International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   Trans Women are not Women (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=325369)

Marcus 9th December 2017 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hercules56 (Post 12107957)
If I was a woman and was competing against a trans-woman in a sports event, I would feel cheated as the trans-woman would most likely have a physical advantage over me.

If I was a nation with few medals, I would put lots of trans-women onto my female Olympic track and field team so as to increase the odds of winning.

Or like Russia you could load the team with women tanked up on male hormones. I got a chuckle a few posts back when someone pointed you that some of the Russian women got so loaded up that they decided they were men, I didn't know that.

cullennz 9th December 2017 05:50 PM

Couple of things with this case about advantage.

Apparently bone density reduction is not as given with hormone replacement therapy as people think

Muscle mass is obviously reduced

The other thing that I don't think has been mentioned is psychological advantage

She used to compete as a dude and was lifting heavier weights.

Ie She knows in her head she can do it when reaching winning levels. Less doubts. Psychological hurdles etc

That to me is probably as advantageous as most of the other things

sadhatter 9th December 2017 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12107875)
I'm a huge sports fan. Just as I am a huge art fan that prefers abstract art, I prefer abstract sport.

You have stated yourself you are self aware to know you often have the minority opinion. Keep that in mind when I say.

You are aware sport is a business right? They will not make money with your "moving for the sake of it" changes. If you like sports please hope no one ever listens to you.

Roboramma 9th December 2017 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadhatter (Post 12108520)
You have stated yourself you are self aware to know you often have the minority opinion. Keep that in mind when I say.

You are aware sport is a business right? They will not make money with your "moving for the sake of it" changes. If you like sports please hope no one ever listens to you.

On the other hand there is something to be said for fights without weight classes. It's one of the great things about BJJ tournaments that they have the open weight division, which gives you things like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uJDZsmiWGU

sadhatter 9th December 2017 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 12108538)
On the other hand there is something to be said for fights without weight classes. It's one of the great things about BJJ tournaments that they have the open weight division, which gives you things like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uJDZsmiWGU

That's why all major fight clubs moved away from it?

Try again.

Roboramma 10th December 2017 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadhatter (Post 12108571)
That's why all major fight clubs moved away from it?

Try again.

All major jiu jitsu competitions that I'm aware of have an absolute division.

I've competed in open weight many times. My record in my division is pretty good but while I've won matches in open weight against much larger opponents I've lost much more frequently. Size really does matter. My last open weight match was against Li Jingliang, maybe the best Chinese fighter in the UFC at the moment (I lost by 2 points, he outweighed me by more than 20kg).

I think there's a good argument to be made that it's overly dangerous in things like boxing and MMA where head trauma is involved.

It is true that a lot of guys in BJJ decide not to compete in absolute out of concerns related to injury, but striking based martial arts are different and have a different risk/reward calculation.

cullennz 10th December 2017 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 12108589)
All major jiu jitsu competitions that I'm aware of have an absolute division.

I've competed in open weight many times. My record in my division is pretty good but while I've won matches in open weight against much larger opponents I've lost much more frequently. Size really does matter. My last open weight match was against Li Jingliang, maybe the best Chinese fighter in the UFC at the moment (I lost by 2 points, he outweighed me by more than 20kg).

I think there's a good argument to be made that it's overly dangerous in things like boxing and MMA where head trauma is involved.

It is true that a lot of guys in BJJ decide not to compete in absolute out of concerns related to injury, but striking based martial arts are different and have a different risk/reward calculation.

All staged though isn't it

[Laughs at own joke wind up and sneaks away] [/]

Sideroxylon 10th December 2017 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 12102934)
This subject has been brought to a head in NZ by the inclusion of a trans woman in our weightlifting teams for the Commonwealth Games. Link: https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinio...t-of-the-world

She competed as a bloke until a few years ago when it occurred to him that under new rules he could compete as a shiela and actually win something he was actually a woman trapped in a man's body, despite having male DNA.

In these inclusionary times I find it interesting that the main group of people who openly agree with the thread title are Germaine Greer and other TERFs. (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists) How appropriate that the very women who empowered women in the '60s are now, in their 60s, disempowering women.

I have no problem with trans women and even worked on a trans-positive hiring strategy with a couple of large companies, but I cannot and will not accept that they are the same as women. They are most welcome to use women's bathrooms, go to women's jails and changing rooms, but they're not actually women, and can see why Greer and others feel the same.

They have a choice.

No, I'm not saying gender/sexuality is a choice, but it certainly can be, as the significant - but small - sample of trans reversals displays.

