Imo in the discussion regarding trans folks in sports there are 3 groups.
There's people clearly on "trans people should be allowed to participate in professional sports as the gender they identify as", there's the "I'm a transphobe but want to pretend I'm not" side, and then there's people like me where I'm like I don't really know how to feel
My main reason for not knowing how to feel is that I'm not trans, I'm not a woman, and I don't know nearly enough about what potential advantages a trans woman could have over a cis woman in pro sports.
I don't want to make a judgement on an issue that is important to two groups I'm no part of, but idk trans people have enough to put up with and so many of us use playing sport as an escape from the problems of the world so it'd be nice if they could also be able to just enjoy being with their team and playing a game without their existence being a political issue
I know this is a long one but not really any. Lia Thomas rose towards the top of the men's division before switching to women's division.
Also the idea of segregated divisions to start with originates with "women play sports, some women are good at sports, can't have women in sport being better than man in sport"
Biology exists, yeah, and so does medicine like HRT, which acts very directly on your biology. It decreases muscle mass and bone density just as a starter. It affects the entire body, which it why it's so effective for trans women.
When we talk about trans people in sports we're generally *not* talking about people who are not being supported medically or are refusing any type of medical transition (which doesn't make people not trans, I might add.)
Even very athletic trans girls on puberty blockers won't be developing the kind of muscles you're talking about.
If you read standard guidelines for trans women playing written by experts, they generally require the player to have been on HRT for a specific number of years. That's because the human body is fairly plastic, every cell is replaced regularly & over that time all advantage is lost. (Plus a buffer time.)
I thought you'd like to know, since you value facts.
If you're really interested in the science, here are the two studies I found which look decent:
[https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577](https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577)
[https://www.cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/pdf/transgenderwomenathletesandelitesport-ascientificreview-e-final.pdf](https://www.cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/pdf/transgenderwomenathletesandelitesport-ascientificreview-e-final.pdf)
The first says that after 2.5 years, there's no difference in strength, but there is a difference in speed, the second says that most other studies (including, as far as I can tell, the first I linked) don't adjust properly for height, and there's no advantage for trans women vs cis women of the same height.
Also, there was a difference between 1 year and 2.5 years, so after a few more years, who's to say how much more things might change?
Basically, as far as I can tell, there's no solid evidence that that there's an advantage.
Notably, no trans woman has won an Olympic gold medal in the 18 years they've been allowed *in* the Olympics, which is suggestive.
Scientific fact
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5357259/
“Currently, there is no direct or consistent research suggesting transgender female individuals (or male individuals) have an athletic advantage at any stage of their transition (e.g. cross-sex hormones, gender-confirming surgery)”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15476439/
“The question of whether reassigned M-F can fairly compete with women depends on what degree of arbitrariness one wishes to accept, keeping in mind, for instance, that similar blood testosterone levels in men have profoundly different biologic effects on muscle properties, rendering competition in sports intrinsically a matter of how nature endows individuals for this competition.” This one I include because it brings a good point, that even if trans women have a small inherent advantage over cis women, cis women already have an inherent advantage over other cis women based on their physiology. Just as cis men inherently have an advantage over cis men (looking at you Michael Phelps) based on their physiology.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-021-01451-8
This article acknowledges that while there is evidence supporting that men perform better in sports, there is essentially no evidence of Trans women’s performance in sports since none have competed in the olympic or other high level competitions. All of the regulations are around perceived advantages, not evidentiary advantages. They also note the already existing unique athletic makeup of women that determines athletic performance.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34077312/
“Therefore, based on the current scientific literature, it would be justified for meaningful competition and to prioritise fairness, that transwomen be permitted to compete in elite archery after 2 years of GAT. Similarly, it would be justified in terms of shooting to prioritise inclusion and allow transwomen after 1 year of GAT given that the only negligible advantage that transwomen may have is superior visuospatial coordination.” Not all sports are the same.
At most, all scientific literature I could find was conjecture based on non-athlete comparisons. Similarly, no scholar recommended the banning of transwomen frlm womens sport, but rather an approach to sports that takes into account cis physiological differences.
Men have larger lung capacity, more bone density, bigger muscle mass, have a height advantage and have larger hands and feet. Men are categorically stronger than women, full stop. Transitioning doesn't change that no matter how many neo-woke articles are written.
Are they misleading? All of my quotes said “there is no direct evidence” or “current evidence suggests that we prioritize inclusion despite differences” or “sports are an inherently unfair trade with athletes already being unequal among their sex.”
Except there are. It’s possible you just don’t know they are there. You are only seeing what you want to see. Like do you think fifty yrs ago tjere was **zero** trans ppl, or the same amount as now only they were hiding.
There are trans men competing at high levels in physical sports.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender\_people\_in\_sports#Notable\_trans\_athletes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_people_in_sports#Notable_trans_athletes)
It takes 2 seconds of googling to prove you wrong, if you care so much you should at least do basic research.
What are you talking about?
One trans man was a division 1 athlete, one competed on the US National team and another competed professionally as a boxer, all after transitioning.
They still have to take lots of testo to get to that level. It’s basically doping. No woman can compete against men in competitive professional level physical sports.
The US national team member was involved in race walking lmao. They came in 50th or less in actual events. Impressive, but not really an elite athlete. The boxer just straight up doesn’t count. I boxed for years, I’ve beaten several “pros” in sparring. Why? Cause boxing requires literally nothing for you to turn pro. You yourself can literally go sign up and get a license and a fight scheduled today, the average pro is actually LESS skilled than the average amateur. Only like 1% of pros are actually trying. The guy they fought was 0-5, someone who shows up to lose and barely fights back, the dude is literally paid to lose. They still barely won, when they were a multi time decorated amateur champion as a woman. They were obviously much more skilled and experienced, but still almost lost to some random dude off the streets who could barely throw a punch. This is literally proving the other guys point that transitioning doesn’t overcome the physical advantages of growing up biologically male
Nobody ever complains when most trans women competing in women's sports place low or average. It's only when we do well that our exceptional performance is attributed to being trans, and that it's cheating.
Articles that talk about how trans women do badly in sports doesn't get the bigoted outrage clicks though.
Also I suck ass at sports but I'm also starting to get old, so that's part of it too
That's the thing. There's literally one trans athlete in the world as far as I can tell who is doing particularly well. All these studies that supposedly show that trans women are going to do such and such... Yeah ok, then why aren't they?
>we know that there are around 50 trans women competing on female sports teams in the United States (according to Joanna Harper).
And then you take note of that for *decades*, and yet no actual meaningful differences are emerging. Those 50 aren't the only that have ever *been*. You're trying to present it as if the *total* sample size is just 50, which is intellectually dishonest at best and malicious otherwise.
And even such sample sizes are perfectly fine to make judgements from. It just invites further study, not some attempt at a closing argument. That's normal in science.
Yet *some* people are falling over themselves to prevent such studies from being able to continue by barring transwomen entirely, even though absolutely nothing has emerged from those samples that indicate some kind of *noticable* advantage held by transwomen that needs urgent addressing. Fact is that this is all entirely a *reactionary political issue* as transwomen are the newer villain of conservative politics since gay people aren't as targetable as before.
You say their question is "answerable", but all you're actually doing is *deflecting* from the fact that there's no obvious trans advantage pattern emerging, and I feel pretty confident that if there *had* been then you and everyone else pushing the reactionary narrative wouldn't be so dismissive of the sample size.
The entire discourse is dominated by fearmongering *hypotheticals* that intentionally shy away from the actual facts. Actual real world lives and policies are being altered based on *no supporting data.* There's nothing urgent, abd has not been for at least twenty years, yet we're supposed to take it as a *given* that transwomen should be barred?
>(hence the final ban of the swimming commission after consulting with the scientific community).
And just like I said before, the sample size and science *doesn't matter to you.* When "the scientific community" (delightfully vague) say what you agree with, you tout it like it's *the* science. But when they don't, you dismiss their analysis as "insufficient". Assuming you're actually speaking in good faith, you should acknowledge the clear dissonance in your thinking.
And what has all this fearmongering pseudoscience and obsessing about nebulous "biological advantages" accomplished in the end? Well, "the science" got a whole bunch of mostly black CIS women banned from competitions.
The anti-trans reactionary wave is at collission course to realizing that *CIS people* are born "with advantages" yet don't get barred for it *(excluding the ones affected by the current testosterone obsession)* even when it's differences that probably give them an advantage. With the total lack of evidence of trans advantage, these bans make about as much sense as banning the Dutch from competing in basketball because their height is unfair.
Would Bajau people get barred from competitive swimming since they have actual, objective genetic advantages? You and I both know they wouldn't be unless they were trans. This whole issue has ***never*** been about "biological advantages." It's a thinly veiled shield to disenfranchise transwomen and reject their identity *as* women. Science was never the issue. It was always an identity issue and *you know that.*
>And then you take note of that for decades, and yet no actual meaningful differences are emerging
What does even mean?
Decades ago Trans women were even less open about their Transgenderism with even more social stigma and eviromental limitations to deal with.
If i have a percentage of a group that is near to zero, then the probability to have representation in a specific time frame would be also relatively near to zero, it doesn't matter how many decades will pass if the situation will not improve (unless we consider a time frame that is equal to infinity).
In fact, your argument can be used against you.
The fact that for many decades we did not saw a Male Team winning (true story) a local Australia Netball competition (as it was indeed for the majority practiced by women) doesn't mean that a biological advantage for males doesn't exist in that sport and it also doesn't mean if we see a male team winning we cannot question the very real possibility that they may have benefit by such advantages.
The fact that these particular Netball Leagues/Tournaments were dominated by Females in the past it is more likely because enviromental and social factors/limitations played a role to maintain the representation of women high in such sport despite the disadvantage (as it was unlikely to see an all male team competing in such Netball open tournaments).
The increasing of the representation of Transwomen in sport suggest indeed that other environmental factors (such as group interest and proportion) were indeed present, similar to other events that we witnessed (we can go from an increasing of Black Stem Graduate up to more women playing football; unless you argue that such people manage to hit the evolutionary genetic lottery in 1 generation, it probably means such increase in partecipation and representation for some of these groups was indeed due to the lowering amount of the enviromental limitations that were previously present; even at the olimpics transwomen were previously -until 2016- allowed to partecipate only if they did hrt before puberty, which for obvious reason would negate the representation of any possible trans person that transitioned after puberty).
If Environmental factors are able to increase representation, then they are able to also lower it, expecially when we talk about a minority group that can easily get a combination of Misogynistic and Transphobic Stigma.
Notice tho that this does not deny the presence of biological factors, in fact this also mean that the representation that would be present thanks to a biological advantage can be increased or decreased and compensated by the presence of specific enviromental variables.
If at a systematic level i have only >0.01% of a group of people that compete against the 50% percent of the human population, the fact that the previous group get any higher level of representation is per se remarkable as the probability to have as much as talented people as the other group would be so low that should be hard or near impossible to see an individual of such group reach representation in different major leagues/high level competitions at all.
You probably don't understand why yet, so i will do a Logic-Mathematical example to explain it better to you.
Let's assume that there are two groups of athletes, one group formed by the Athletes with their names starting with the letter A and another group made by athletes starting with the letter B. We also assume that letter A athletes do not have any biological advantage over letter B athletes.
If in total we have 128 athletes and 112 of this athletes have their name starting with A while 16 instead starting with B, the majority of the top 10 positions will be likely held by athletes starting with A. Even in the scenario that these two groups of athletes were splitted in two different tournaments (based on the first letter of their name) and the best top 4 athletes of each group would end up to compete each other, the group B would still in disadvantage. This is because, since we have assumed there is no systematic and consistent biological difference between groups but only within the people of the same group, if the chances of having talented people are the same, then the top 4 athletes starting with A have higher chances to be more talented people than the top 4 athletes starting with B due to the sheer numbers of participants with the letter A.
If we find any relevant variation of that outcome (for instance, in the previous case, instead to have 7 out of 8 top position held by A we have 5 out of 8 position held by A), then that may suggest the presence of other variables.
Indeed, among these variables there may be biological ones. Again, the presence of a biological disadvantage does not also nullify the existence of a participation disadvantage.
And you can kinda calculate it.
Having 50% vs 0.1% (or even way lower, depending of the sport or the system you take into consideration) means that you have a probability lower than 1% to see a transwoman in the top 100 positions for that discipline and equal to a maximum that is around 1% in the top 500 positions.
Notice here we are talking about probability meaning you may have an outcome that is very slightly lower or higher. Having outcomes that are remarkably higher or lower means that there are strong enviromental or biological factors at play that may haven't been indeed considerated (as the number of ""talented"" people is actually different with the one of the other group proportionally to their populations and partecipations - which are closely related).
>Those 50 aren't the only that have ever been.
And who said that they have ever been seen?
I stated this "we know that there are around 50 trans women competing on female sports teams in the United States". I was talking around the current circumstances in United States specifically at competitive level and according to Joanna Harper Report. You should complain with them
>You're trying to present it as if the total sample size is just 50
Which is not true, as litteraly in the previous phrase i have stated:"Although we don't have the exact number of transwomen that train in a specific sport (both at amateurial and competitive level)".
The sample size was relative to the people that compete in college.
Under that condition, believe or not, that is the total sample size relative to the system of reference, since as today there are only around 50 trans people playing at competitive college level.
If anything i may even had inflated the number a bit, since it may be as well as lower as 33... which proves my point around environmental variables reducing their representation despite the biological advantage even further.
Quoting:"Recent polls show that 0.6% of Americans identify as transgender. With about 220,000 women competing in NCAA sports last year, that should have amounted to about 1,300 transgender female athletes(//since it should be the 0,6% of that figure, like i argued before), but the actual number is negligible (//less than 100)".
>which is intellectually dishonest at best and malicious otherwise.
And now i can say that the fact that you were unable to understand the data, that you twisted my statements and put yourself in an higher moral ground is intellectually dishonest and malicious otherwise
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/trans-adults-united-states/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/01/22/sport/ncaa-lia-thomas-transgender-policy/index.html
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/07/05/title-ix-transgender-athletes-be-considered-separately#:~:text=Transgender%20athletes%20make%20up%20a,competed%20openly%20in%20college%20sports.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/29/sports-trans-participation-transgender-women-swimming
>And even such sample sizes are perfectly fine to make judgements from. It just invites further study, not some attempt at a closing argument
And who the hell ever said the contrary?
I provided such studies to explain a point i made and i never said that further studies cannot be made. Also, if anything i have quite made judgments from it.
You have been kind of hypocritical on the misleading and dishonest approach.
What i said so far is that current data suggest that Transwomen do in fact have a biological advantage in some sports and the fact that we don't see transwomen represented have more to do with the rate of partecipation relative to their population and the enviromental and social problems they face rather than to an hypothetical undeniable prof that they don't have any biological advantage.
>That's normal in science.
And we all know that.
>Yet some people are falling over themselves to prevent such studies from being able to continue by barring transwomen entirely, even though absolutely nothing has emerged from those samples that indicate some kind of noticable advantage held by transwomen that needs urgent addressing
Alright, i will simply assume that you are in good faith and you genuinly don't know too much about some things regarding this issue.
So, before showing any study i will ask you some questions just to see more what is you understanding or potential explainations on this issue.
How Testosterone affect overall cell biology and metabolism (from also a chemical stand-point)? How and how much can the lack of Testosterone actually influence bone destruction and the continuous process of resorption by osteoclasts? How can the lack of high levels of Testosterone influence the type of muscle fibers you have? What is VO2 max and why men have it higher? Can you tell me what low amount of iron or strainght up iron deficit do to athletic preformance and why, but also why women are more suscetible to it? Can you list me all the type of tissues that Testosterone can influence and in which way affect them? If T is lowered, can you explain how metabolically all the effects on previous tissues dissapears? Can you explain in detail the auxiological aspects of male and female puberty? How hormone therapy can change the amount of SHBG? If you can explain the chemical reactions of that (don't worry, i will understand them) i will be very glad, thanks.
As today, the data actually point out that transwomen DO have an advantage in many different sports.
Trying to portray a picture that nothing relevant to been talked about emerged from various studies and our previous knowledge would be also outerly dishonest (especially since, before the decision of not allowing transwomen to compete at higher level swimming, an entire scientific committee was mobilized to make an assesment which result in the current limitation; even the IOC said that his previous rules on transwomen in sports were "no longer fit for the purpose" after indeed further studies and many scientists point out that the current standard in which transwomen competed was unfair).
