The problem I have with these types of discussions around trans-issues is that people use it as a stepping stone to just say fully transphobic things. I guess the 'smart' ones don't say anything outright transphobic, but resort to implications. It's depressing to read.
Transgender Athletes
- Thread starter Stack
- Start date
There aren't any complexities defining biological sex. It can be tested, it can be observed, it can be explained. You're looking for some rope to make an idiotic point when there is none.
Your second sentence is a totally different point, and has no bearing on the first.
Referring to trans women as biological men is insulting depending on the context. To demean / belittle in public etc - yes. To discuss whether they should be allowed in women sports on an online forum - not at all.
Sports would stop being natural competition, and start being like those handicap motorsport racing series, where race winners carry more weight to slow them down - entertainment takes precedence over competition. I mean, if that's what we want to do as a society - make all physical sport handicap based... I don't think I agree with that really. I also think there would be a significant pushback, because there will always be people who want to know if they're the best, full stop. Not "the best in whatever the sporting body deems to be a fair framework".
Sure, all sports are manufactured in some way, and the rules are arbitrary, but I can't see how you'd ever fairly handicap a trans woman - who makes the call on what a handicap should be? Would a team of 11 trans women be allowed to play against the current United womens team? Do they have to play 10 vs 11? And what happens with trans men? I'm not seeing much discussion about that here - surely the only way to deal with that is a trans-men only sporting division, because expecting them the compete against women would be insulting. So why is the discussion different regarding trans women?
The problem I have is some people consistently confuse discussion of the topic with transphobia.
It's not ideal but a better compromise than nothing at all
Because it's men who want to dictate what men transitioning into women should be included in. Who gives a shit about women, or women transitioning into men. It's misogyny, plain and simple. We've even had a poster literally say 'those poor wee cis women' trying to justify the stance.
The other depressing part is there are people who have genuine questions and are not transphobic but their question might be interpreted that way. Its been turned into an issue where some will ask questions just to cause argument and others wont ask questions for fear of being thought of as transphobic.
Of course there are.
For example you could look at it on different levels, like hormones or physical appearance.
I said myself I would look at the genetic difference, but that is something that can be debated, and apparently the sports bodies like IOC have not chosen that path.
Yes, that too. I'm talking about those who come out with things like "they are not real women", and then just say "oh I was talking about in a sporting sense". Happens with all types of transgender discussions. People take all sorts of difficult edge cases as a way to smear the whole community. We're still figuring out how we as a society can help transgender people live more comfortably and freely, and yet there are so many people determined to undermine this.
Well it depends how people approach the subject. If someone keeps referring to trans women as biological men and people have explained to them why that is problematic yet they still do so it can get into that territory. Similarly in the Sam Smith thread previously and the discussion of pronouns. A lot of discussion relies on good faith and sometimes that good faith just isn't there and why unfortunately society is a long way off actually embracing LGBTQIA+ culture and people rather than just 'accepting' it and them.
I used that terminology in the context of the sports debate - and I think it's relevant. I'm not sure about the difference you mean between embracing and accepting. Embracing suggests we should be moving towards a society where everyone agrees with anything that particular culture believes about itself - which is nonsense if science says otherwise.
accepting it seems fine to me - a society where people allow others to live their lives however wish, in spite of their own beliefs.
No there aren't. You've literally listed a couple. There's nothing complex about it.
Sporting bodies have been understanding and separating male and female categories for decades (centuries?). It's only in this nascent realm of self-identification that it's muddied the waters, but, sticking to biological and scientific fact is categorically non-complex.
The complex thing is which measurement to use when you have several that are available - and these measurements will not always lead to the same results. Otherwise we would not have a discussion here.
You might not have understood the problem. But it's okay. If you are interested read up on it, otherwise stay on the level you are atm.
Nothing at all is a far better compromise.
Transgender athletes wouldnt accept handicaps in any case. Just looking at the sort of statements Emily Bridges put out recently, not a chance in hell she would accept a time handicap in her events vs women, she'd still be claiming British Cycling are no different to genocidal nazis. And still staunchly refuse to accept the science.
Just make all sports in to Female (XX Chromosome) and "Other" (XY Chromosome) categories. This is what is happening in a lot of Olympic sports anyway.
Then it's actually women being discriminated against, but they wouldn't complain as it works in their favour.
Then it's actually women being discriminated against, but they wouldn't complain as it works in their favour.
That's complex? Maybe to someone that doesn't understand basic science. Do you fit into that category?
Using biological markers would give a binary answer every time. Most athletes in the build up to races/events are swab tested, or tested in some capacity to confirm if they've taken any PEDs. That same info would give the answer whether they're biologically male of female. Again, nothing complex there.
Because of self-identification in the last decade, this has muddied the waters because we'll have biologically male athletes, who identify as female, wanting to compete in female only sporting events. Again, there was no complexity / issues in the previous decades/centuries up to that point. (Yes, intersex, etc cases like Caster Semenya did / do exist, but these were exceptions).