The “some of my best friends are trans women” was a nice touch as was the “has men’s DNA” pseudo-scientific essentialism. Casting aside the self reported motivations of a trans person and inserting a cynical greed driven one was a good platform.

Darat 10th December 2017 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quadraginta (Post 12108231)
Are there sports which forbid the regular use of drugs that boost estrogen levels to those of a genetic female and concurrently suppress testosterone production toward the same end?

Had a look at a couple of sporting bodies regulations and I'm now surprised more athletes don't get caught using non allowed drugs. It's really, really complicated. There are mentions of "sex" hormones and drugs that can increase the natural production, I don't know if they would detect or allow the use of the drugs many transpeople have to use. But if not they could be added.

Roboramma 10th December 2017 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12108611)
Had a look at a couple of sporting bodies regulations and I'm now surprised more athletes don't get caught using non allowed drugs. It's really, really complicated. There are mentions of "sex" hormones and drugs that can increase the natural production, I don't know if they would detect or allow the use of the drugs many transpeople have to use. But if not they could be added.

The drugs trans women use would hamper performance, not enhance it. Why would they disallow those drugs?

Darat 10th December 2017 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 12108613)
The drugs trans women use would hamper performance, not enhance it. Why would they disallow those drugs?

They disallow many, many drugs and even treatments that have zero evidence that they improve a specific athlete's performance, the idea behind the tests appears to be to ensure that athletes take no drugs.

sadhatter 10th December 2017 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 12108589)
All major jiu jitsu competitions that I'm aware of have an absolute division.

I've competed in open weight many times. My record in my division is pretty good but while I've won matches in open weight against much larger opponents I've lost much more frequently. Size really does matter. My last open weight match was against Li Jingliang, maybe the best Chinese fighter in the UFC at the moment (I lost by 2 points, he outweighed me by more than 20kg).

I think there's a good argument to be made that it's overly dangerous in things like boxing and MMA where head trauma is involved.

It is true that a lot of guys in BJJ decide not to compete in absolute out of concerns related to injury, but striking based martial arts are different and have a different risk/reward calculation.

Name me a league that can compete with pride or ufc for viewership. You know what I'm saying stop trying to try and street cred me out of a valid observation.

sadhatter 10th December 2017 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 12108613)
The drugs trans women use would hamper performance, not enhance it. Why would they disallow those drugs?

Hamper but not erase advantage over biological women. You need to remember to keep that part in, or you are being very dishonest.

It would be like saying if the rock fought me while 4 drinks in he is hampered. Sure technically correct but he still has a massive advantage.

Roboramma 10th December 2017 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadhatter (Post 12108805)
Name me a league that can compete with pride or ufc for viewership. You know what I'm saying stop trying to try and street cred me out of a valid observation.

I think I actually agreed with what I thought you were saying: that it makes sense for something like MMA or boxing to not only use weight classes but also not to have open weight classes. From my perspective the reason is that it's important for the safety of the athletes. I'm not sure if you have a different basis, but if you do I would be interested. If that's not what you are saying you can clarify I guess.

I do think that the original UFC, which had no weight classes, was important in the form that it took, but it has passed its time and there's no reason to go back there now.

When it comes to Jiu Jitsu, the IBJJF Worlds has an open weight class. As does ADCC. These are the biggest tournments in BJJ in the world, so if we are talking about jiu jitsu, which is what the video I linked to was, then I don't see what else you are looking for.

Roboramma 10th December 2017 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadhatter (Post 12108809)
Hamper but not erase advantage over biological women. You need to remember to keep that part in, or you are being very dishonest.

It would be like saying if the rock fought me while 4 drinks in he is hampered. Sure technically correct but he still has a massive advantage.

I think you think we disagree about things we disagree about. I certainly think trans women have an unfair advantage in at least many sports.

I don't think the solution is to disallow the drugs they are taking which only hamper and do not improve performance. The issue is not the hormone therapy. If they stopped taking them they would have an even greater advantage.

Roboramma 10th December 2017 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12108631)
They disallow many, many drugs and even treatments that have zero evidence that they improve a specific athlete's performance, the idea behind the tests appears to be to ensure that athletes take no drugs.

No, that's not the idea behind the tests. There may be many drugs which are banned for invalid reasons, but there are also many other drugs which are not banned.