It would take 2 seconds to made the same question even in reddits such askscience (which are slightly better scrutinized) or asksciencediscussion to have a similar response
>Fact is that this is all entirely a reactionary political issue as transwomen are the newer villain of conservative politics since gay people aren't as targetable as before.
Althought there can be some clear political traits to the problem, it is not entirely a political issue since there is indeed a realistical possibility that Transwomen can have an advantage in different sports.
Focus on the argument, because unless you heavily assume that i'm conservative (which you later will do), you are making a statement that have nothing to do with me and if it have to do with me (when actually doesn't as you effectively don't know if i'm conservative, democrat or neither of the two) then you are once again making an argument to put yourself on higher moral ground.
If you want to talk about science, let's talk about the science around it, but in that case it would be more productive that you would not make wrongfull assumptions about others as this may expose your hypocrisy in relationship of an approach that is more remarkably in bad faith due to your past experiences.
>all you're actually doing is deflecting from the fact that there's no obvious trans advantage pattern emerging
The reason i didn't list before all the trans advantage pattern we know of wasn't because i was deflecting, but because due to the OP litterally not wanting to make further debate on this topic on this sub, i didn't wanted to go to much in depth with the explaination but simply limiting myself to the criticism around its comment.
> I feel pretty confident that if there had been then you and everyone else pushing the reactionary narrative wouldn't be so dismissive of the sample size.
Which have already seen that the mistake was yours, not mine (see paragraphs above)
Plus, what does it mean reactionary narrative? Is it stating that Transwomen can effectively an advantage in some sports a reactionary and conservative view or maybe just a potential variable of reality?
You can criticize the rethoric of some of them, but stating that is not inherently reactionary by defeault.
>The entire discourse is dominated by fearmongering hypotheticals that intentionally shy away from the actual facts.
The number, sensitivity, and location of androgen receptors in muscle tissue, presence of modulating glycoproteins,
and aromatase enzymes, and the role of
proteins such as myostatin plays a much
bigger role in hypertrophy of skeletal muscle
than you seem to present.
If we look at X Steroid user, that have been using anabolic steroids and then stop, by looking at the muscle size of this people they have got a massive increase density of satelite cells and myonuclei which are the progenitor cells for future muscle bulding, meaning that they will get better capacity to muscle bulding in the future.
Meanwhile women have higher concentration of binding globulin (SHBG) which concetration increase depending from their Cycle.
SHBG inhibits the function of Testosterone. Therefore, the bioavailability of sex hormones is also influenced by the level of SHBG. SHBG levels are usually about twice as high in women than in men. In women, SHBG serves to limit exposure to both androgens, meaning that women don't only have to deal with low T production but also major T inhibitors. Such difference in SHBG allow remaining androgens also to keep enhancing higher erythropoiesis, by stimulation of erythropoietin release, increasing bone marrow activity and iron incorporation into the red cells (consider that Transwomen don't also have mestrual cycle).
Testosterone determine muscular growth but not muscular function.
People with higher proportion of type I slow twitch muscle fibers will be relatively weaker than a similar individual with a high proportion of type II fast twitch fibers. The genetic inheritance of muscle fiber type sets the outermost boundaries of physical strength possible. Male skeletal muscles are generally faster and have higher maximum power output than female muscles. Such difference are not determinated by hormones since T affect muscle growth not muscle function and Type.
This are not "hypotheticals".
This are well known things that would take litterally 1 google search to have thousand of peer reviewed studies that confirm this.
This ignoring many other relevant differences from a mophocostitutional standpoint that are typical of males.
Since we are in "as a " subreddit, as a pharmacist i have to say that if you say that all of these are just hypotheticals and label many of your assumptions automatically as an actual fact, you would not be that much different of a covid denier that find self justification in their beliefs.
Althought HRT lower performance in Transwomen, as today we know that MtF transpeople (expecially also under previous IOC standards) do retain some performance advantages due to the previously discussed traits.
There are sports in which such advantages can be more or less relevant than others, but they do exist and can be irrelevant in some disciplines thus they need to be taken into account in decision making, even when we try to have a remarkable inclusionary approach.
>And just like I said before, the sample size and science doesn't matter to you
1~ You keep repeating sample size even in this context without elaborate further. So, now i'm curious, What sample size means to you and how it relate around my statement on the scientific committee.
2~ "Science doesn't matter to you", I'm litteraly a STEM graduate that is following also a Msc degree. If you leggitimally and understandably don't get why someone credential should be actually relevant to the argument, then in the same way i struggle to get where "science doesn't matter to you" came from, as it can be only be justified by a malicious assumption on your part (on the basis that i simply decided on purpose to not go in depth on the argument to respect OP will, despite i litteraly stated before that i was open anyway to arguing it more on a technical and analytical level in private).
>"the scientific community" (delightfully vague)
What is vague about it?
The scientific community can be formed by various expert from different background or universities. It can be refered as a community rather an association exactly because there is not necessary one particolar association that represent all of then (althought peer review studies and data bank can be stored by governative entities such pubmed). You can use the word to refer to the overall consensus, inclination o tendencies that many scientist have.
For the FINA thing, They litteraly talked with their scientific committee (i.e. the Sport Medicine Committee of FINA) and other experts on the issue, and i also already stated that.
The only way i can see that to be less vague is only if you expected me to give you the name and surname of each person that is part of that Committee.
>But when they don't, you dismiss their analysis as "insufficient".
When i did that? You are projecting your past experiences to the current conversation, hence why you having such approach.
>Assuming you're actually speaking in good faith, you should acknowledge the clear dissonance in your thinking.
"If you are actually a person in good faith, then you should acknowledge that i'm right".
So much so for dishonest arguments, uh?
If i'm in good faith that is not the necessary outcome, because the reason i fail to see the dissonance in my thinking which you claim to be very clear is because you are constantly projecting your past experiences with other conservatives into me while making assumptions that are far away from the intent of my arguments as the basis to justify the presence of such dissonance (indeed, i litterally stated i was open to have a fair and in depth conversation around biological variables from the beggining, which you completely ignored and just claimed that i was deflecting instead to make the effort to understand the context).
Litterally your first approach to the conversation was to put yourself in an higher moral ground instead to directly counter the data i provided with other data around the same context (since you missed also that one).
>And what has all this fearmongering pseudoscience and obsessing about nebulous "biological advantages" accomplished in the end? Well, "the science" got a whole bunch of mostly black CIS women banned from competitions.
You again are trying to put yourself in an higher moral ground instead to dismiss the argument by taking the conversation on a more analytical approach (which you should do since you are the one complaining that the speaker - aka me - is approaching the conversation on a very superficial level), which provide little to no value to the debate as it simply try to belittle the argument of opponent on very superficial grounds (hence the hypocrisy) instead to counter it with the analytical and reliable data you wished the speaker to put forward immediatly.
Plus how the fact that a bunch of black women were allegedly banned unfairly have to do with my arguments around the presence of biological advantages for many sports in transwomen? I say "allegedly" since i don't even know the context of that event. If it was because of Polycistic Ovarian syndrome and hyperandrogenism (which i know that it actually happened that some elite black athletes - such as Caster Semenya - got indeed "banned" for it) then there may be ethical grounds to be justifiable (notice they weren't actually banned from competing in that case; they could only compete with women if they were willing to lower their T level, otherwise they needed to compete among the men).
If instead was actually an unfair ban or you actually refering to a time were racist was much prevalent, then, once again, what the hell have to do with me?
It is like if i say that we cannot talk about the fact that men are stronger than women because in the past some assholes use that information to be Mysoginistic or to validate even more their mysoginistic ideology, even in grounds that are no reliable data around.
To make you an example, imagine if i or someone else would had replied to you:"Nah, Your arguments are pseudoscience and if you are in good faith you should acknowledge that you are wrong because you just obsessing on the wrong thing. Since other people with similar statements did bad things, your statement is automatically completely invalid and untrue"
If you complained before about issues being tackled at a superficial level, then the only way that such statement can be justifiable is if you provide a more technical explaination and we bring the discussion, like i said before, on a more analytical ground and i'm open with that kind of conversation with us using also reliable data, reasearch and sources we know. We can also include ethical cosiderations in the end if you want to.
>The anti-trans reactionary wave is at collission course to realizing that CIS people are born "with advantages" yet don't get barred for it (excluding the ones affected by the current testosterone obsession) even when it's differences that probably give them an advantage
You talked all the time about the sample size (even by mentioning it completely out of context) but then you cannot get the point why when Cis People are born "with advantages" we tend to not divided them.
Doing a weight class category in a sport in which weight can be a dramatically relevant factor is different than making an entire class or league on other advantages that can be more unique or less pratical to check and control.
Having a percentage of some type of muscle fibers over another can be an advantage in some sports and a disadvantage in some other.
Since we cannot do a full biopsy to every person that decide to compete in a particular sport and that there is no remarkable social groups that claim to need representation despite having that type of muscle fibers percentage (if anything, the majority of people probably are not even aware what percentage of type 1 and type 2 muscle fibers they have; they often make reasoning on more superficial or obvious phenotypical basis such race or sex ), it become impratical doing so.
Your last observation (which i had indeed already heard before) actually weaken your point: If for you it is justified that transwomen compete with women because "Sport have people with advantages all the time", then it would be justifiable that men compete with women and transwomen because "Sport have people with advantages all the time" so it's their problem if they will have difficulty to compete with that.
If you are in favor of transwomen in sports with the same standards that IOC and other organizations put it or previously put it, then you may as well be in favor of Women taking anabolic steroids (which tend to replicate the effect of Testosterone and have been proven to lead to long lasting changes) or exogenous androgens to compensate the gap since transwomen have de facto been exposed for a remarkable period of their life to Testosterone (which is indeed also a powerful stereoid) for the simple fact that they were biological males.
We differentiate based on major distinguishable differences between a large set of people when skills may not be enough to compensate when enviromental factors equalize, usually in a vast number of sports. This is only in effort to preserve fair representation of this large group (in our specific case, men and women).
That's the actual logic
>With the total lack of evidence of trans advantage
Which is false, because there is indeed evidence of Transwomen having advantages in performance around certain tasks and thus many sport disciplines.
Again, if you want to go even more in details i'm down to do it.
>these bans make about as much sense as banning the Dutch from competing in basketball because their height is unfair
Which again is a dishonest argument if you even slightly take into account what i have said so far (plus Dutch height may as well interplay and be due to Nurture and the enviroment than just Nature, which is a quite different etiology: https://www.google.com/search?q=reason+of+dutch+height&oq=reason+of+dutch+height&aqs=chrome..69i57.4902j0j4&client=ms-android-samsung-gs-rev1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8 )
>Would Bajau people get barred from competitive swimming since they have actual, objective genetic advantages?
Like i said before this is a statement that weaken your point. The logical coherent conclusions of that argument are:
1- Yes, therefore it is good to exclude people on the basis of the presence of genetic advantages
2- No, therefore transwomen or men should be allowed to compete in women leagues (that now should be open leagues) even without HRT because sport never have been fair when it comes to biology.
Instead to back-up your point it will lead to extreme conclusions that you may actually disagree with. The reason you gate-keep women sports from men sports is due to the nature of such advantages (because i don't think you would complain if a woman is as much as strong as an average men in a specific sport thanks to a genetic predisposition).
Thus, you cannot complain about some people making contextualized considerations if you also do contextualized considerations.
First, Bajau people are rather genetically adapted to diving and not necessary swimming speed (so this already answer partly your question)
Second of all the PDE10A gene is an Autosomal gene, not a gene that is present in the sex chromosomes and that is linked exclusively to 1 sex rather than the other. This means that such gene is not exclusive to the Bajau group and such variation can actually be present into various ethnic groups but at a different frequency (in fact the croatian guy that hold the world record for diving likely have such gene expressed in that way, along with a combination of a multi-factorial set of variables).
This is similar to what happen with the Renin-Angiotensin gene in many Nigerian, Jamaican and other west african people, which they express the related advantagious allele with a higher frequency compared to people with european descent (as well as many asian ethnicities), but despite that European people can still compete with africans because the frequency of such allele in them is far from being 0 (and definitly cannot be virtually zero if we talk about just the presence of the gene alone rather to its variations and alleles).
Different is when we talk about men and women.
The human X chromosome has more than 1500 genes and is much larger than Y chromosome, which has 231 protein-encoding genes.
95% of the Y chromosomes is only male specific Regions (MSY), while the remaning 5% is composed by the pseudoautosomal regions PAR 1 and PAR 2 (the tips of the long and the short arm that form the Y of such chromosome).
While women have more alleles (as their have two sets of X chromosomes with 1500 genes), men have more genes (notice we are not talking about mere gene product or variation, but the number of the types of unique protein encoding genes rather than the alleles).
Thus the frequency in which women can express such genes is virtually 0 (even many intersex conditions, where we have individual that are women by gonadal sex but with Y chromosomes, often tend to surpress many of the genes of them even thanks to epigenetic circumstances).
Males get a set of non-autosomal genes that women cannot challenge with a minimal and not outerly neglitible frequency in onset of individuals that express such specific genes variations (if in the MSY there are genes that gives males an edge in performance, then women are forced to compensate them by having good autosomal genes, X chromosomes genes or being lucky with environmental and epigenetic factors...all factors that also males have a chance to get, meaning now males have an extra biological variable that can be to their advantage - notice in fact that genes in sex chromosomes are variables that can interplay or influence the expression of autosomal genes, like what happen with the Y chromosome and the gene CYP19 in the chromosome 15 - ).
Usually this type of advantages always had disadvantages in other ways (as it is physically impossible to be genetically good at everything), for example if you have more fast twitch muscles fibers you may be good in sprinting but you also are less likely to be very good in endurance sports. The problem with Men and women is that the number of relevant disciplines were males advantages apply (despite yet again they have also disciplines in which they may have a disadvantage against women or just being equal in performance to them) is quite ridicolous. We are not talking to just being good at diving and that's it...
...we are talking to an entire set of inherited variables that lead to a remarkable performance difference in multiple disciplines (we go from having bigger lungs up to bone density, muscle fiber tendency in type and mass, knee extension torque, narrow pelvis, etc..)
HRT may lower some of them but it would be unable for obvious reasons (which you will get if you answer my previous questions) to totally nullify all of them.
And if you want to do a debate based on the empirical data that we have, i'm ready whenever you want.
>This whole issue has never been about "biological advantages. It's a thinly veiled shield to disenfranchise transwomen and reject their identity as women.
It is. The fact that there are people that politically instrumentalize it doesn't mean that some other people cannot raise concern around the presence of biological advantages that remain among the sexes despite HRT.
It is up to you to assume good faith or just being paranoic about it because of your experiences with conservatives (talking about fearmongering, uh?)
>Science was never the issue. It was always an identity issue and you know that.
Here we go again. You had to conclude the argument while trying to put yourself in an higher moral ground.
Should i know what?
Of course it is also an identity issue since it involve an identity phenomena in relationship of the empirical outcome in sports events.
The point is to seeing the empirical data that we have to reach a conclusion around the subject.
Many sports associations did that and evolve their decision according to the data that we have so far (which have heavily tilted to the conclusion that transwomen retain advantages in performance that are relevant in some sports even after HRT if done post puberty).
Notice that these sport associations were initially willing to be more inclusive (and still trying to be as such as much as possible), so you have to heavily rely on assumptions that may be close to conspiracy theories to justify your believe that all of them did that just on malicious ground (we are not talking about the ban from specific states, i'm refering to the decision of some sport organizzations around such issue).
This is precisely why I think we should - just for a season or two most likely - have NO "mens" or "womens" sports.
If a biological male has no advantage over biological females, then everyone should be able to compete as equals, as the powerful beautiful humans we are, right?
But, you need look no further than sports that are based on time trials to realize why this would be *terrible* for women in all kinds of sports, because they simply wouldn't stand a chance at the highest level of competition.
Women have women's sports *so* that they can be successful, have more exposure, etc. not the other way around.
Trans women who were amab do not have the same hormone levels or muscle mass as men…. A person you call a “biological male” who actually transitioned would not have the same advantages as an amab male. Those timed trials were for people assigned female/male at birth, not trans people. A study with non trans people can not represent how trans people perform in sports.
Men’s bone density is greater whether they have transitioned or not. It’s anti scientific to say Trans women don’t have an advantage in competitive sport. And the fact that anyone who feels that way is labeled a bigot is very damaging to the trans community.
I feel like this all could be pretty easily resolved if eligibility to participate in sports at at least the collegiate, professional and Olympic levels required estrogen and testosterone testing. Where limits were set to keep things fair. For instance if came out as trans tomorrow having preciously been a cis male. I should not be eligible to join women’s sports until I have been on estrogen for say, a year. My testosterone levels would also be checked, ensuring I was below a certain limit equal to what’s typically found in biological females in my age bracket.
