies have not been done.
The surgeons that spoke towards bone density decreasing and so on and so forth - that doesn't say the person doesn't still have superior physiological abilities. The real question is, what was the sex at time of puberty? As we all know, boys and girls aren't that much different until they go through puberty.
Gender reassignment happens after puberty. One of the things that happens during puberty, is that boys grow 15-20 cm taller than girls. The average height of men is greater than the average height of women. In addition to bone density, there is also the issue of longer bones in men. Longer bones lead to some mechanical advantages that shorter bones don't have.
The argument is that "They've become a woman because they've had the surgery and taken the hormones.' The hormones will certainly make your phenotype. The different hormone therapies are very good at changing that, but they don't change those things that happen to you during puberty. The length of your bones don't change. The mean muscle surface area doesn't change a great deal.
When people say, 'That person has turned into a woman', I'm fine with that, but where is the hard scientific data that says their athletic performance capacity has now changed to that of a woman? That scientific research has not been done.
People might think I'm against transgender people. I'm not against anybody. That's a social issue. What I'm saying is that we don't know enough, and if you don't have that knowledge, if you don't have that scientific information, you have to err on the side of safety. Until we know for sure, I can't support it. We simply don't know what the safety issues are.
So there you go. There is not sufficient evidence to determine if this is safe. We need to err on the side of caution.
If Fox had a record of breaking jawbones and dislocating limbs, I would share your concern.
Brents reportedly suffered a concussion and a broken orbital bone during the two-minute beatdown, and required seven staples in her head.
Any more concerned now?
Gallup, let's look at this again. You seem to be stuck on this ONE tiny piece of what I said, when I'm trying to develop a discussion about other data that I have found. I am disappointed that you didn't take the time to read, or if you did read it you chose not to discuss the links that I presented with other medical professional assessments of the situation and the risks that might be present. So I'll go back to this statement ONE MORE TIME and hopefully we can put it to rest. Here's my quote:
When I see her fighting, Alyssa for example, there were moments when it seemed as though she was aware of her own strength and she backed off a bit. But that may be because she is a good person. I sense that in watching her interviews. But if she sets the stage for this to become the norm, other transgender women may not be so forgiving, and the upper body force in the right spot.... It's all over.
To which you replied:
It sounds like 'Fox is setting the stage' is a euphemism for holding Fox responsible for any injuries inflicted by future transsexual fighters. That's not only unfair to Fox, it's also a slippery slope fallacy.
To which I said that is a strawman fallacy.
You have said SEVERAL times now that it was my MEANING to hold Fox PERSONALLY responsible for future injuries. That was not what I meant by this statement. What I meant was the entire industry. The UFC, the IOC, the Florida Commission....any and every women's combat sport. Fallon Fox just happens to be the first transgendered woman to be in this position. So by saying "she is setting the stage," is to include those who endorse her right and ability to continue fighting. I could have changed the verbage here, but the essense is to say, if the industry embraces this new change, is it safe? That's the whole point, and even the title of the thread. So. I still maintain my position that you have committed a strawman fallacy. AND....your insistence that my using "Fox" in certain sentence structures, and "Florida Commission" or "IOC" in others...and considering you took up the entirety of your last response addressing my choice of linguistics rather than ANY of the actual data that I presented you to read, is now a Continuum Fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy
So let's move on, shall we? What is your response to the REST of my previous response?
This sort of thing is a problem at all levels of sports. As they are legally and ethically forced to accept transgenders, how do they keep things as fair as possible for all involved?
As we accept that gender falls along a spectrum and is not a binary (male or female) as previously assumed, what to do with those people who straddle the genders in various ways?
As sports have advanced, however, it turns out that those who excel are often freakish to start with. Unusually big, unusually strong, unusually tall, unusually aggressive. Black people seem to have genetic predispositions for certain sports such as ones involving running.
Clearly, many top female athletes, just like their male counterparts, have a LOT of testosterone running in their veins. If there is a solution—and I don't pretend it will be a satisfactory one—it may be to categorize people according to their ratio of testosterone to estrogen.
And what about people with the advantage of better science behind them? Better training. Better nutrition. While my daughter was in high school, even 20 years ago, she was swimming times that would have won her a gold medal in the Olympics of the 1930's! That's due to the expertise of her swim club's coaches and what we knew in those days (mid-1990's) about nutrition. And today, we know much more than we did then.
We are already at the point where we can develop people's muscles to a degree where they can break their own bones by the exertion of their own muscle power, and all to gain a miniscule edge in terms of time or weight or other measure.
We may be reaching the end of sports as we know them.
So, your question comes down to the age old philosophical question of what it means to be fair and what sorts of activities justify our participation in them.