Marcus 10th December 2017 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 12108538)
On the other hand there is something to be said for fights without weight classes. It's one of the great things about BJJ tournaments that they have the open weight division, which gives you things like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uJDZsmiWGU

Sumo doesn't have weight classes either. There are some tiny guys (under 300 pounds) in the top division (professional Sumo has 6 divisions) but it's unlikely any of them could ever make Yokozuna.

sadhatter 10th December 2017 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 12108817)
I think you think we disagree about things we disagree about. I certainly think trans women have an unfair advantage in at least many sports.

I don't think the solution is to disallow the drugs they are taking which only hamper and do not improve performance. The issue is not the hormone therapy. If they stopped taking them they would have an even greater advantage.

They would hamper equal competition, but if your advantage is 50 per cent and you are sacrificing 30 per cent of it for drugs you still have an advantage.

I disagree with your presentation of the facts. So much so I feel it is dishonest. Whether we agree on how things should be done is irrelevant. A false statement is a false statement.

Darat 10th December 2017 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 12108820)
No, that's not the idea behind the tests. There may be many drugs which are banned for invalid reasons, but there are also many other drugs which are not banned.

Not sure how you can conclude that given they ban many drugs which have no evidence of enhancement.

cullennz 10th December 2017 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12109043)
Not sure how you can conclude that given they ban many drugs which have no evidence of enhancement.

Which in particular were you thinking of

Not that I particularly disagree, just genuinely interested

Roboramma 10th December 2017 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadhatter (Post 12108917)
They would hamper equal competition, but if your advantage is 50 per cent and you are sacrificing 30 per cent of it for drugs you still have an advantage.

Yes.

Quote:

I disagree with your presentation of the facts. So much so I feel it is dishonest. Whether we agree on how things should be done is irrelevant. A false statement is a false statement.
:confused:
Can you at least tell me what I'm being dishonest about? What "false statement" did I make?

Thanks.

Hercules56 10th December 2017 05:54 PM

Should trans-women be banned from female competitive sports?

They should on average hold a competitive edge, which many might say is unfair.

Roboramma 10th December 2017 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hercules56 (Post 12109410)
Should trans-women be banned from female competitive sports?

I think so.

Quote:

They should on average hold a competitive edge, which many might say is unfair.
I agree.

Ron_Tomkins 11th December 2017 02:12 PM

One could also argue that a Naturalized American Citizen is not the same as an actual American Citizen. Because you were not born in the United States, and in many cases, your first language was not English. Unlike actual American Born Citizens, you were born somewhere else, and then you came here, learned English, filed an Application and were given a document that says you are now a Citizen. But that will never change where you actually came from and your inherent cultural formation.

However, would you claim that Naturalized American Citizens should be revoked of their rights as Americans?

No. Because it's irrelevant whether or not they are, technically, still immigrants. They came here, they went through the process, and now they are American. So who cares? Just let them live their lives as American Citizens.

Likewise, we can present all the scientific arguments to why a Trans Woman will never be the same as an actual woman, but who cares? This is about giving them their rights to live and be treated as human beings. Besides, the last thing a Trans Woman wants to hear is someone tell them why they're not in fact the same as women. Trans Women already deal with a lot of intolerance, and what they need is to be accepted.

Not saying all of the people here arguing why Trans Women are not Women, are not being tolerant. Just that it doesn't advance the problem. This is a problem about inclusion, not scientific accuracy. Religion may be Scientifically inaccurate, but we still allow people to practice whatever Religions they want.

caveman1917 11th December 2017 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins (Post 12110397)
Likewise, we can present all the scientific arguments to why a Trans Woman will never be the same as an actual woman, but who cares? This is about giving them their rights to live and be treated as human beings. Besides, the last thing a Trans Woman wants to hear is someone tell them why they're not in fact the same as women. Trans Women already deal with a lot of intolerance, and what they need is to be accepted.

Not saying all of the people here arguing why Trans Women are not Women, are not being tolerant. Just that it doesn't advance the problem. This is a problem about inclusion, not scientific accuracy. Religion may be Scientifically inaccurate, but we still allow people to practice whatever Religions they want.

Except that trans-women already have the right to live and be treated as human beings. The issue at hand is whether women-only sports competitions are required to include them. So the analogy would rather be something like universities being required to have religious young-earth-creationists teach physics and biology because not doing so would be infringing on religious freedom.

Darat 11th December 2017 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennz (Post 12109048)
Which in particular were you thinking of

Not that I particularly disagree, just genuinely interested

The otc cold remedies for one.

Roboramma 11th December 2017 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12110479)
The otc cold remedies for one.