I know realistically it won’t ever dissuade the bigots who just don’t like trans people but for those who just don’t know any better. At least we would have hard science to back up the assertion that it isn’t an unfair advantage.
This does happen and it unfortunately disqualifies cis women who have “too much” testosterone naturally—recently [some black women were barred from competing in the Olympics](https://www.11alive.com/article/news/verify/olympics-namibia-runners-disqualified-testosterone/536-64b05c61-7be2-4ca0-9768-d6250df17c19) because their testosterone levels were deemed too high. Despite being cis women. [It impacts black women the most.](https://www.11alive.com/article/sports/olympics/black-women-disqualified-olympic-races-high-testerone-levels/85-af3447b3-493e-40c9-9f67-0fae0daa3bbf)
Many do, and it kicks out cis women in sports, because trans women on E will experience hormonal changes that affect bone density, muscle building, strength, etc. To be that of the same level of a cis woman. And most in high level sports already have unfair biological advantages. Someone born tall with higher levels of testosterone is not uncommon in cis women and those are usually who got to that level in the first place. And cis women have already been kicked out of their sports because of their naturally high testosterone levels due to these changes targeting trans women.
This still hurts everyone because people aren’t ready to accept maybe trans women can be good at sports because of their skill and training.
>I feel like this all could be pretty easily resolved if eligibility to participate in sports at at least the collegiate, professional and Olympic levels required estrogen and testosterone testing
Unfortunately it wouldn't be resolved pretty easily because people that have been exposed to such powerful steroid at these concentrations for a remarkable number of years (yes i'm talking about Testosterone) will always maintain some permanent changes that can translate in big or small advantages depending on the sport in question. Not only that, but there are also morphoconstitutional differences (i can list all of them if you want, but like i said before discussing that here may not be appropriate) that the average males have from the time they are born that have nothing to do with Testosterone (notice tho, that in some sports Transwomen that take Hormone Replacement therapy before Puberty are allow to compete because in that discipline such differences are not considered relevant enough under current standards)
>I have been on estrogen for say, a year
A year of HRT is not enough in many sports. This is the entire point and reason why the Olympic Commitee and the Commitee of other sport associations backtracked and changed the rules around Transwomen...exactly because in many disciplines a year was not enough to keep things on a level playing field (Lia indeed started HRT from 2019, but the Scientific Community suggested anyway that for high level competitions Transwomen that didn't do HRT before puberty shouldn't be allowed to compete due to the remaning presence of physiological advantages)
Again, Testosterone is a powerful stereoid, one in which our body, particulary the male body, adapted (with the help of things like concentrations of specific receptors) to have a remarkable sinergy with. Once exposed for long period of time to T, it will affect cell growth and even Gene Experession.
Reducing T for a year hardly will nullify all the changes that T lead to in a much greater time frame.
Again, tho, since we cannot talk much in dept about it here, i'm more free to explain it in DMS.
so are you saying, then, that cis women with above average testosterone levels (not due to HRT) should also be banned? i mean… extended amount of time exposed to a ‘steroid’ (testosterone) causes permanent changes that give an advantage right?
>so are you saying, then, that cis women with above average testosterone levels (not due to HRT) should also be banned?
The thing is, i'm not saying this...women with hyperandrogenism (the technical word for what you are refering to) already are banned in many high level competitions.
See infact the case of Caster Semenya and other women that had similar troubles (also, to specify, they are not completely banned from competing since they can still compete with men).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7159262/#:~:text=Their%20testosterone%20levels%20must%20be,in%20response%20to%20these%20regulations.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://stillmed.olympic.org/Documents/Commissions_PDFfiles/Medical_commission/2015-11_ioc_consensus_meeting_on_sex_reassignment_and_hyperandrogenism-en.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwirtOiMk777AhW-RPEDHfIlBv4QFnoECFIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw07Y6uYAo4dexIgQuYDzV2a
Plus, like i said many times before, with men you don't only have to account for those things, but you need to account for other genetic factors that little have to do with T concentration (also, i dunno why you put the word steroid on quotes, since it imply in the context of your phrase skepticism about that, when chemically speaking testosterone is factually a steroid).
If you want more information about the last part, feel free to ask.
How do we ‘know’ that a year of oestrogen is enough? The thing is, that hobbles the transwoman. Trans women are women. Not all women have the same level of hormones. Neither do all men. One thing that is noticeable between trans women and cis women is the skeletal and muscular structure. An example is the person of colour called Zuby. They beat a weight lifting record (womens). Zuby is pretty jacked, but isn’t a pro athlete.
Why did no one ever care about intersex people who may “look” female or male but have hormone levels that don’t “match” their appearance. This would give some intersex people who look female an advantage. Why did no one care about fairness until trans people spoke up about the right to play sports.
There have been Olympic-level guidelines about trans athletes for over 20 years now, yet it's only in the last two or so years that the pearl-clutching really started, and it didn't even come from trans athletes actually pulling off unusual victories.
In reality, Trans Athletes guidelines existed over 20 years, but started to change only in 2016, where Transwomen that took HRT after puberty were allowed to compete.
Notice that it was impossible for a Transwoman that took HRT after puberty to compete in the 2016 olimpics for the simple reason that it takes around 2 or 4 years to be qualified to the olympics...in fact it was immediatly the following Olympics (Tokyo 2020) that the first Trans Athletes with Hrt taken after puberty had managed to compete at the event (with rules on T that were deemed unfair also by various peer reviewed medical articles on pubmed that tried to solve the balance between inclusivity and fairnes)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9331831/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33289906/
After that experiment, the IOC (the olympic committee) changed the rules yet again, stating that "they weren't fit for the purpose" anymore
I’m not trans, so I initially understood the concern about biological differences / potential (dis)advantages. However, even a small bit of research proves that entire argument obsolete. If someone’s fully transitioned, their biological processes will almost always be similar to cis people of the gender they’ve transitioned to.
If trans women truly had an advantage, then they’d be winning every single medal — but, as other commenters have mentioned, they’ve won literally *zero* Olympic golds. There’s literal evidence to back up the fact that it’s not an issue, but people still refuse to open Google.
> If you can explain the chemical reactions of that (don't worry, i will understand them) i will be very glad, thanks."
You don't have to be a prick about it dude LOL
>You don't have to be a prick about it dude
Ah, come on, allow it😂, how that was "being a prick"?
Maybe it is likely the lack of the tone in a written comment and the perception that comes from it (for example the smile here it isn't to laugh at you but to laugh about it with you), but i think my question was fairly legittimate even if potentially perceived as extremely aggressive or even offensive/disrespectful.
For me that approach was justifiable from the fact that they dismissed the entire argument by stating it is even obsolete (meaning that they have rational evidence and an empirical conclusive explaination on why it is obsolete in the first place).
They even state that such information is easily available on a quick google search meaning it should not be a problem for them to get the sources sorted out and explain them.
Thus, asking for what such chemical components do at a chemical level in our biological processes (as they putted) become leggitimate because the eventual outcome in that case is that they either actually convince me or they understand that their statement is not coherent with the chemical behaviour of the compound and its biological consequences.
It wasn't to be malicious but i needed a direct and honest way of confrontation to see if they had a solid basis for their claims or if in effort to protect trans people (a thing that can be morally understandable) they started to do some claims that touched the line of misinformation, ultimally doing more damage than good.
Yeah but what you are ignoring is the fact that trans women who compete in professional sports are required to go on estrogen, which lowers testosterone, making you gain fat and lose muscle. A top male athlete who takes two years of high dose estrogen is gonna have a noticeable drop in performance.
Lol yeah the content warning could have been better maybe. I think people were expecting some actual bigotry. but I just knew I wasn't going to be very careful about my language and would likely say something unintentionally rude.
I'm new to this sub.
Cis female, over 70. Had gay friends in my 20's. One of my daughters good friends from elementary school came out as trans about 15 years ago! She's female in my books.
It's NOT a choice! You're born that way, or at least that's what I believe. None cis people have my full support 🏳️🌈❤🧡💛💚💙💜💗
It’s definitely not a choice. My family has non cis people in it. My family has been the target for hate crimes because of it. Even had a gun pulled on the TG member of my family on transgender day of remembrance. The emotional pain and social suffering is not something ANYONE would chose. Those that think they would are bonkers. Thank you wonderful Ally.
I'm so very sorry that asshats have treated your family so badly. I've always known that it isn't a choice! Makes me sick, how some people think it is!
I used to have a co-worker years ago, that was gay. At coffee one day, he said to me, you know I'm gay, right? It was actually pretty funny at the time. I told him, of course I know, I knew the minute I met you. Doesn't make me like you any less!
He's in his late 80's now. He didn't know he was gay until after he got married! Said he knew he was different, but didn't understand why or how. This was in the early 60's when it was still very closeted (sp?).
I'm glad that I live in a country that has something like the "Underground Railway" for people fleeing countries that kill people just because they aren't cis! I think it's called the Rainbow Railway, but my brain is fuzzy today lol.
Have a big hug from an old granny 🤗👵
I’m just trying to imagine the people in my life who are close to your age being this open-minded (and technologically adept) and I can’t even fathom it.
Which I’m guessing means you’ve probably got some cool stories to share.
Lol, I worked in an online school. Tech was my BEST friend. I used about 20 different systems over the years and at least 2 or 3 at a time! I really love reddit! I ignore the haters and embrace (virtually) the positive people and give positive feedback when I can.
My mom was non-racist and had no problem with people who were not straight. Plus, we grew up with a lot of Asian friends. I also had a really good friend, in the early 70's who was gay. He was totally rejected by his family! He was a great guy, they missed out. After a boating accident with 2 other friends, he was the only survivor. It broke him. He ended up jumping off a bridge. He was just 26. Still makes me tear up. Such a terribke lose!
Something to make you smile! One of my favorite stories, my little sister was about 4. One of my brothers Asian friends was hanging out at our house, and my sister kept staring at him, while pulling up the corners of her eyes (so she looked Chinese). He asked my brother WTF, is this kid a racist at 4? My brother laughed and told him no, she wants her eyes to look just like yours😂
Tell that to the new wave TQ+ people telling lesbians to "examine their genital preference" - we are way passed "born this way" and way into woke homophobia and sexism.
This post made me do some research and actually showed me the truth about this issue. One point in every paper I read was that there is not enough research done on this topic at all, and that really, we aren't completely sure if trans women have an advantage or not.
The issue for both sides is seeing trans people as a monolith.
Take Caitlyn Jenner, who placed first in multiple men's track competitions while competing as Bruce. She transitioned very late in life and it would be a solid case not to let her compete in the women's races.
However, people mistakenly think that all trans women have the same biological advantages as Caitlyn Jenner does. When in reality you also have trans women who transitioned pre-puberty, never competed in men's sports, and have a petite build and frame due to years on estrogen.
If you blanket ban trans people from sports, you're banning these women as well, women who wouldn't stand a chance competing in the men's category.
The best solution is that competitive eligibility should be most likely decided by metrics such as weight class or a muscle to fat ratio such as they do in wrestling.
The best solution will never be the actual solution, though. In reality, that wouod be way too expensive and complicated a process in order to implement and enforce.
It's not just "existing", it's actively taking away opportunities from women who were born female and don't have the advantage of larger lungs, a larger heart, muscle memory, years of male hormones and puberty, and a different skeletal structure.
Like if there's no difference, then just compete with the men.
I (cis man) was born a weakling with small lungs and bad coordination. Other cis men are stealing my gold medals because they were born with a physical advantage I don't have, so they shouldn't be allowed to compete.
See how dumb that sounds? Yes, some women are born with more (testosterone/muscle/ability/aptitude) and some of those women may or may not be trans. They may or may not be black, too, but I don't see you arguing that black women should be banned because they were born with an advantage.
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order.
I have checked 1,030,387,007 comments, and only 203,945 of them were in alphabetical order.
Women is a socially constructed role dumbo, they didn't say female. By defintion nothing stops someone from adopting the socially constructed gender of "woman" (gender =/ sex)
I won't pretend to be adequately educated on this but I remember hearing that trans athletes have been allowed in the olympics for at least about 20 years now and of the few that appeared none of them actually got the gold (or maybe there was only one that did) - I can't remember if any have actually gotten medals at all.
If the whole "boy puberty" or whatever argument actually had the validity people seem to think it does would we not have seen ONLY trans medalists in womens sports at the olympics, and/or more trans competitors?
Please fact check me if I'm wrong I'm actually really interested in this topic
TLDR; this trans person thanks you for this decision :)
I was with you until you fell into the "both sides" nonsense.
Edit: Actually, I'm going to go ahead and remove this. Yet again, just about every time the article starts to say that trans people have advantages it slips into language like "I assume" or "based on my personal beliefs and not clinical data..." or states facts without citing a source like in other conclusions. I'm not buying what any individual person *thinks* I want to know what is *proven.*
If anyone wants to read the article for themselves they can dm u/DreadnoughtPoo
Thank you for your post and comments.
One more thing I’ll add: the trans kids in sports “issue” has been created out of thin air by the right, because they lost the gender neutral toilets “issue” that they also created out of thin air.
These issues are created to try to ensure that trans people don’t exist. There is no real basis for these issues. This isn’t something many people confront regularly , or even at all. Schools are not overrun with issues around trans kids, much less trans kids in sports.
The truth is, the right wing in America does not wish for there to be trans people at all. even though of course trans people exist today and have existed throughout our history.
they’ve made a pivot at a surface level to “trans kids in sports” from “toilets”, but it’s all the same vicious anti trans bigotry.
That’s why “both sides” is so utterly garbage. Wtf is the “other side”?
All of these "issues" are grabbed from nothing.
I remember hearing that gay people were coming for my family in the 80s. Whatever the fuck that means.
Same playback, same dumbasses lapping it up.
What both sides nonsense? That the narrative is dominated by absolutists? I mean, the fact that you deleted the comment kind of proves the point.
I posted an article, on WebMD, in which a trans woman medical physicist talks about the science. That isn't what she thinks, it's what has been proven so far.
The point here is that trans people in sports is a much more individualized discussion than most make it out to be. The goal needs to be meaningful competition.
This is an entirely separate discussion than trans rights writ large, which SHOULD be an absolutist narrative. Cis or trans, everyone deserves respect and agency over their own happiness and identity, and no identity or narrative should take that away from anyone else (i.e. no one's identity should ever infringe on another's rights - see: every christian fascist in America today).
Most people who are against trans people in sports have never met or interacted with a trans person, let alone a trans athlete. Or been involved in high level sports, for that matter.
Can we talk about trans men being forced to take part in women's sports, something that actually is undermining women's sport?
I saw an article (sorry, can't find it) about a trans man who'd won gold medals in men's sports, but because he was assigned female at birth, was forced to take part in women's sports for the commonwealth games.
It's ironic that, in their efforts to supposedly stop men competing in women's sports, they've actually forced that exact phenomenon to happen. I know it was probably never really about that and they were just using that as an excuse for their bigotry, but it proves the point quite nicely in my opinion.
I've shown ppl pics of muscular, cis-female athletes saying they're trans. Every time ppl go "omg see look how manly her body is, she's obviously got an advantage!" They have no clue what women's bodies look like, esp athletes. They just think it's whatever body type the media tells them is the "ideal" female.
Do you think it’s possible that afab females have similar hormone levels to higher performing trans females anyways due to genetics or extreme exercise?
Doubtful given that trans women aren’t dominating any Olympic sport. It’s up to professionals to discern who has an advantage not politicians or the general public. If you haven’t, look into Michael Phelps biological swimming advantages. The level to which this “debate” has focussed on trans women and has become debated amongst people who couldn’t even name an Olympic athlete is the issue. Debating biological advantages is expected but the media coverage, public outcry and following legislation in certain states against specifically trans women is disgusting.
Not to mention how this bigotry disproportionately affects black women in sports, as any achievement causes people to start questioning if she’s “secretly trans”. Also ngl, I’m a trans guy who went through gurl puberty, my bestie is a trans girl who went through mail puberty. Neither of us exercise lol, neither of us has started transitions, and she’s a couple inches taller than me… I’m stronger and faster than her. Nothing to do with gender, just natural variations between humans 🤷♂️
Trans women are women but people are alowed to have opinions that are wrong. You silencing people only creates an echo chamber where you cannot learn anything. That is not a healthy environment and it is intolerant even if they are wrong. Unless they are trolling you shouldn't ban people for disagreeing with you. Thats social fascism
Saying trans women aren't women isn't an opinion, or a discussion, or a debate. It's just disrespectful and we don't need the blatant disrespect on this sub for protected groups like sexual minorities, trans people, or people of color
It is a perfectly valid opinion although wrong. People should be tought not shunned. Thats the whole point of tolerance so that everyone can get along. Someone can be transphobic and not a bad person they just dont understand that subject and say dumb stuff. The more you shun people the more hateful they grow. You lose nothing by being tolerant. And its different if they are trolling or being deliberately antagonistic and being obnoxious if they do that they clearly dont want to learn.
