I'm torn on this one. I'm an avid fan of MMA, male and female. The thing is this girl accepted the bout with Fallon and she doesn't have to. I definitely fault Fallon for her earlier decision to not release to the commission that she was a male to female transgender. That was sketchy and not fair to the girls fighting her. However, after it was made known girls then had the option to no longer accept bouts with her if they felt she had an unfair advantage. The fight after she was revealed to be transgender she lost via TKO. Does she punch harder than a typical woman? Certainly, but so does Cyborg Justino, who probably hits way harder than Fallon does.
Recently I believe Miesha Tate suffered a broken orbital bone to Sara McMann (whom she beat by decision anyhow) and Alexis Davis might have suffered a fractured orbital due to one punch from Ronda Rousey.
Personally, based on what I've learned about male to female transitions, I think Fallon is likely more durable than a lot of women and probably stronger, but also has numerous disadvantages such as flexibility and cardio.
I think the ladies in her division and organization should feel free to decline a bout with her, but her advantage over other women probably isn't as
extreme as we imagine after hearing she used to be a guy. Here is some info from the people responsible for the transgender policies in fighting:
Quote:"Vilain, who worked with the Association of Boxing Commissions when they wrote their policy on transgender athletes, was also quoted by Time as saying that, to be licensed, transgender female fighters must undergo complete "surgical anatomical changes ... including external genitalia and gonadectomy" (see sex reassignment surgery) and a minimum of a subsequent two years of hormone replacement therapy, as two years is "the current understanding of the minimum amount of time necessary to obviate male hormone gender related advantages in sports competition". When asked if Fox could, nonetheless, be stronger than her competitors, Vilain replied that it was possible, but noted that "sports is made up of competitors who, by definition, have advantages for all kinds of genetics reasons", and said that it would be discriminatory to treat Fox differently than other athletes with potential genetic advantages.
Time also noted that, as she has neither testicles nor ovaries, Fox probably has lower testosterone levels than most of her competitors. Fox says that she has less strength and endurance than her female training partner, and that she has to make up for it by perfecting her technique"
The bolded portion brings up a valid point as well. Some people are naturally freaks of nature, take Brock Lesnar for example. That guy is a legitimate freak of nature, he is just built bigger than normal people even for his weight class. It might seem unfair to a lot of his opponents who aren't as genetically gifted. He was still beatable though, just like Fallon is.
“Life is neither good or evil, but only a place for good and evil.”
― Marcus Aurelius
"In my opinion, there is a more scientific approach we can take to all hot-button issues. We do this when we stop demonizing the opposing viewpoints or victimizing ourselves, and we acknowledge and account for our own biases and emotions to the best of our ability."
--- Elliott C. Morgan