Pretty sure that's because of the stimulants.

cullennz 11th December 2017 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 12110590)
Pretty sure that's because of the stimulants.

Yeah

It's the pseudoephedrine which is in any of them that are decent

http://bmjopensem.bmj.com/content/1/1/e000066

Civet 11th December 2017 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins (Post 12110397)
Likewise, we can present all the scientific arguments to why a Trans Woman will never be the same as an actual woman, but who cares? This is about giving them their rights to live and be treated as human beings. Besides, the last thing a Trans Woman wants to hear is someone tell them why they're not in fact the same as women. Trans Women already deal with a lot of intolerance, and what they need is to be accepted.

Not saying all of the people here arguing why Trans Women are not Women, are not being tolerant. Just that it doesn't advance the problem. This is a problem about inclusion, not scientific accuracy. Religion may be Scientifically inaccurate, but we still allow people to practice whatever Religions they want.

Well I think Tyr made the point pretty solidly upthread that it's entirely possible to treat transwomen as women who have a physical condition that bars them from competing fairly with other women. Not every genetic woman gets to be an athlete. I suspect that it might make sense to treat transwomen who medically transitioned without ever going through male puberty the same as genetic females, but I'm not really savvy enough about the science to be sure.

Darat 12th December 2017 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 12110590)
Pretty sure that's because of the stimulants.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennz (Post 12110597)
Yeah

It's the pseudoephedrine which is in any of them that are decent

http://bmjopensem.bmj.com/content/1/1/e000066

As you can see with that example, no evidence.

Roboramma 12th December 2017 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12110928)
As you can see with that example, no evidence.

That they don't have evidence doesn't mean that they don't believe that it enhances performance. They might even just think it might enhance performance and consider that reason enough to add it to the banned list.

Ron_Tomkins 12th December 2017 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 12110410)
Except that trans-women already have the right to live and be treated as human beings. The issue at hand is whether women-only sports competitions are required to include them. So the analogy would rather be something like universities being required to have religious young-earth-creationists teach physics and biology because not doing so would be infringing on religious freedom.

Right. My bad. I wasn't following the thread, as I see it is focusing exclusively on the Sports Competition issue. Yeah, that one is different, and what you say is true. I mean, I don't know if you used the best analogy, but long story short, I agree that a Trans Woman has a series of physical advantages/differences from a woman when it comes to sports competition.

The Atheist 12th December 2017 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oystein (Post 12107609)
I am a man of the garden variety. My body and its hormones happen to be balanced such that I am not very muscular.

I'm the exact opposite and used to compete at fairly useful levels in strength sports, namely shot put and discus.

I've been having a think about this, and there not being too many 190 cm 100 kg shielas competing at masters level, I reckon I can put on a dress, gobble a few oestrogen tabs and set a few world records for women's masters.

Any money at that level?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolrab (Post 12107936)
Who would watch?

Lots of guys.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennz (Post 12108300)
The other thing that I don't think has been mentioned is psychological advantage

It hadn't, and it's an important and perceptive observation.

Why did you hack Cully's account?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon (Post 12108594)
The “some of my best friends are trans women” was a nice touch...

Not only did I not say that, I merely noted that I'd been involved in trans-positive recruitment programs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon (Post 12108594)
... as was the “has men’s DNA” pseudo-scientific essentialism.

Pseudo-scientific? Do trans women not have XY chomosomes? Heck, I thought the oestrogen treatment only caused a few cosmetic changes, I wasn't aware it was acting at the molecular level as well. Does the get sucked back in and turns into a uterus?

Which neatly segues back to Germaine Greer's contention - that trans women don't have a uterus and therefore can't claim to be female, because they physically are not.

The fact that trans women are physically different to women born as women is a huge part of the argument. Some women seem to think so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon (Post 12108594)
Casting aside the self reported motivations of a trans person and inserting a cynical greed driven one was a good platform.

Pity Randi took the mio down - you seem to be aware of what all trans women's motivations are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins (Post 12110397)
One could also argue that a Naturalized American Citizen is not the same as an actual American Citizen.

Except it would be a really crappy analogy since there is no physical difference between the people, although I feel sorry for the American-born ones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins (Post 12110397)
Likewise, we can present all the scientific arguments to why a Trans Woman will never be the same as an actual woman, but who cares? This is about giving them their rights to live and be treated as human beings. Besides, the last thing a Trans Woman wants to hear is someone tell them why they're not in fact the same as women. Trans Women already deal with a lot of intolerance, and what they need is to be accepted.