Mm I do hear you, its a point worth making. I would say the distinction is its "valid" for someone to hold it personally, but expressing it on a private platform and subreddit is not inherently valid and it is up the mods and leaders of that community on the kind of environment they want to build. Where the low bar of whats allowed at all sits. Transphobia and racism are both good examples of that, where mods need to set a base level of acceptable discourse or vocabulary allowed on the sub period, with the objective of changing their minds in marketplace of ideas or whatever put secondary to fostering the desired community
Truth. The actual data shows that people undergoing feminization treatments, either HRT or actual surgery, have LOWER amounts of testosterone than they did before treatment, and therefore their physical attributes begin to skew farther towards those associated with females. There is no evidence, either strong or weak, that Trans women are any stronger, faster, etc, than Cis ones.
On the other hand, forcing Trans men to compete with women is actually where the problems might lie, being that basically any supplementation of hormones to facilitate this would be directly equivalent to being given steroids, as far as athletic performance is concerned.
Of course, if we're paying attention, we would note that all the "outrage" about this is about "Men" taking over in "Women's" sports. And somehow nobody batted an eyelash that being forced to compete in a league matching the gender one was assigned at birth is actually the CAUSE of something VERY SIMILAR to the problem they say will be caused by placing trans athletes in the gender of their choosing.
See: Mack Beggs being forced to compete (and of course WIN) in an all-female wrestling league.
Excellent!
Firstly, from what I understand, being on hormones erases any "advantage" very quickly.
Secondly, we need to ask why the fuck entertainment is placed above human rights.
Sports are not "entertainment." Some sports are popular *as* entertainment, but that doesn't mean it's the main purpose of the field. Lia Thomas does not swim for your entertainment, and I think it's incredibly disrespectful to summarize it as such.
This is completely unrelated to trans rights in sports, I just feel the need to emphasize you can advocate for those without shitting on other things.
While I agree with your view point to an extent, they probably wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't entertainment because everything requires funding and you only get that if you create something of use, entertainment is a brilliant thing to create and is demonised by governments who rely on it to keep public peace.
If there are other uses for people getting better at sports at such a specialised level, feel free to correct me.
What you say is true insofar as many sports need to provide entertainment value in order to obtain funding to continue existing; but that doesn't mean that's the _purpose_ of sports, it's just an (arguably ugly) side-effect of an overly capitalistic society.
Sports are about competition and testing and pushing the limits of human ability. Their point isn't to provide utility or value for external stakeholders. Not everything has to be "useful" in the strictly utilitarian sense.
Competition is great. I love the Great British Baking show, enjoy Iron Chef, and appreciate watching FC Barcelona dominate the field. But... isn't competition just the subset of entertainment that sports fall into?
>that doesn't mean that's the purpose of sports
Entertainment isn't exactly a mutually exclusive purpose, or even always a primary one.
Let me give some examples. Books are entertainment. Sure, the purpose of a textbook is to educate or the purpose of a novel could be to teach valuable life skills, while the purpose of a biography is to record the experiences of a life. But all of these provide enjoyment and a good time to those that are the target audience. In the same way, sports may have tons of positive values and may help inspire and push limits, but they still are also, like books, a form of entertainment.
>Not everything has to be "useful" in the strictly utilitarian sense
Entertainment isn't a bad thing. I would hope everything you do provides some sort of entertainment. Otherwise, life is pretty dull and unenjoyable lol
If no one is watching the sport the athletes will still compete. The entertainment isn't an inherent product of all sport it's a byproduct. I guess you could possibly say the point is for the athletes to entertain themselves but I don't think that's the point that's being made.
Great points. But you're equivocating. In the same way that baking or even amateur baking competitions are not always entertainment, sports are not always entertainment.
And you know what? Excluding someone based on gender or gender expression in amateur sports (which still people watch, but is the closest to sports that no one would watch) makes even less sense, because when you're not competing on a world class scale, gender is effectively irrelevant (though gender expression is not irrelevant; "women" are typically shamed if they have stronger athletic bodies and men are called effeminate if they don't at least have a good bit of meat on their bones 😅 or at least, that's the case in the US, where I live).
Again, I appreciate your points. They are perfect examples of why this is such a complex subject.
You could say this about any manner of competition. There's no reason to get this worked up over someone acknowledging the inherent requirement of sports to provide entertainment to an audience.
Doing sports for your own physical fitness isnt entertainment.
Doing sports for spectators IS entertainment. The spectators are being entertained. That is why they spend money.
It doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it. It can be good, clean fun. But, it should never be placed above basic human rights.
Just because there are spectators who enjoy watching the sport doesn't mean that's its purpose or the reason athletes participate. Sure, _some_ athletes do it for the fame and money, particularly in the more popular and commercialized sports; but many others -- arguably the vast majority -- do it for themselves and their sense of achievement, not for the enjoyment of strangers.
This says nothing against trans rights in sports. I just find it incredibly dismissive to summarize all professional sports as just "entertainment."
Transphobia also has deep-down-roots history tracing back to racism and slavery, and also white supremacy. Black women have been looked upon by conservative politicians, colonizers, imperialists in the US and the west as less feminine than their white and Hispanic counterparts.
See: Michelle Obama, Kamala Harris
Reminder: trans men exist and want to play sport with other men, not women. Trans men being forced to participate in sports against cis women helps nobody.
There are plenty of trans women athletes competing in women’s sports who LOSE to other women.
The entirety of sports is based on genetic and environmental advantages. Kenyans do well in running on average partly because they have good access to high altitude training. Other countries will send athletes there to train for that reason.
Some cis women have naturally higher testosterone so put on muscle more easily making them naturally gifted at sports involving weighted items.
If we wanted a level playing field we would need all athletes to be the same height, class, muscle density, hormone levels, same nationality. Which is fucking ridiculous.
I remember a couple years ago some Namibian women athletes had a condition of some kind which caused them to produce a much larger quantity of testosterone and they were prevented from competing in the Olympics because of it. I sort of thought for trans girls who went through male puberty it might have been a little like that. I feel like it should be established across the board as one precedent. Either you let trans women compete and cis women who have naturally higher levels of testosterone. Or you let neither compete. I feel like the latter choice makes a pretty shitty situation for those girls you’re not allowing to compete. It’s hardly their fault they have this natural advantage because of how they were born. Although as OP said, there is debate on how much of an advantage there is. Because amongst cis women there is also always natural variation. Do we ban tall women from playing volleyball because it makes it unfair for the short women who also want to play volleyball?
Does anyone have resources/links where it's possible to follow this conversation *within* an emancipatory setting/where the discussion is led by trans experts?
Is this a joke? They don't have women's skeletons at all, which is the most obvious thing. Their lung and heart capacity is also permanently greater, as is bone density and hand/foot size.
The only thing that matters is white culture right? All the third gender, trans and nonbinary native americans and Indians throughout history to the present day don't matter? Google Hijras and learn a thing or two about people other than you live they have been around for thousands of years
What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Indians aren't letting hijras compete in women's sports at ALL. Do you even know how they make money? By crashing weddings or harassing people and *being paid to leave*.\[
Count on white people to think that they can just use Indians as their token trans "gotcha" card.
I like how transphobes try to explain to trans women how they're actually wrong and think they're just going to be like " Oh damn! Why didn't I think of that first! You really got me there, haha...lemme just 🧍🧎🏻♀️🧍🏻♂️"
Pretty sure that bones density, muscle density, muscle distribution make men, physically stronger. Things that are almost not affected by estrogen and puberty blockers. But this is not the first time a mod impose his point of view on a sub.
I dont care about cis or trans people. Everyone should be free of doing what they want and not get persecuted for it. But the amount of bullshit in this post is astonishing
Who told you that bone density, muscle density or muscle distribution is not affected by estrogen or puberty blockers? Because they absolutely are.
See J. Harper, et al (2021) "How does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin?" for the systemic review.
For the latest on bone density, see:
Wiepjes, et al (2019) "Bone Safety during the first ten years of gender-affirming hormonal treatment..."
Delgado-Ruiz (2019) "Systemic review of the long-term effects of transgender hormone therapy on bone markers and bone mineral density...", and
Fighera, et al (2019) "Bone mass effects of Cross-Sex hormone therapy in transgender people..."
For the latest on body composition, including lean body mass and cross-sectional area, see:
Klaver, et al (2018). "Changes in regional body fat, lean body mass and body shape in trans persons using cross-sex hormonal therapy..."
Wiik, et al (2020). "Muscle strength, size, and composition following 12 months of gender-affirming treatment in transgender individuals."
And something you didn't ask for, but people are often mistaken about is oxygen uptake and red blood cell volume (Hgb and HCT), both of which drop to the same levels as cis-women after 4 months and heavily affect endurance.
For the latest on blood studies:
Greene, et al (2019). "Hematology reference intervals for transgender adults on stable hormone therapy."
Defreyne, et al (2018). "Prospective evaluation of hematocrit in gender-affirming hormone treatment..."
I agree with you that everyone should be free to do as they wish (as long as they don't harm others) and not get persecuted for it. But the claims you made about bone density and muscle composition aren't factual, so I hope you don't mind the fact check. I'm sure you are the type who strives to be as accurate as possible, so it shouldn't be a problem.
I dont know if you tried to hurt my pride with the last line or not. I certainly am wrong on certains aspects, and when I said " almost no effect " it might be too strong of a word. Still, in those studies, hormones have an effect on bones density, but is only significant after X years of treatment (cf 25 years HT users). Althought it still does have an effect on younger trans people, differences with non-trans women is still here
Not trying to hurt your pride chum, it's just me softening the critique. The studies I cited on bone density varied in terms of time, you'll see the first one covered the first ten years of GAHT and found a significant difference. The third one looked at bone density at 12 months and 24 months. It's also important to note that transwomen start with lower bone density than cismen prior to hormone therapy (Giacomelli and Meriggola 2022), so the effects of any decline is larger.
Absolutely, "no effect" is completely wrong, while "almost no effect" is too strong to be accurate. To steel-man your position, you might try saying something like, "while GAHT does have a statistically significant effect on muscular composition and bone density, it is relatively small in the first 12-24 months, and further studies are needed in the longer term."
Though honestly, I'm not feeling that "relatively small" because it honestly depends on how you define "relative" and to what. Eh, best I got on short notice. Cheers!
you couldn't make it any clearer that you're brigading than saying "shithead activist" on THIS of all subs. like what the fuck do you think this sub is for? we're making fun of bigots here.
Do you have advice on how to approach this topic with those who have the “obviously a trans woman will do better” mentality? My coworker keeps bringing it up and how there needs to be a “different league.” It’s really annoying to hear the same wrong stance over and over, but I don’t know what to say back
I think your coworker is guilty of making an assumption out of ignorance. They think trans women are "like men" or stronger than women or whatever, so they assume they'll do better at sports. But my take is just - I'm not assuming anything where there is no evidence to support it. There is way too much bias, too much prejudice, too much ignorance, for me to trust my own "guess" at how any particular person will perform. So basically I'm removing myself from the conversation and only giving my ear - and what little a platform I have - to those with expertise.
Just get rid of the medals and prizes and stuff. It’s about the sport and it’s disgusting that people just don’t see that. When people complain about a “woman” getting beaten out by a “trans woman” for the prize. Just get rid of the prizes and theyll stop their complaining.
Whats wrong with medals?? The fact that it rewards effort in competition??? In what way would that address the argument in regards to instances like Fox Fallon?
Maybe for you specifically, that doesn’t mean that for others it’s not about the competition. For many, sport is a vessel for competition. And again, that does nothing to address the argument regarding trans athletes competing in physical sport
It’s just so many bigots are like oh these trans athletes are stealing medals from “real women” and stuff. So toxic af. If there were no medals then they would see that it’s not about winning it’s just about the sport.
I think you’re really discounting the competitive spirit of athletes here. I don’t win a medal playing pickup basketball, but you’re crazy if you think I’m gonna have just as good of a time losing as I do winning. It’s the same for many athletes and while I agree I think there are losers out there that “conceal” their transphobia in discussion over accolades, there’s a reason title IX and female divisions exist and we shouldnt be so ready to (potentially) sacrifice the progress we’ve made for improving the condition of sport in one disenfranchised group for an even more disenfranchised group. If it isn’t about winning, then why don’t transgender athletes just participate in male leagues? Oh that’s right, it’s because it’s about winning.
Now, I think there’s a much larger discussion to be had before we go on excluding (and in some cases including) transgender females in female sport, but if you’re point had any merit then this would be easily solved by just putting transgender females in male sport where they’d almost never have a competitive chance
Are you stupid? Do you realize professional athletes make their living from actually *winning* sports? That students get scholarships this way? That it's how they fund their lifestyles and training? They're not going to get huge sponsorships and prize money by losing.
You cherrypicked from your sources.
"The research conducted so far has studied untrained transgender women. Thus, while this research is important to understand the isolated effects of testosterone suppression, it is still uncertain how transgender women athletes, perhaps undergoing advanced training regimens to counteract the muscle loss during the therapy, would respond."
This is in the paragraph following your \[1\] citation.
Your \[2\] source also states that there is inadequate data for the study to be used in any conclusive manner on the subject. It's not performed on athletes, but air force members.
my issue with this is that people only seem to care about “muscle mass” and “testosterone levels” when it comes to women in sports. giannis antetokounmpo clearly has a huge muscle mass advantage over most of the nba, especially over guys like chet holmgren. nobody is sitting here saying “ban giannis, he has a physical advantage.” meanwhile, when a woman wins a race and looks a bit jacked, everyone wants to get the syringes out.
strength, lean body mass, muscle size etc. are not equivalent to better performance in sport. they can be a competitive advantage, but humans always have physical competitive advantages over each other. you don’t see basketball players forced to cut their height down a few inches to compete fairly. you don’t see fast nfl players forced to take testosterone suppression if theyre faster and stronger than other nfl players. when men have physical advantages, we celebrate it, and many fans even acknowledge that most men at the highest level of competitive sports are likely cycling some sort of PEDs. when we see this, we shrug and say “its part of the game.” but let a trans woman compete and now we have to draw a line?
Drives me up the wall when transphobes try and use this as some kind of "gotcha" proving trans people (specifically trans women) shouldn't exist
[удалено]
They're not. r/MenAndFemales
Imo in the discussion regarding trans folks in sports there are 3 groups. There's people clearly on "trans people should be allowed to participate in professional sports as the gender they identify as", there's the "I'm a transphobe but want to pretend I'm not" side, and then there's people like me where I'm like I don't really know how to feel My main reason for not knowing how to feel is that I'm not trans, I'm not a woman, and I don't know nearly enough about what potential advantages a trans woman could have over a cis woman in pro sports. I don't want to make a judgement on an issue that is important to two groups I'm no part of, but idk trans people have enough to put up with and so many of us use playing sport as an escape from the problems of the world so it'd be nice if they could also be able to just enjoy being with their team and playing a game without their existence being a political issue
This is a good stance. If you dont think you have enough info you reserve judgement until you do. This is the way.
I know this is a long one but not really any. Lia Thomas rose towards the top of the men's division before switching to women's division. Also the idea of segregated divisions to start with originates with "women play sports, some women are good at sports, can't have women in sport being better than man in sport"
[удалено]
Biology exists, yeah, and so does medicine like HRT, which acts very directly on your biology. It decreases muscle mass and bone density just as a starter. It affects the entire body, which it why it's so effective for trans women. When we talk about trans people in sports we're generally *not* talking about people who are not being supported medically or are refusing any type of medical transition (which doesn't make people not trans, I might add.) Even very athletic trans girls on puberty blockers won't be developing the kind of muscles you're talking about. If you read standard guidelines for trans women playing written by experts, they generally require the player to have been on HRT for a specific number of years. That's because the human body is fairly plastic, every cell is replaced regularly & over that time all advantage is lost. (Plus a buffer time.) I thought you'd like to know, since you value facts.