Not saying all of the people here arguing why Trans Women are not Women, are not being tolerant. Just that it doesn't advance the problem. This is a problem about inclusion, not scientific accuracy. Religion may be Scientifically inaccurate, but we still allow people to practice whatever Religions they want.

I don't see any reason why we can't be tolerant and disallow them woman status.

I'm not sure I understand why acceptance as a female is so important to them, and I absolutely don't believe it's important to all of them, because many choose to retain their penis.

This seems to speak to that point - 99.5% of all M2F surgeries were breast implants only and only 0.5% genital surgery: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/mo...-but-its-not-w

Might it not be that the voices clamouring for total control over being female are just the usual squeaky wheels and that a wide majority of trans are happy just to be trans?

caveman1917 12th December 2017 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins (Post 12111175)
Right. My bad. I wasn't following the thread, as I see it is focusing exclusively on the Sports Competition issue. Yeah, that one is different, and what you say is true. I mean, I don't know if you used the best analogy, but long story short, I agree that a Trans Woman has a series of physical advantages/differences from a woman when it comes to sports competition.

Yes the analogy wasn't particularly good, I picked up on your analogy with religion and went with it, but you're right that my version didn't really come out that well.

Marcus 12th December 2017 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 12111572)

I don't see any reason why we can't be tolerant and disallow them woman status.

I'm not sure I understand why acceptance as a female is so important to them, and I absolutely don't believe it's important to all of them, because many choose to retain their penis.

This seems to speak to that point - 99.5% of all M2F surgeries were breast implants only and only 0.5% genital surgery: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/mo...-but-its-not-w

Might it not be that the voices clamouring for total control over being female are just the usual squeaky wheels and that a wide majority of trans are happy just to be trans?

Bruce Jenner is the perfect example. Not only did he not have the surgery, he continues to have sex with women. Using his penis. Just dressing in womens clothes is not enough to make someone into a woman, at least by my definition.

caveman1917 12th December 2017 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus (Post 12111787)
Just dressing in womens clothes is not enough to make someone into a woman, at least by my definition.

It's also deeply sexist, by pretending that women really are the sex stereotypes (long hair, make-up, dresses, ...) our society ascribes to them. If a white guy were to put on a blackface, blast rap music, generally act like a stereotype of a black person, and then says "and therefor I now really am a black person" we'd have no problem seeing it as racist.

ETA: not saying that trans-genders are inherently sexist or something, but that this particular reasoning form: "act like stereotype of woman therefor really woman" is sexist reasoning.

Hungry81 13th December 2017 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus (Post 12111787)
Bruce Jenner is the perfect example. Not only did he not have the surgery, he continues to have sex with women. Using his penis. Just dressing in womens clothes is not enough to make someone into a woman, at least by my definition.

Caitlyn Jenner is on record as saying she lived a lie and has always known she was a woman. Does that mean she is technically a rapist by deception to her ex wife? All those years she thought she was having sex with and was impregnated by a man. All elaborate lies. What a deceptive person she is.

Hungry81 13th December 2017 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 12111804)
It's also deeply sexist, by pretending that women really are the sex stereotypes (long hair, make-up, dresses, ...) our society ascribes to them. If a white guy were to put on a blackface, blast rap music, generally act like a stereotype of a black person, and then says "and therefor I now really am a black person" we'd have no problem seeing it as racist.

ETA: not saying that trans-genders are inherently sexist or something, but that this particular reasoning form: "act like stereotype of woman therefor really woman" is sexist reasoning.

Exactly endorsing the lie that women need to have cosmetic surgery to feel or be attractive. Short/fat/skinny/tall/manly with manly appendages all women of all races and all sexes, should feel comfortable even, nay.... ESPECIALLY if they have a penis and functional testicles.

Darat 13th December 2017 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hungry81 (Post 12112318)
Caitlyn Jenner is on record as saying she lived a lie and has always known she was a woman. Does that mean she is technically a rapist by deception to her ex wife? All those years she thought she was having sex with and was impregnated by a man. All elaborate lies. What a deceptive person she is.

That has to be the strangest statement I've read for a long time.

Hungry81 13th December 2017 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12112342)
That has to be the strangest statement I've read for a long time.

Not long ago another woman was charged with rape because she presented herself as a man https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&s...sUwjZf&ampcf=1

This is similar what Caitlyn states she did. Acted like a man even though she knew she was a woman. Hell she was so into pretending she was a man she impregnated her wife. Thats dedication. Why does she get special treatment and the other girl gets scorn and 6 years prison?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.