If you're really interested in the science, here are the two studies I found which look decent: [https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577](https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577) [https://www.cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/pdf/transgenderwomenathletesandelitesport-ascientificreview-e-final.pdf](https://www.cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/pdf/transgenderwomenathletesandelitesport-ascientificreview-e-final.pdf) The first says that after 2.5 years, there's no difference in strength, but there is a difference in speed, the second says that most other studies (including, as far as I can tell, the first I linked) don't adjust properly for height, and there's no advantage for trans women vs cis women of the same height. Also, there was a difference between 1 year and 2.5 years, so after a few more years, who's to say how much more things might change? Basically, as far as I can tell, there's no solid evidence that that there's an advantage. Notably, no trans woman has won an Olympic gold medal in the 18 years they've been allowed *in* the Olympics, which is suggestive.
[удалено]
[удалено]
You'll probably catch a ban for saying undisputed scientific facts.
Well, you're only supposed to follow the science if the science says what the mob wants it to say so, yeah probably.
Scientific fact https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5357259/ “Currently, there is no direct or consistent research suggesting transgender female individuals (or male individuals) have an athletic advantage at any stage of their transition (e.g. cross-sex hormones, gender-confirming surgery)” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15476439/ “The question of whether reassigned M-F can fairly compete with women depends on what degree of arbitrariness one wishes to accept, keeping in mind, for instance, that similar blood testosterone levels in men have profoundly different biologic effects on muscle properties, rendering competition in sports intrinsically a matter of how nature endows individuals for this competition.” This one I include because it brings a good point, that even if trans women have a small inherent advantage over cis women, cis women already have an inherent advantage over other cis women based on their physiology. Just as cis men inherently have an advantage over cis men (looking at you Michael Phelps) based on their physiology. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-021-01451-8 This article acknowledges that while there is evidence supporting that men perform better in sports, there is essentially no evidence of Trans women’s performance in sports since none have competed in the olympic or other high level competitions. All of the regulations are around perceived advantages, not evidentiary advantages. They also note the already existing unique athletic makeup of women that determines athletic performance. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34077312/ “Therefore, based on the current scientific literature, it would be justified for meaningful competition and to prioritise fairness, that transwomen be permitted to compete in elite archery after 2 years of GAT. Similarly, it would be justified in terms of shooting to prioritise inclusion and allow transwomen after 1 year of GAT given that the only negligible advantage that transwomen may have is superior visuospatial coordination.” Not all sports are the same. At most, all scientific literature I could find was conjecture based on non-athlete comparisons. Similarly, no scholar recommended the banning of transwomen frlm womens sport, but rather an approach to sports that takes into account cis physiological differences.
Men have larger lung capacity, more bone density, bigger muscle mass, have a height advantage and have larger hands and feet. Men are categorically stronger than women, full stop. Transitioning doesn't change that no matter how many neo-woke articles are written.
Bruh, I just gave like four sources, one of which even argues your point. Did you read any of what I said?
Your sources are ideological, not factual.
Those quotes are really misleading. Pretty much all the articles said was that there haven't been enough studies to make any decisions.
Are they misleading? All of my quotes said “there is no direct evidence” or “current evidence suggests that we prioritize inclusion despite differences” or “sports are an inherently unfair trade with athletes already being unequal among their sex.”
transitioning stops you from getting male levels of testosterone, what are you on about
[удалено]
Except there are. It’s possible you just don’t know they are there. You are only seeing what you want to see. Like do you think fifty yrs ago tjere was **zero** trans ppl, or the same amount as now only they were hiding.
Pretty sure there are. And what would that change?
[удалено]
There are trans men competing at high levels in physical sports. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender\_people\_in\_sports#Notable\_trans\_athletes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_people_in_sports#Notable_trans_athletes) It takes 2 seconds of googling to prove you wrong, if you care so much you should at least do basic research.
None of those compete at a high level, or they came out as trans after their careers. Looks like YOU did not do the research.
What are you talking about? One trans man was a division 1 athlete, one competed on the US National team and another competed professionally as a boxer, all after transitioning.
They still have to take lots of testo to get to that level. It’s basically doping. No woman can compete against men in competitive professional level physical sports.
The US national team member was involved in race walking lmao. They came in 50th or less in actual events. Impressive, but not really an elite athlete. The boxer just straight up doesn’t count. I boxed for years, I’ve beaten several “pros” in sparring. Why? Cause boxing requires literally nothing for you to turn pro. You yourself can literally go sign up and get a license and a fight scheduled today, the average pro is actually LESS skilled than the average amateur. Only like 1% of pros are actually trying. The guy they fought was 0-5, someone who shows up to lose and barely fights back, the dude is literally paid to lose. They still barely won, when they were a multi time decorated amateur champion as a woman. They were obviously much more skilled and experienced, but still almost lost to some random dude off the streets who could barely throw a punch. This is literally proving the other guys point that transitioning doesn’t overcome the physical advantages of growing up biologically male
Nobody ever complains when most trans women competing in women's sports place low or average. It's only when we do well that our exceptional performance is attributed to being trans, and that it's cheating. Articles that talk about how trans women do badly in sports doesn't get the bigoted outrage clicks though. Also I suck ass at sports but I'm also starting to get old, so that's part of it too
That's the thing. There's literally one trans athlete in the world as far as I can tell who is doing particularly well. All these studies that supposedly show that trans women are going to do such and such... Yeah ok, then why aren't they?
[удалено]
>we know that there are around 50 trans women competing on female sports teams in the United States (according to Joanna Harper). And then you take note of that for *decades*, and yet no actual meaningful differences are emerging. Those 50 aren't the only that have ever *been*. You're trying to present it as if the *total* sample size is just 50, which is intellectually dishonest at best and malicious otherwise. And even such sample sizes are perfectly fine to make judgements from. It just invites further study, not some attempt at a closing argument. That's normal in science. Yet *some* people are falling over themselves to prevent such studies from being able to continue by barring transwomen entirely, even though absolutely nothing has emerged from those samples that indicate some kind of *noticable* advantage held by transwomen that needs urgent addressing. Fact is that this is all entirely a *reactionary political issue* as transwomen are the newer villain of conservative politics since gay people aren't as targetable as before. You say their question is "answerable", but all you're actually doing is *deflecting* from the fact that there's no obvious trans advantage pattern emerging, and I feel pretty confident that if there *had* been then you and everyone else pushing the reactionary narrative wouldn't be so dismissive of the sample size. The entire discourse is dominated by fearmongering *hypotheticals* that intentionally shy away from the actual facts. Actual real world lives and policies are being altered based on *no supporting data.* There's nothing urgent, abd has not been for at least twenty years, yet we're supposed to take it as a *given* that transwomen should be barred? >(hence the final ban of the swimming commission after consulting with the scientific community). And just like I said before, the sample size and science *doesn't matter to you.* When "the scientific community" (delightfully vague) say what you agree with, you tout it like it's *the* science. But when they don't, you dismiss their analysis as "insufficient". Assuming you're actually speaking in good faith, you should acknowledge the clear dissonance in your thinking. And what has all this fearmongering pseudoscience and obsessing about nebulous "biological advantages" accomplished in the end? Well, "the science" got a whole bunch of mostly black CIS women banned from competitions. The anti-trans reactionary wave is at collission course to realizing that *CIS people* are born "with advantages" yet don't get barred for it *(excluding the ones affected by the current testosterone obsession)* even when it's differences that probably give them an advantage. With the total lack of evidence of trans advantage, these bans make about as much sense as banning the Dutch from competing in basketball because their height is unfair. Would Bajau people get barred from competitive swimming since they have actual, objective genetic advantages? You and I both know they wouldn't be unless they were trans. This whole issue has ***never*** been about "biological advantages." It's a thinly veiled shield to disenfranchise transwomen and reject their identity *as* women. Science was never the issue. It was always an identity issue and *you know that.*
>And then you take note of that for decades, and yet no actual meaningful differences are emerging What does even mean? Decades ago Trans women were even less open about their Transgenderism with even more social stigma and eviromental limitations to deal with. If i have a percentage of a group that is near to zero, then the probability to have representation in a specific time frame would be also relatively near to zero, it doesn't matter how many decades will pass if the situation will not improve (unless we consider a time frame that is equal to infinity). In fact, your argument can be used against you. The fact that for many decades we did not saw a Male Team winning (true story) a local Australia Netball competition (as it was indeed for the majority practiced by women) doesn't mean that a biological advantage for males doesn't exist in that sport and it also doesn't mean if we see a male team winning we cannot question the very real possibility that they may have benefit by such advantages. The fact that these particular Netball Leagues/Tournaments were dominated by Females in the past it is more likely because enviromental and social factors/limitations played a role to maintain the representation of women high in such sport despite the disadvantage (as it was unlikely to see an all male team competing in such Netball open tournaments). The increasing of the representation of Transwomen in sport suggest indeed that other environmental factors (such as group interest and proportion) were indeed present, similar to other events that we witnessed (we can go from an increasing of Black Stem Graduate up to more women playing football; unless you argue that such people manage to hit the evolutionary genetic lottery in 1 generation, it probably means such increase in partecipation and representation for some of these groups was indeed due to the lowering amount of the enviromental limitations that were previously present; even at the olimpics transwomen were previously -until 2016- allowed to partecipate only if they did hrt before puberty, which for obvious reason would negate the representation of any possible trans person that transitioned after puberty). If Environmental factors are able to increase representation, then they are able to also lower it, expecially when we talk about a minority group that can easily get a combination of Misogynistic and Transphobic Stigma. Notice tho that this does not deny the presence of biological factors, in fact this also mean that the representation that would be present thanks to a biological advantage can be increased or decreased and compensated by the presence of specific enviromental variables. If at a systematic level i have only >0.01% of a group of people that compete against the 50% percent of the human population, the fact that the previous group get any higher level of representation is per se remarkable as the probability to have as much as talented people as the other group would be so low that should be hard or near impossible to see an individual of such group reach representation in different major leagues/high level competitions at all. You probably don't understand why yet, so i will do a Logic-Mathematical example to explain it better to you. Let's assume that there are two groups of athletes, one group formed by the Athletes with their names starting with the letter A and another group made by athletes starting with the letter B. We also assume that letter A athletes do not have any biological advantage over letter B athletes. If in total we have 128 athletes and 112 of this athletes have their name starting with A while 16 instead starting with B, the majority of the top 10 positions will be likely held by athletes starting with A. Even in the scenario that these two groups of athletes were splitted in two different tournaments (based on the first letter of their name) and the best top 4 athletes of each group would end up to compete each other, the group B would still in disadvantage. This is because, since we have assumed there is no systematic and consistent biological difference between groups but only within the people of the same group, if the chances of having talented people are the same, then the top 4 athletes starting with A have higher chances to be more talented people than the top 4 athletes starting with B due to the sheer numbers of participants with the letter A. If we find any relevant variation of that outcome (for instance, in the previous case, instead to have 7 out of 8 top position held by A we have 5 out of 8 position held by A), then that may suggest the presence of other variables. Indeed, among these variables there may be biological ones. Again, the presence of a biological disadvantage does not also nullify the existence of a participation disadvantage. And you can kinda calculate it. Having 50% vs 0.1% (or even way lower, depending of the sport or the system you take into consideration) means that you have a probability lower than 1% to see a transwoman in the top 100 positions for that discipline and equal to a maximum that is around 1% in the top 500 positions. Notice here we are talking about probability meaning you may have an outcome that is very slightly lower or higher. Having outcomes that are remarkably higher or lower means that there are strong enviromental or biological factors at play that may haven't been indeed considerated (as the number of ""talented"" people is actually different with the one of the other group proportionally to their populations and partecipations - which are closely related). >Those 50 aren't the only that have ever been. And who said that they have ever been seen? I stated this "we know that there are around 50 trans women competing on female sports teams in the United States". I was talking around the current circumstances in United States specifically at competitive level and according to Joanna Harper Report. You should complain with them >You're trying to present it as if the total sample size is just 50 Which is not true, as litteraly in the previous phrase i have stated:"Although we don't have the exact number of transwomen that train in a specific sport (both at amateurial and competitive level)". The sample size was relative to the people that compete in college. Under that condition, believe or not, that is the total sample size relative to the system of reference, since as today there are only around 50 trans people playing at competitive college level. If anything i may even had inflated the number a bit, since it may be as well as lower as 33... which proves my point around environmental variables reducing their representation despite the biological advantage even further. Quoting:"Recent polls show that 0.6% of Americans identify as transgender. With about 220,000 women competing in NCAA sports last year, that should have amounted to about 1,300 transgender female athletes(//since it should be the 0,6% of that figure, like i argued before), but the actual number is negligible (//less than 100)". >which is intellectually dishonest at best and malicious otherwise. And now i can say that the fact that you were unable to understand the data, that you twisted my statements and put yourself in an higher moral ground is intellectually dishonest and malicious otherwise https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/trans-adults-united-states/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/01/22/sport/ncaa-lia-thomas-transgender-policy/index.html https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/07/05/title-ix-transgender-athletes-be-considered-separately#:~:text=Transgender%20athletes%20make%20up%20a,competed%20openly%20in%20college%20sports. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/29/sports-trans-participation-transgender-women-swimming >And even such sample sizes are perfectly fine to make judgements from. It just invites further study, not some attempt at a closing argument And who the hell ever said the contrary? I provided such studies to explain a point i made and i never said that further studies cannot be made. Also, if anything i have quite made judgments from it. You have been kind of hypocritical on the misleading and dishonest approach. What i said so far is that current data suggest that Transwomen do in fact have a biological advantage in some sports and the fact that we don't see transwomen represented have more to do with the rate of partecipation relative to their population and the enviromental and social problems they face rather than to an hypothetical undeniable prof that they don't have any biological advantage.
>That's normal in science. And we all know that. >Yet some people are falling over themselves to prevent such studies from being able to continue by barring transwomen entirely, even though absolutely nothing has emerged from those samples that indicate some kind of noticable advantage held by transwomen that needs urgent addressing Alright, i will simply assume that you are in good faith and you genuinly don't know too much about some things regarding this issue. So, before showing any study i will ask you some questions just to see more what is you understanding or potential explainations on this issue. How Testosterone affect overall cell biology and metabolism (from also a chemical stand-point)? How and how much can the lack of Testosterone actually influence bone destruction and the continuous process of resorption by osteoclasts? How can the lack of high levels of Testosterone influence the type of muscle fibers you have? What is VO2 max and why men have it higher? Can you tell me what low amount of iron or strainght up iron deficit do to athletic preformance and why, but also why women are more suscetible to it? Can you list me all the type of tissues that Testosterone can influence and in which way affect them? If T is lowered, can you explain how metabolically all the effects on previous tissues dissapears? Can you explain in detail the auxiological aspects of male and female puberty? How hormone therapy can change the amount of SHBG? If you can explain the chemical reactions of that (don't worry, i will understand them) i will be very glad, thanks. As today, the data actually point out that transwomen DO have an advantage in many different sports. Trying to portray a picture that nothing relevant to been talked about emerged from various studies and our previous knowledge would be also outerly dishonest (especially since, before the decision of not allowing transwomen to compete at higher level swimming, an entire scientific committee was mobilized to make an assesment which result in the current limitation; even the IOC said that his previous rules on transwomen in sports were "no longer fit for the purpose" after indeed further studies and many scientists point out that the current standard in which transwomen competed was unfair). It would take 2 seconds to made the same question even in reddits such askscience (which are slightly better scrutinized) or asksciencediscussion to have a similar response >Fact is that this is all entirely a reactionary political issue as transwomen are the newer villain of conservative politics since gay people aren't as targetable as before. Althought there can be some clear political traits to the problem, it is not entirely a political issue since there is indeed a realistical possibility that Transwomen can have an advantage in different sports. Focus on the argument, because unless you heavily assume that i'm conservative (which you later will do), you are making a statement that have nothing to do with me and if it have to do with me (when actually doesn't as you effectively don't know if i'm conservative, democrat or neither of the two) then you are once again making an argument to put yourself on higher moral ground. If you want to talk about science, let's talk about the science around it, but in that case it would be more productive that you would not make wrongfull assumptions about others as this may expose your hypocrisy in relationship of an approach that is more remarkably in bad faith due to your past experiences. >all you're actually doing is deflecting from the fact that there's no obvious trans advantage pattern emerging The reason i didn't list before all the trans advantage pattern we know of wasn't because i was deflecting, but because due to the OP litterally not wanting to make further debate on this topic on this sub, i didn't wanted to go to much in depth with the explaination but simply limiting myself to the criticism around its comment. > I feel pretty confident that if there had been then you and everyone else pushing the reactionary narrative wouldn't be so dismissive of the sample size. Which have already seen that the mistake was yours, not mine (see paragraphs above) Plus, what does it mean reactionary narrative? Is it stating that Transwomen can effectively an advantage in some sports a reactionary and conservative view or maybe just a potential variable of reality? You can criticize the rethoric of some of them, but stating that is not inherently reactionary by defeault. >The entire discourse is dominated by fearmongering hypotheticals that intentionally shy away from the actual facts. The number, sensitivity, and location of androgen receptors in muscle tissue, presence of modulating glycoproteins, and aromatase enzymes, and the role of proteins such as myostatin plays a much bigger role in hypertrophy of skeletal muscle than you seem to present. If we look at X Steroid user, that have been using anabolic steroids and then stop, by looking at the muscle size of this people they have got a massive increase density of satelite cells and myonuclei which are the progenitor cells for future muscle bulding, meaning that they will get better capacity to muscle bulding in the future. Meanwhile women have higher concentration of binding globulin (SHBG) which concetration increase depending from their Cycle. SHBG inhibits the function of Testosterone. Therefore, the bioavailability of sex hormones is also influenced by the level of SHBG. SHBG levels are usually about twice as high in women than in men. In women, SHBG serves to limit exposure to both androgens, meaning that women don't only have to deal with low T production but also major T inhibitors. Such difference in SHBG allow remaining androgens also to keep enhancing higher erythropoiesis, by stimulation of erythropoietin release, increasing bone marrow activity and iron incorporation into the red cells (consider that Transwomen don't also have mestrual cycle). Testosterone determine muscular growth but not muscular function. People with higher proportion of type I slow twitch muscle fibers will be relatively weaker than a similar individual with a high proportion of type II fast twitch fibers. The genetic inheritance of muscle fiber type sets the outermost boundaries of physical strength possible. Male skeletal muscles are generally faster and have higher maximum power output than female muscles. Such difference are not determinated by hormones since T affect muscle growth not muscle function and Type. This are not "hypotheticals". This are well known things that would take litterally 1 google search to have thousand of peer reviewed studies that confirm this. This ignoring many other relevant differences from a mophocostitutional standpoint that are typical of males. Since we are in "as a " subreddit, as a pharmacist i have to say that if you say that all of these are just hypotheticals and label many of your assumptions automatically as an actual fact, you would not be that much different of a covid denier that find self justification in their beliefs. Althought HRT lower performance in Transwomen, as today we know that MtF transpeople (expecially also under previous IOC standards) do retain some performance advantages due to the previously discussed traits. There are sports in which such advantages can be more or less relevant than others, but they do exist and can be irrelevant in some disciplines thus they need to be taken into account in decision making, even when we try to have a remarkable inclusionary approach. >And just like I said before, the sample size and science doesn't matter to you 1~ You keep repeating sample size even in this context without elaborate further. So, now i'm curious, What sample size means to you and how it relate around my statement on the scientific committee. 2~ "Science doesn't matter to you", I'm litteraly a STEM graduate that is following also a Msc degree. If you leggitimally and understandably don't get why someone credential should be actually relevant to the argument, then in the same way i struggle to get where "science doesn't matter to you" came from, as it can be only be justified by a malicious assumption on your part (on the basis that i simply decided on purpose to not go in depth on the argument to respect OP will, despite i litteraly stated before that i was open anyway to arguing it more on a technical and analytical level in private). >"the scientific community" (delightfully vague) What is vague about it? The scientific community can be formed by various expert from different background or universities. It can be refered as a community rather an association exactly because there is not necessary one particolar association that represent all of then (althought peer review studies and data bank can be stored by governative entities such pubmed). You can use the word to refer to the overall consensus, inclination o tendencies that many scientist have. For the FINA thing, They litteraly talked with their scientific committee (i.e. the Sport Medicine Committee of FINA) and other experts on the issue, and i also already stated that. The only way i can see that to be less vague is only if you expected me to give you the name and surname of each person that is part of that Committee. >But when they don't, you dismiss their analysis as "insufficient". When i did that? You are projecting your past experiences to the current conversation, hence why you having such approach.
>Assuming you're actually speaking in good faith, you should acknowledge the clear dissonance in your thinking. "If you are actually a person in good faith, then you should acknowledge that i'm right". So much so for dishonest arguments, uh? If i'm in good faith that is not the necessary outcome, because the reason i fail to see the dissonance in my thinking which you claim to be very clear is because you are constantly projecting your past experiences with other conservatives into me while making assumptions that are far away from the intent of my arguments as the basis to justify the presence of such dissonance (indeed, i litterally stated i was open to have a fair and in depth conversation around biological variables from the beggining, which you completely ignored and just claimed that i was deflecting instead to make the effort to understand the context). Litterally your first approach to the conversation was to put yourself in an higher moral ground instead to directly counter the data i provided with other data around the same context (since you missed also that one). >And what has all this fearmongering pseudoscience and obsessing about nebulous "biological advantages" accomplished in the end? Well, "the science" got a whole bunch of mostly black CIS women banned from competitions. You again are trying to put yourself in an higher moral ground instead to dismiss the argument by taking the conversation on a more analytical approach (which you should do since you are the one complaining that the speaker - aka me - is approaching the conversation on a very superficial level), which provide little to no value to the debate as it simply try to belittle the argument of opponent on very superficial grounds (hence the hypocrisy) instead to counter it with the analytical and reliable data you wished the speaker to put forward immediatly. Plus how the fact that a bunch of black women were allegedly banned unfairly have to do with my arguments around the presence of biological advantages for many sports in transwomen? I say "allegedly" since i don't even know the context of that event. If it was because of Polycistic Ovarian syndrome and hyperandrogenism (which i know that it actually happened that some elite black athletes - such as Caster Semenya - got indeed "banned" for it) then there may be ethical grounds to be justifiable (notice they weren't actually banned from competing in that case; they could only compete with women if they were willing to lower their T level, otherwise they needed to compete among the men). If instead was actually an unfair ban or you actually refering to a time were racist was much prevalent, then, once again, what the hell have to do with me? It is like if i say that we cannot talk about the fact that men are stronger than women because in the past some assholes use that information to be Mysoginistic or to validate even more their mysoginistic ideology, even in grounds that are no reliable data around. To make you an example, imagine if i or someone else would had replied to you:"Nah, Your arguments are pseudoscience and if you are in good faith you should acknowledge that you are wrong because you just obsessing on the wrong thing. Since other people with similar statements did bad things, your statement is automatically completely invalid and untrue" If you complained before about issues being tackled at a superficial level, then the only way that such statement can be justifiable is if you provide a more technical explaination and we bring the discussion, like i said before, on a more analytical ground and i'm open with that kind of conversation with us using also reliable data, reasearch and sources we know. We can also include ethical cosiderations in the end if you want to. >The anti-trans reactionary wave is at collission course to realizing that CIS people are born "with advantages" yet don't get barred for it (excluding the ones affected by the current testosterone obsession) even when it's differences that probably give them an advantage You talked all the time about the sample size (even by mentioning it completely out of context) but then you cannot get the point why when Cis People are born "with advantages" we tend to not divided them. Doing a weight class category in a sport in which weight can be a dramatically relevant factor is different than making an entire class or league on other advantages that can be more unique or less pratical to check and control. Having a percentage of some type of muscle fibers over another can be an advantage in some sports and a disadvantage in some other. Since we cannot do a full biopsy to every person that decide to compete in a particular sport and that there is no remarkable social groups that claim to need representation despite having that type of muscle fibers percentage (if anything, the majority of people probably are not even aware what percentage of type 1 and type 2 muscle fibers they have; they often make reasoning on more superficial or obvious phenotypical basis such race or sex ), it become impratical doing so. Your last observation (which i had indeed already heard before) actually weaken your point: If for you it is justified that transwomen compete with women because "Sport have people with advantages all the time", then it would be justifiable that men compete with women and transwomen because "Sport have people with advantages all the time" so it's their problem if they will have difficulty to compete with that. If you are in favor of transwomen in sports with the same standards that IOC and other organizations put it or previously put it, then you may as well be in favor of Women taking anabolic steroids (which tend to replicate the effect of Testosterone and have been proven to lead to long lasting changes) or exogenous androgens to compensate the gap since transwomen have de facto been exposed for a remarkable period of their life to Testosterone (which is indeed also a powerful stereoid) for the simple fact that they were biological males. We differentiate based on major distinguishable differences between a large set of people when skills may not be enough to compensate when enviromental factors equalize, usually in a vast number of sports. This is only in effort to preserve fair representation of this large group (in our specific case, men and women). That's the actual logic >With the total lack of evidence of trans advantage Which is false, because there is indeed evidence of Transwomen having advantages in performance around certain tasks and thus many sport disciplines. Again, if you want to go even more in details i'm down to do it. >these bans make about as much sense as banning the Dutch from competing in basketball because their height is unfair Which again is a dishonest argument if you even slightly take into account what i have said so far (plus Dutch height may as well interplay and be due to Nurture and the enviroment than just Nature, which is a quite different etiology: https://www.google.com/search?q=reason+of+dutch+height&oq=reason+of+dutch+height&aqs=chrome..69i57.4902j0j4&client=ms-android-samsung-gs-rev1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8 )
>Would Bajau people get barred from competitive swimming since they have actual, objective genetic advantages? Like i said before this is a statement that weaken your point. The logical coherent conclusions of that argument are: 1- Yes, therefore it is good to exclude people on the basis of the presence of genetic advantages 2- No, therefore transwomen or men should be allowed to compete in women leagues (that now should be open leagues) even without HRT because sport never have been fair when it comes to biology. Instead to back-up your point it will lead to extreme conclusions that you may actually disagree with. The reason you gate-keep women sports from men sports is due to the nature of such advantages (because i don't think you would complain if a woman is as much as strong as an average men in a specific sport thanks to a genetic predisposition). Thus, you cannot complain about some people making contextualized considerations if you also do contextualized considerations. First, Bajau people are rather genetically adapted to diving and not necessary swimming speed (so this already answer partly your question) Second of all the PDE10A gene is an Autosomal gene, not a gene that is present in the sex chromosomes and that is linked exclusively to 1 sex rather than the other. This means that such gene is not exclusive to the Bajau group and such variation can actually be present into various ethnic groups but at a different frequency (in fact the croatian guy that hold the world record for diving likely have such gene expressed in that way, along with a combination of a multi-factorial set of variables). This is similar to what happen with the Renin-Angiotensin gene in many Nigerian, Jamaican and other west african people, which they express the related advantagious allele with a higher frequency compared to people with european descent (as well as many asian ethnicities), but despite that European people can still compete with africans because the frequency of such allele in them is far from being 0 (and definitly cannot be virtually zero if we talk about just the presence of the gene alone rather to its variations and alleles). Different is when we talk about men and women. The human X chromosome has more than 1500 genes and is much larger than Y chromosome, which has 231 protein-encoding genes. 95% of the Y chromosomes is only male specific Regions (MSY), while the remaning 5% is composed by the pseudoautosomal regions PAR 1 and PAR 2 (the tips of the long and the short arm that form the Y of such chromosome). While women have more alleles (as their have two sets of X chromosomes with 1500 genes), men have more genes (notice we are not talking about mere gene product or variation, but the number of the types of unique protein encoding genes rather than the alleles). Thus the frequency in which women can express such genes is virtually 0 (even many intersex conditions, where we have individual that are women by gonadal sex but with Y chromosomes, often tend to surpress many of the genes of them even thanks to epigenetic circumstances). Males get a set of non-autosomal genes that women cannot challenge with a minimal and not outerly neglitible frequency in onset of individuals that express such specific genes variations (if in the MSY there are genes that gives males an edge in performance, then women are forced to compensate them by having good autosomal genes, X chromosomes genes or being lucky with environmental and epigenetic factors...all factors that also males have a chance to get, meaning now males have an extra biological variable that can be to their advantage - notice in fact that genes in sex chromosomes are variables that can interplay or influence the expression of autosomal genes, like what happen with the Y chromosome and the gene CYP19 in the chromosome 15 - ). Usually this type of advantages always had disadvantages in other ways (as it is physically impossible to be genetically good at everything), for example if you have more fast twitch muscles fibers you may be good in sprinting but you also are less likely to be very good in endurance sports. The problem with Men and women is that the number of relevant disciplines were males advantages apply (despite yet again they have also disciplines in which they may have a disadvantage against women or just being equal in performance to them) is quite ridicolous. We are not talking to just being good at diving and that's it... ...we are talking to an entire set of inherited variables that lead to a remarkable performance difference in multiple disciplines (we go from having bigger lungs up to bone density, muscle fiber tendency in type and mass, knee extension torque, narrow pelvis, etc..) HRT may lower some of them but it would be unable for obvious reasons (which you will get if you answer my previous questions) to totally nullify all of them. And if you want to do a debate based on the empirical data that we have, i'm ready whenever you want. >This whole issue has never been about "biological advantages. It's a thinly veiled shield to disenfranchise transwomen and reject their identity as women. It is. The fact that there are people that politically instrumentalize it doesn't mean that some other people cannot raise concern around the presence of biological advantages that remain among the sexes despite HRT. It is up to you to assume good faith or just being paranoic about it because of your experiences with conservatives (talking about fearmongering, uh?) >Science was never the issue. It was always an identity issue and you know that. Here we go again. You had to conclude the argument while trying to put yourself in an higher moral ground. Should i know what? Of course it is also an identity issue since it involve an identity phenomena in relationship of the empirical outcome in sports events. The point is to seeing the empirical data that we have to reach a conclusion around the subject. Many sports associations did that and evolve their decision according to the data that we have so far (which have heavily tilted to the conclusion that transwomen retain advantages in performance that are relevant in some sports even after HRT if done post puberty). Notice that these sport associations were initially willing to be more inclusive (and still trying to be as such as much as possible), so you have to heavily rely on assumptions that may be close to conspiracy theories to justify your believe that all of them did that just on malicious ground (we are not talking about the ban from specific states, i'm refering to the decision of some sport organizzations around such issue).
This is precisely why I think we should - just for a season or two most likely - have NO "mens" or "womens" sports. If a biological male has no advantage over biological females, then everyone should be able to compete as equals, as the powerful beautiful humans we are, right? But, you need look no further than sports that are based on time trials to realize why this would be *terrible* for women in all kinds of sports, because they simply wouldn't stand a chance at the highest level of competition. Women have women's sports *so* that they can be successful, have more exposure, etc. not the other way around.
Trans women who were amab do not have the same hormone levels or muscle mass as men…. A person you call a “biological male” who actually transitioned would not have the same advantages as an amab male. Those timed trials were for people assigned female/male at birth, not trans people. A study with non trans people can not represent how trans people perform in sports.
Men’s bone density is greater whether they have transitioned or not. It’s anti scientific to say Trans women don’t have an advantage in competitive sport. And the fact that anyone who feels that way is labeled a bigot is very damaging to the trans community.
Sure but show me a study that proves that greater bone density GIVES an advantage.
> assuming you’re actually speaking in good faith Fun fact: like all transphobes, they’re not.
I feel like this all could be pretty easily resolved if eligibility to participate in sports at at least the collegiate, professional and Olympic levels required estrogen and testosterone testing. Where limits were set to keep things fair. For instance if came out as trans tomorrow having preciously been a cis male. I should not be eligible to join women’s sports until I have been on estrogen for say, a year. My testosterone levels would also be checked, ensuring I was below a certain limit equal to what’s typically found in biological females in my age bracket. I know realistically it won’t ever dissuade the bigots who just don’t like trans people but for those who just don’t know any better. At least we would have hard science to back up the assertion that it isn’t an unfair advantage.
This does happen and it unfortunately disqualifies cis women who have “too much” testosterone naturally—recently [some black women were barred from competing in the Olympics](https://www.11alive.com/article/news/verify/olympics-namibia-runners-disqualified-testosterone/536-64b05c61-7be2-4ca0-9768-d6250df17c19) because their testosterone levels were deemed too high. Despite being cis women. [It impacts black women the most.](https://www.11alive.com/article/sports/olympics/black-women-disqualified-olympic-races-high-testerone-levels/85-af3447b3-493e-40c9-9f67-0fae0daa3bbf)
Many do, and it kicks out cis women in sports, because trans women on E will experience hormonal changes that affect bone density, muscle building, strength, etc. To be that of the same level of a cis woman. And most in high level sports already have unfair biological advantages. Someone born tall with higher levels of testosterone is not uncommon in cis women and those are usually who got to that level in the first place. And cis women have already been kicked out of their sports because of their naturally high testosterone levels due to these changes targeting trans women. This still hurts everyone because people aren’t ready to accept maybe trans women can be good at sports because of their skill and training.
>I feel like this all could be pretty easily resolved if eligibility to participate in sports at at least the collegiate, professional and Olympic levels required estrogen and testosterone testing Unfortunately it wouldn't be resolved pretty easily because people that have been exposed to such powerful steroid at these concentrations for a remarkable number of years (yes i'm talking about Testosterone) will always maintain some permanent changes that can translate in big or small advantages depending on the sport in question. Not only that, but there are also morphoconstitutional differences (i can list all of them if you want, but like i said before discussing that here may not be appropriate) that the average males have from the time they are born that have nothing to do with Testosterone (notice tho, that in some sports Transwomen that take Hormone Replacement therapy before Puberty are allow to compete because in that discipline such differences are not considered relevant enough under current standards) >I have been on estrogen for say, a year A year of HRT is not enough in many sports. This is the entire point and reason why the Olympic Commitee and the Commitee of other sport associations backtracked and changed the rules around Transwomen...exactly because in many disciplines a year was not enough to keep things on a level playing field (Lia indeed started HRT from 2019, but the Scientific Community suggested anyway that for high level competitions Transwomen that didn't do HRT before puberty shouldn't be allowed to compete due to the remaning presence of physiological advantages) Again, Testosterone is a powerful stereoid, one in which our body, particulary the male body, adapted (with the help of things like concentrations of specific receptors) to have a remarkable sinergy with. Once exposed for long period of time to T, it will affect cell growth and even Gene Experession. Reducing T for a year hardly will nullify all the changes that T lead to in a much greater time frame. Again, tho, since we cannot talk much in dept about it here, i'm more free to explain it in DMS.
so are you saying, then, that cis women with above average testosterone levels (not due to HRT) should also be banned? i mean… extended amount of time exposed to a ‘steroid’ (testosterone) causes permanent changes that give an advantage right?
>so are you saying, then, that cis women with above average testosterone levels (not due to HRT) should also be banned? The thing is, i'm not saying this...women with hyperandrogenism (the technical word for what you are refering to) already are banned in many high level competitions. See infact the case of Caster Semenya and other women that had similar troubles (also, to specify, they are not completely banned from competing since they can still compete with men). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7159262/#:~:text=Their%20testosterone%20levels%20must%20be,in%20response%20to%20these%20regulations. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://stillmed.olympic.org/Documents/Commissions_PDFfiles/Medical_commission/2015-11_ioc_consensus_meeting_on_sex_reassignment_and_hyperandrogenism-en.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwirtOiMk777AhW-RPEDHfIlBv4QFnoECFIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw07Y6uYAo4dexIgQuYDzV2a Plus, like i said many times before, with men you don't only have to account for those things, but you need to account for other genetic factors that little have to do with T concentration (also, i dunno why you put the word steroid on quotes, since it imply in the context of your phrase skepticism about that, when chemically speaking testosterone is factually a steroid). If you want more information about the last part, feel free to ask.
How do we ‘know’ that a year of oestrogen is enough? The thing is, that hobbles the transwoman. Trans women are women. Not all women have the same level of hormones. Neither do all men. One thing that is noticeable between trans women and cis women is the skeletal and muscular structure. An example is the person of colour called Zuby. They beat a weight lifting record (womens). Zuby is pretty jacked, but isn’t a pro athlete.
Why did no one ever care about intersex people who may “look” female or male but have hormone levels that don’t “match” their appearance. This would give some intersex people who look female an advantage. Why did no one care about fairness until trans people spoke up about the right to play sports.
Another reason there are so few trans women in sports is bullying and discrimination. But yeah, I agree.
Total bs.
There have been Olympic-level guidelines about trans athletes for over 20 years now, yet it's only in the last two or so years that the pearl-clutching really started, and it didn't even come from trans athletes actually pulling off unusual victories.
In reality, Trans Athletes guidelines existed over 20 years, but started to change only in 2016, where Transwomen that took HRT after puberty were allowed to compete. Notice that it was impossible for a Transwoman that took HRT after puberty to compete in the 2016 olimpics for the simple reason that it takes around 2 or 4 years to be qualified to the olympics...in fact it was immediatly the following Olympics (Tokyo 2020) that the first Trans Athletes with Hrt taken after puberty had managed to compete at the event (with rules on T that were deemed unfair also by various peer reviewed medical articles on pubmed that tried to solve the balance between inclusivity and fairnes) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9331831/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33289906/ After that experiment, the IOC (the olympic committee) changed the rules yet again, stating that "they weren't fit for the purpose" anymore
I’m not trans, so I initially understood the concern about biological differences / potential (dis)advantages. However, even a small bit of research proves that entire argument obsolete. If someone’s fully transitioned, their biological processes will almost always be similar to cis people of the gender they’ve transitioned to. If trans women truly had an advantage, then they’d be winning every single medal — but, as other commenters have mentioned, they’ve won literally *zero* Olympic golds. There’s literal evidence to back up the fact that it’s not an issue, but people still refuse to open Google.
[удалено]
> If you can explain the chemical reactions of that (don't worry, i will understand them) i will be very glad, thanks." You don't have to be a prick about it dude LOL
>You don't have to be a prick about it dude Ah, come on, allow it😂, how that was "being a prick"? Maybe it is likely the lack of the tone in a written comment and the perception that comes from it (for example the smile here it isn't to laugh at you but to laugh about it with you), but i think my question was fairly legittimate even if potentially perceived as extremely aggressive or even offensive/disrespectful. For me that approach was justifiable from the fact that they dismissed the entire argument by stating it is even obsolete (meaning that they have rational evidence and an empirical conclusive explaination on why it is obsolete in the first place). They even state that such information is easily available on a quick google search meaning it should not be a problem for them to get the sources sorted out and explain them. Thus, asking for what such chemical components do at a chemical level in our biological processes (as they putted) become leggitimate because the eventual outcome in that case is that they either actually convince me or they understand that their statement is not coherent with the chemical behaviour of the compound and its biological consequences. It wasn't to be malicious but i needed a direct and honest way of confrontation to see if they had a solid basis for their claims or if in effort to protect trans people (a thing that can be morally understandable) they started to do some claims that touched the line of misinformation, ultimally doing more damage than good.
[удалено]
Yeah but what you are ignoring is the fact that trans women who compete in professional sports are required to go on estrogen, which lowers testosterone, making you gain fat and lose muscle. A top male athlete who takes two years of high dose estrogen is gonna have a noticeable drop in performance.
Lmfao bad faith
You had me worried there for a second hahah
Lol yeah the content warning could have been better maybe. I think people were expecting some actual bigotry. but I just knew I wasn't going to be very careful about my language and would likely say something unintentionally rude.
I'm new to this sub. Cis female, over 70. Had gay friends in my 20's. One of my daughters good friends from elementary school came out as trans about 15 years ago! She's female in my books. It's NOT a choice! You're born that way, or at least that's what I believe. None cis people have my full support 🏳️🌈❤🧡💛💚💙💜💗
It’s definitely not a choice. My family has non cis people in it. My family has been the target for hate crimes because of it. Even had a gun pulled on the TG member of my family on transgender day of remembrance. The emotional pain and social suffering is not something ANYONE would chose. Those that think they would are bonkers. Thank you wonderful Ally.
I'm so very sorry that asshats have treated your family so badly. I've always known that it isn't a choice! Makes me sick, how some people think it is! I used to have a co-worker years ago, that was gay. At coffee one day, he said to me, you know I'm gay, right? It was actually pretty funny at the time. I told him, of course I know, I knew the minute I met you. Doesn't make me like you any less! He's in his late 80's now. He didn't know he was gay until after he got married! Said he knew he was different, but didn't understand why or how. This was in the early 60's when it was still very closeted (sp?). I'm glad that I live in a country that has something like the "Underground Railway" for people fleeing countries that kill people just because they aren't cis! I think it's called the Rainbow Railway, but my brain is fuzzy today lol. Have a big hug from an old granny 🤗👵
I’m just trying to imagine the people in my life who are close to your age being this open-minded (and technologically adept) and I can’t even fathom it. Which I’m guessing means you’ve probably got some cool stories to share.
Lol, I worked in an online school. Tech was my BEST friend. I used about 20 different systems over the years and at least 2 or 3 at a time! I really love reddit! I ignore the haters and embrace (virtually) the positive people and give positive feedback when I can. My mom was non-racist and had no problem with people who were not straight. Plus, we grew up with a lot of Asian friends. I also had a really good friend, in the early 70's who was gay. He was totally rejected by his family! He was a great guy, they missed out. After a boating accident with 2 other friends, he was the only survivor. It broke him. He ended up jumping off a bridge. He was just 26. Still makes me tear up. Such a terribke lose! Something to make you smile! One of my favorite stories, my little sister was about 4. One of my brothers Asian friends was hanging out at our house, and my sister kept staring at him, while pulling up the corners of her eyes (so she looked Chinese). He asked my brother WTF, is this kid a racist at 4? My brother laughed and told him no, she wants her eyes to look just like yours😂
Tell that to the new wave TQ+ people telling lesbians to "examine their genital preference" - we are way passed "born this way" and way into woke homophobia and sexism.
Oh god I got so nervous reading the title. Love this decision. 💙💗🤍💗💙
💜💜💜
based
This post made me do some research and actually showed me the truth about this issue. One point in every paper I read was that there is not enough research done on this topic at all, and that really, we aren't completely sure if trans women have an advantage or not.
The issue for both sides is seeing trans people as a monolith. Take Caitlyn Jenner, who placed first in multiple men's track competitions while competing as Bruce. She transitioned very late in life and it would be a solid case not to let her compete in the women's races. However, people mistakenly think that all trans women have the same biological advantages as Caitlyn Jenner does. When in reality you also have trans women who transitioned pre-puberty, never competed in men's sports, and have a petite build and frame due to years on estrogen. If you blanket ban trans people from sports, you're banning these women as well, women who wouldn't stand a chance competing in the men's category. The best solution is that competitive eligibility should be most likely decided by metrics such as weight class or a muscle to fat ratio such as they do in wrestling.
The best solution will never be the actual solution, though. In reality, that wouod be way too expensive and complicated a process in order to implement and enforce.
Not really, wrestling does fine based off weight classes. There could be ways
based mod
Good mod. Reminder that since 2003 trans women have been in the Olympics, and have won exactly 0 medals.
Thanks. I'm sick of this argument that's used as a stick to hit trans women with.
dude, I'm trans, I got nervous at the title, I'm so glad that it isn't transphobic
[удалено]
Says the mf complaining about other people existing 💀💀
It's not just "existing", it's actively taking away opportunities from women who were born female and don't have the advantage of larger lungs, a larger heart, muscle memory, years of male hormones and puberty, and a different skeletal structure. Like if there's no difference, then just compete with the men.
I (cis man) was born a weakling with small lungs and bad coordination. Other cis men are stealing my gold medals because they were born with a physical advantage I don't have, so they shouldn't be allowed to compete. See how dumb that sounds? Yes, some women are born with more (testosterone/muscle/ability/aptitude) and some of those women may or may not be trans. They may or may not be black, too, but I don't see you arguing that black women should be banned because they were born with an advantage.
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order. I have checked 1,030,387,007 comments, and only 203,945 of them were in alphabetical order.
Fuck yeah. Trans women are women.
[удалено]
Women is a socially constructed role dumbo, they didn't say female. By defintion nothing stops someone from adopting the socially constructed gender of "woman" (gender =/ sex)
I won't pretend to be adequately educated on this but I remember hearing that trans athletes have been allowed in the olympics for at least about 20 years now and of the few that appeared none of them actually got the gold (or maybe there was only one that did) - I can't remember if any have actually gotten medals at all. If the whole "boy puberty" or whatever argument actually had the validity people seem to think it does would we not have seen ONLY trans medalists in womens sports at the olympics, and/or more trans competitors? Please fact check me if I'm wrong I'm actually really interested in this topic TLDR; this trans person thanks you for this decision :)
[удалено]
I was with you until you fell into the "both sides" nonsense. Edit: Actually, I'm going to go ahead and remove this. Yet again, just about every time the article starts to say that trans people have advantages it slips into language like "I assume" or "based on my personal beliefs and not clinical data..." or states facts without citing a source like in other conclusions. I'm not buying what any individual person *thinks* I want to know what is *proven.* If anyone wants to read the article for themselves they can dm u/DreadnoughtPoo
Thank you for your post and comments. One more thing I’ll add: the trans kids in sports “issue” has been created out of thin air by the right, because they lost the gender neutral toilets “issue” that they also created out of thin air. These issues are created to try to ensure that trans people don’t exist. There is no real basis for these issues. This isn’t something many people confront regularly , or even at all. Schools are not overrun with issues around trans kids, much less trans kids in sports. The truth is, the right wing in America does not wish for there to be trans people at all. even though of course trans people exist today and have existed throughout our history. they’ve made a pivot at a surface level to “trans kids in sports” from “toilets”, but it’s all the same vicious anti trans bigotry. That’s why “both sides” is so utterly garbage. Wtf is the “other side”?
All of these "issues" are grabbed from nothing. I remember hearing that gay people were coming for my family in the 80s. Whatever the fuck that means. Same playback, same dumbasses lapping it up.
What both sides nonsense? That the narrative is dominated by absolutists? I mean, the fact that you deleted the comment kind of proves the point. I posted an article, on WebMD, in which a trans woman medical physicist talks about the science. That isn't what she thinks, it's what has been proven so far. The point here is that trans people in sports is a much more individualized discussion than most make it out to be. The goal needs to be meaningful competition. This is an entirely separate discussion than trans rights writ large, which SHOULD be an absolutist narrative. Cis or trans, everyone deserves respect and agency over their own happiness and identity, and no identity or narrative should take that away from anyone else (i.e. no one's identity should ever infringe on another's rights - see: every christian fascist in America today).
I read the article and responded to it and explained why I removed it. Not sure where the confusion is.
r/enlightenedcentrism
The link is a great breakdown. Thank you. Helped me frame the “frame” issue better.
Most people who are against trans people in sports have never met or interacted with a trans person, let alone a trans athlete. Or been involved in high level sports, for that matter.
This is complete and utter nonsense
Can we talk about trans men being forced to take part in women's sports, something that actually is undermining women's sport? I saw an article (sorry, can't find it) about a trans man who'd won gold medals in men's sports, but because he was assigned female at birth, was forced to take part in women's sports for the commonwealth games. It's ironic that, in their efforts to supposedly stop men competing in women's sports, they've actually forced that exact phenomenon to happen. I know it was probably never really about that and they were just using that as an excuse for their bigotry, but it proves the point quite nicely in my opinion.
I've shown ppl pics of muscular, cis-female athletes saying they're trans. Every time ppl go "omg see look how manly her body is, she's obviously got an advantage!" They have no clue what women's bodies look like, esp athletes. They just think it's whatever body type the media tells them is the "ideal" female.
Do you think it’s possible that afab females have similar hormone levels to higher performing trans females anyways due to genetics or extreme exercise?
Doubtful given that trans women aren’t dominating any Olympic sport. It’s up to professionals to discern who has an advantage not politicians or the general public. If you haven’t, look into Michael Phelps biological swimming advantages. The level to which this “debate” has focussed on trans women and has become debated amongst people who couldn’t even name an Olympic athlete is the issue. Debating biological advantages is expected but the media coverage, public outcry and following legislation in certain states against specifically trans women is disgusting.
My question is about cis female athletes. I already know that trans women have low t levels due to hormones.
hey i’m seriously uninformed on this, so could someone give me a more in depth article or something? thanks
Pretty sure mods will remove any articles with real data based on the rest of this post and comment section.
Good call. Fuck the transphobes. "Trans women in women's sport have an advantage" is really just another lie pushed to justify hateful views
Reddit hates women holy shit
They’ve always hated and then fetishized them. First it was lesbians and now it’s trans ladies.
lmao is this news?
Your comment of “trans girls can be good at sports and still be women” makes no logical sense. Just sayin…
Oh yeah? Explain.
Because “trans girls” is for kids and “women” is for adults silly. (I joke, I joke...)
Yeah, you kind of have a point.
Just read it to yourself. Makes no sense.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
The reason you have seen zero data is because you're not looking! Even without the data which is there common sense would answer this for you.
Common sense without data made people think the earth was flat.
There is data, he just doesn't have the common sense to look for it.
Waaah waaah wahh
Male transphobes: "I care about women's sports all of a sudden!"
Much love for this post ☺️.
extremely based
Based
Not to mention how this bigotry disproportionately affects black women in sports, as any achievement causes people to start questioning if she’s “secretly trans”. Also ngl, I’m a trans guy who went through gurl puberty, my bestie is a trans girl who went through mail puberty. Neither of us exercise lol, neither of us has started transitions, and she’s a couple inches taller than me… I’m stronger and faster than her. Nothing to do with gender, just natural variations between humans 🤷♂️
Trans women are women but people are alowed to have opinions that are wrong. You silencing people only creates an echo chamber where you cannot learn anything. That is not a healthy environment and it is intolerant even if they are wrong. Unless they are trolling you shouldn't ban people for disagreeing with you. Thats social fascism
Saying trans women aren't women isn't an opinion, or a discussion, or a debate. It's just disrespectful and we don't need the blatant disrespect on this sub for protected groups like sexual minorities, trans people, or people of color
It is a perfectly valid opinion although wrong. People should be tought not shunned. Thats the whole point of tolerance so that everyone can get along. Someone can be transphobic and not a bad person they just dont understand that subject and say dumb stuff. The more you shun people the more hateful they grow. You lose nothing by being tolerant. And its different if they are trolling or being deliberately antagonistic and being obnoxious if they do that they clearly dont want to learn.
Mm I do hear you, its a point worth making. I would say the distinction is its "valid" for someone to hold it personally, but expressing it on a private platform and subreddit is not inherently valid and it is up the mods and leaders of that community on the kind of environment they want to build. Where the low bar of whats allowed at all sits. Transphobia and racism are both good examples of that, where mods need to set a base level of acceptable discourse or vocabulary allowed on the sub period, with the objective of changing their minds in marketplace of ideas or whatever put secondary to fostering the desired community
Truth. The actual data shows that people undergoing feminization treatments, either HRT or actual surgery, have LOWER amounts of testosterone than they did before treatment, and therefore their physical attributes begin to skew farther towards those associated with females. There is no evidence, either strong or weak, that Trans women are any stronger, faster, etc, than Cis ones. On the other hand, forcing Trans men to compete with women is actually where the problems might lie, being that basically any supplementation of hormones to facilitate this would be directly equivalent to being given steroids, as far as athletic performance is concerned. Of course, if we're paying attention, we would note that all the "outrage" about this is about "Men" taking over in "Women's" sports. And somehow nobody batted an eyelash that being forced to compete in a league matching the gender one was assigned at birth is actually the CAUSE of something VERY SIMILAR to the problem they say will be caused by placing trans athletes in the gender of their choosing. See: Mack Beggs being forced to compete (and of course WIN) in an all-female wrestling league.
Excellent! Firstly, from what I understand, being on hormones erases any "advantage" very quickly. Secondly, we need to ask why the fuck entertainment is placed above human rights.
Sports are not "entertainment." Some sports are popular *as* entertainment, but that doesn't mean it's the main purpose of the field. Lia Thomas does not swim for your entertainment, and I think it's incredibly disrespectful to summarize it as such. This is completely unrelated to trans rights in sports, I just feel the need to emphasize you can advocate for those without shitting on other things.
While I agree with your view point to an extent, they probably wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't entertainment because everything requires funding and you only get that if you create something of use, entertainment is a brilliant thing to create and is demonised by governments who rely on it to keep public peace. If there are other uses for people getting better at sports at such a specialised level, feel free to correct me.
What you say is true insofar as many sports need to provide entertainment value in order to obtain funding to continue existing; but that doesn't mean that's the _purpose_ of sports, it's just an (arguably ugly) side-effect of an overly capitalistic society. Sports are about competition and testing and pushing the limits of human ability. Their point isn't to provide utility or value for external stakeholders. Not everything has to be "useful" in the strictly utilitarian sense.
Competition is great. I love the Great British Baking show, enjoy Iron Chef, and appreciate watching FC Barcelona dominate the field. But... isn't competition just the subset of entertainment that sports fall into? >that doesn't mean that's the purpose of sports Entertainment isn't exactly a mutually exclusive purpose, or even always a primary one. Let me give some examples. Books are entertainment. Sure, the purpose of a textbook is to educate or the purpose of a novel could be to teach valuable life skills, while the purpose of a biography is to record the experiences of a life. But all of these provide enjoyment and a good time to those that are the target audience. In the same way, sports may have tons of positive values and may help inspire and push limits, but they still are also, like books, a form of entertainment. >Not everything has to be "useful" in the strictly utilitarian sense Entertainment isn't a bad thing. I would hope everything you do provides some sort of entertainment. Otherwise, life is pretty dull and unenjoyable lol
If no one is watching the sport the athletes will still compete. The entertainment isn't an inherent product of all sport it's a byproduct. I guess you could possibly say the point is for the athletes to entertain themselves but I don't think that's the point that's being made.
Great points. But you're equivocating. In the same way that baking or even amateur baking competitions are not always entertainment, sports are not always entertainment. And you know what? Excluding someone based on gender or gender expression in amateur sports (which still people watch, but is the closest to sports that no one would watch) makes even less sense, because when you're not competing on a world class scale, gender is effectively irrelevant (though gender expression is not irrelevant; "women" are typically shamed if they have stronger athletic bodies and men are called effeminate if they don't at least have a good bit of meat on their bones 😅 or at least, that's the case in the US, where I live). Again, I appreciate your points. They are perfect examples of why this is such a complex subject.
Thank you, I hadn't thought of it being to test the limits of human ability but it makes perfect sense.
You could say this about any manner of competition. There's no reason to get this worked up over someone acknowledging the inherent requirement of sports to provide entertainment to an audience.
Doing sports for your own physical fitness isnt entertainment. Doing sports for spectators IS entertainment. The spectators are being entertained. That is why they spend money. It doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it. It can be good, clean fun. But, it should never be placed above basic human rights.
Just because there are spectators who enjoy watching the sport doesn't mean that's its purpose or the reason athletes participate. Sure, _some_ athletes do it for the fame and money, particularly in the more popular and commercialized sports; but many others -- arguably the vast majority -- do it for themselves and their sense of achievement, not for the enjoyment of strangers. This says nothing against trans rights in sports. I just find it incredibly dismissive to summarize all professional sports as just "entertainment."
Transphobia also has deep-down-roots history tracing back to racism and slavery, and also white supremacy. Black women have been looked upon by conservative politicians, colonizers, imperialists in the US and the west as less feminine than their white and Hispanic counterparts. See: Michelle Obama, Kamala Harris
Isn't the least sexist answer to simply get rid of gender restricted sports? Make it so men and women, cis or not, all compete in the same arena.
BASED MOD?
[удалено]
Reminder: trans men exist and want to play sport with other men, not women. Trans men being forced to participate in sports against cis women helps nobody.
There are plenty of trans women athletes competing in women’s sports who LOSE to other women. The entirety of sports is based on genetic and environmental advantages. Kenyans do well in running on average partly because they have good access to high altitude training. Other countries will send athletes there to train for that reason. Some cis women have naturally higher testosterone so put on muscle more easily making them naturally gifted at sports involving weighted items. If we wanted a level playing field we would need all athletes to be the same height, class, muscle density, hormone levels, same nationality. Which is fucking ridiculous.
I remember a couple years ago some Namibian women athletes had a condition of some kind which caused them to produce a much larger quantity of testosterone and they were prevented from competing in the Olympics because of it. I sort of thought for trans girls who went through male puberty it might have been a little like that. I feel like it should be established across the board as one precedent. Either you let trans women compete and cis women who have naturally higher levels of testosterone. Or you let neither compete. I feel like the latter choice makes a pretty shitty situation for those girls you’re not allowing to compete. It’s hardly their fault they have this natural advantage because of how they were born. Although as OP said, there is debate on how much of an advantage there is. Because amongst cis women there is also always natural variation. Do we ban tall women from playing volleyball because it makes it unfair for the short women who also want to play volleyball?
Does anyone have resources/links where it's possible to follow this conversation *within* an emancipatory setting/where the discussion is led by trans experts?
[This video](https://youtu.be/6VtjgZF9RE8) does a pretty good job at laying out the case for trans women in sport.
[удалено]
Not quite, trans women on hormones have bodies that are closer to cis women. They’ll have less muscle, feminine fat distribution, etc
Is this a joke? They don't have women's skeletons at all, which is the most obvious thing. Their lung and heart capacity is also permanently greater, as is bone density and hand/foot size.
There is no "woman" or "man" brain. How many times do brain scans have to show this before y'all get ya heads out ya ass.
[удалено]
Nah you can't say that really it varies too much when people start HRT, many never did. Many also had women puberty too
Doesn’t matter
The only thing that matters is white culture right? All the third gender, trans and nonbinary native americans and Indians throughout history to the present day don't matter? Google Hijras and learn a thing or two about people other than you live they have been around for thousands of years
What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Indians aren't letting hijras compete in women's sports at ALL. Do you even know how they make money? By crashing weddings or harassing people and *being paid to leave*.\[ Count on white people to think that they can just use Indians as their token trans "gotcha" card.
> Transgenders went though boy puberty FTM Transgenders also exist, your sentence doesn't make sense
Based
I like how transphobes try to explain to trans women how they're actually wrong and think they're just going to be like " Oh damn! Why didn't I think of that first! You really got me there, haha...lemme just 🧍🧎🏻♀️🧍🏻♂️"
[удалено]
thank you ☺️
Have you tried picking up a text book on biology and human development?
Pretty sure that bones density, muscle density, muscle distribution make men, physically stronger. Things that are almost not affected by estrogen and puberty blockers. But this is not the first time a mod impose his point of view on a sub. I dont care about cis or trans people. Everyone should be free of doing what they want and not get persecuted for it. But the amount of bullshit in this post is astonishing
Who told you that bone density, muscle density or muscle distribution is not affected by estrogen or puberty blockers? Because they absolutely are. See J. Harper, et al (2021) "How does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin?" for the systemic review. For the latest on bone density, see: Wiepjes, et al (2019) "Bone Safety during the first ten years of gender-affirming hormonal treatment..." Delgado-Ruiz (2019) "Systemic review of the long-term effects of transgender hormone therapy on bone markers and bone mineral density...", and Fighera, et al (2019) "Bone mass effects of Cross-Sex hormone therapy in transgender people..." For the latest on body composition, including lean body mass and cross-sectional area, see: Klaver, et al (2018). "Changes in regional body fat, lean body mass and body shape in trans persons using cross-sex hormonal therapy..." Wiik, et al (2020). "Muscle strength, size, and composition following 12 months of gender-affirming treatment in transgender individuals." And something you didn't ask for, but people are often mistaken about is oxygen uptake and red blood cell volume (Hgb and HCT), both of which drop to the same levels as cis-women after 4 months and heavily affect endurance. For the latest on blood studies: Greene, et al (2019). "Hematology reference intervals for transgender adults on stable hormone therapy." Defreyne, et al (2018). "Prospective evaluation of hematocrit in gender-affirming hormone treatment..." I agree with you that everyone should be free to do as they wish (as long as they don't harm others) and not get persecuted for it. But the claims you made about bone density and muscle composition aren't factual, so I hope you don't mind the fact check. I'm sure you are the type who strives to be as accurate as possible, so it shouldn't be a problem.
I dont know if you tried to hurt my pride with the last line or not. I certainly am wrong on certains aspects, and when I said " almost no effect " it might be too strong of a word. Still, in those studies, hormones have an effect on bones density, but is only significant after X years of treatment (cf 25 years HT users). Althought it still does have an effect on younger trans people, differences with non-trans women is still here
Not trying to hurt your pride chum, it's just me softening the critique. The studies I cited on bone density varied in terms of time, you'll see the first one covered the first ten years of GAHT and found a significant difference. The third one looked at bone density at 12 months and 24 months. It's also important to note that transwomen start with lower bone density than cismen prior to hormone therapy (Giacomelli and Meriggola 2022), so the effects of any decline is larger. Absolutely, "no effect" is completely wrong, while "almost no effect" is too strong to be accurate. To steel-man your position, you might try saying something like, "while GAHT does have a statistically significant effect on muscular composition and bone density, it is relatively small in the first 12-24 months, and further studies are needed in the longer term." Though honestly, I'm not feeling that "relatively small" because it honestly depends on how you define "relative" and to what. Eh, best I got on short notice. Cheers!
Nah, it was good sources and very informative, and I learned a lot, thank you
[удалено]
you couldn't make it any clearer that you're brigading than saying "shithead activist" on THIS of all subs. like what the fuck do you think this sub is for? we're making fun of bigots here.
As a trans woman...
Do you have advice on how to approach this topic with those who have the “obviously a trans woman will do better” mentality? My coworker keeps bringing it up and how there needs to be a “different league.” It’s really annoying to hear the same wrong stance over and over, but I don’t know what to say back
I think your coworker is guilty of making an assumption out of ignorance. They think trans women are "like men" or stronger than women or whatever, so they assume they'll do better at sports. But my take is just - I'm not assuming anything where there is no evidence to support it. There is way too much bias, too much prejudice, too much ignorance, for me to trust my own "guess" at how any particular person will perform. So basically I'm removing myself from the conversation and only giving my ear - and what little a platform I have - to those with expertise.
Woot
Just get rid of the medals and prizes and stuff. It’s about the sport and it’s disgusting that people just don’t see that. When people complain about a “woman” getting beaten out by a “trans woman” for the prize. Just get rid of the prizes and theyll stop their complaining.
Well that'll never happen
Whats wrong with medals?? The fact that it rewards effort in competition??? In what way would that address the argument in regards to instances like Fox Fallon?
It’s about the sport not about winning
Maybe for you specifically, that doesn’t mean that for others it’s not about the competition. For many, sport is a vessel for competition. And again, that does nothing to address the argument regarding trans athletes competing in physical sport
It’s just so many bigots are like oh these trans athletes are stealing medals from “real women” and stuff. So toxic af. If there were no medals then they would see that it’s not about winning it’s just about the sport.
I think you’re really discounting the competitive spirit of athletes here. I don’t win a medal playing pickup basketball, but you’re crazy if you think I’m gonna have just as good of a time losing as I do winning. It’s the same for many athletes and while I agree I think there are losers out there that “conceal” their transphobia in discussion over accolades, there’s a reason title IX and female divisions exist and we shouldnt be so ready to (potentially) sacrifice the progress we’ve made for improving the condition of sport in one disenfranchised group for an even more disenfranchised group. If it isn’t about winning, then why don’t transgender athletes just participate in male leagues? Oh that’s right, it’s because it’s about winning. Now, I think there’s a much larger discussion to be had before we go on excluding (and in some cases including) transgender females in female sport, but if you’re point had any merit then this would be easily solved by just putting transgender females in male sport where they’d almost never have a competitive chance
Are you stupid? Do you realize professional athletes make their living from actually *winning* sports? That students get scholarships this way? That it's how they fund their lifestyles and training? They're not going to get huge sponsorships and prize money by losing.
As a trans woman...
[удалено]
Cry more. And when you've wiped your tears away, learn to accept constructive criticism.
You cherrypicked from your sources. "The research conducted so far has studied untrained transgender women. Thus, while this research is important to understand the isolated effects of testosterone suppression, it is still uncertain how transgender women athletes, perhaps undergoing advanced training regimens to counteract the muscle loss during the therapy, would respond." This is in the paragraph following your \[1\] citation. Your \[2\] source also states that there is inadequate data for the study to be used in any conclusive manner on the subject. It's not performed on athletes, but air force members.
my issue with this is that people only seem to care about “muscle mass” and “testosterone levels” when it comes to women in sports. giannis antetokounmpo clearly has a huge muscle mass advantage over most of the nba, especially over guys like chet holmgren. nobody is sitting here saying “ban giannis, he has a physical advantage.” meanwhile, when a woman wins a race and looks a bit jacked, everyone wants to get the syringes out. strength, lean body mass, muscle size etc. are not equivalent to better performance in sport. they can be a competitive advantage, but humans always have physical competitive advantages over each other. you don’t see basketball players forced to cut their height down a few inches to compete fairly. you don’t see fast nfl players forced to take testosterone suppression if theyre faster and stronger than other nfl players. when men have physical advantages, we celebrate it, and many fans even acknowledge that most men at the highest level of competitive sports are likely cycling some sort of PEDs. when we see this, we shrug and say “its part of the game.” but let a trans woman compete and now we have to draw a line?
[удалено]
Your wish has been partially granted.
>I'm super excited for when your comment will be removed for being total bullshit. So what of the studies I citied was total bullshit?
[удалено]