Sorry if this isn't really the theme of the thread - I don't really read the Current Events forum so haven't kept up with the debate...
I see there's talk of having a 'female' section, and an 'Open' section for some sports - to help deal with the complaints of female athletes of competing against Transgender ones. Personally, I don't really have an opinion on the latter part as it's all very complex and I don't claim to be knowledgeable about any of the Biology aspects of it.
However, if there's now no longer any 'male' section, as such - in response to female athletes wanting Transgender athletes out of their version and so it becoming an 'Open' section - then I hope female participants now don't get to enter both if they wish. I think that's wrong, to have a double opportunity like that when others can't. The rule should be that you can only enter one of the sections - so if you're participating in the female section, you can't also enter the Open section as well to have a second go at it in the same way they already can in the likes of Darts and Snooker.
I see there's talk of having a 'female' section, and an 'Open' section for some sports - to help deal with the complaints of female athletes of competing against Transgender ones. Personally, I don't really have an opinion on the latter part as it's all very complex and I don't claim to be knowledgeable about any of the Biology aspects of it.
However, if there's now no longer any 'male' section, as such - in response to female athletes wanting Transgender athletes out of their version and so it becoming an 'Open' section - then I hope female participants now don't get to enter both if they wish. I think that's wrong, to have a double opportunity like that when others can't. The rule should be that you can only enter one of the sections - so if you're participating in the female section, you can't also enter the Open section as well to have a second go at it in the same way they already can in the likes of Darts and Snooker.
Sorry, I should have phrased it better. It is complex, but for the simple minds less so.That's complex? Maybe to someone that doesn't understand basic science. Do you fit into that category?
Using biological markers would give a binary answer every time. Most athletes in the build up to races/events are swab tested, or tested in some capacity to confirm if they've taken any PEDs. That same info would give the answer whether they're biologically male of female. Again, nothing complex there.
Because of self-identification in the last decade, this has muddied the waters because we'll have biologically male athletes, who identify as female, wanting to compete in female only sporting events. Again, there was no complexity / issues in the previous decades/centuries up to that point. (Yes, intersex, etc cases like Caster Semenya did / do exist, but these were exceptions).
Ah that explains why you’re posting then. Do you get it now? Or do you need more help?
Once again, I implore you: learn to understand sarcasm/context. Please. It will do you wonders.
I mean, you literally kicked this off with a post about transgender women, so people talked about transgender women. Now it's misogyny because the issue of transgender men wasn't discussed? I mean...
Eh? It started with a Scarlett Dracarys a post about 'the fastest girl in Connecticut'.
Ups, my bad. Point still stands, why would people talk about something that was not the topic? Accusing them of misogyny because of that is pretty silly, no?
Do you think every post after Scarlett's was about the 'fastest girl in Connecticut' or do you think the discussion moved to more broader elements?
It did, but centered about transgender girls in sports, so again, accusing someone of misogyny for not mentioning transgender men is at best silly, at worst offensive.
In the pursue of wanting everyone to be happy and more importantly not wanting to offend anyone many are willing to look the other way on obvious issues.
It's not right and no matter what anyone argue or how you twist it, it won't change the fact that having transgender women competing with women is not fair.
Regarding transgender men competing with men I don't think anyone has a problem with it since they'll be the one's with the disadvantage. It's not about being transphobic or whatever it's about fairness in sports.
It's not right and no matter what anyone argue or how you twist it, it won't change the fact that having transgender women competing with women is not fair.
Regarding transgender men competing with men I don't think anyone has a problem with it since they'll be the one's with the disadvantage. It's not about being transphobic or whatever it's about fairness in sports.
Is it actually better though? I don't think so.
Misogynistic trans women?
I think you need to learn to understand that phrases like that do get used sarcastically about women all the time and are often used as a way to make women feel as if their reactions or emotions don't matter, or that their responses are stupid or weak. That presumably wasn't your intention, nonetheless that's what a lot of people heard.
that’s exactly why it was used.
it’s my opinion there is always a bit of an undercurrent of patronising ‘women are inferior/weak’ talk in all of this discourse. My opinion is the opposite of this, women are far stronger than men think. In these conversations it’s almost a given that trans women will beat cis women, because they have benefits of an ALL POWERFUL male body in their formative years. Yet cis women beat trans women all the time. Yes, the average man is stronger than the average woman; but that doesn’t mean any man could beat any woman, and likewise, it’s not a given that any trans woman could beat a cis woman either.
which is why it’s incredibly amusing to listen to people who seemingly can’t read or are deliberately choosing not to to try and make some kind of point (badly), when i’m literally saying the opposite. I mean the context wasn’t even that difficult.
Last edited:
Definitely. Like the fastest woman could beat 99.9 % of men easily.
But it is a little bit different in certain cases... for example that US swimmer, that UK cyclist or take Caster. They are head & shoulders above the rest of the field.
It’s a meaningless point to make though. Obviously not all trans women athletes can beat all cis women athletes. And obviously there are lots of cis women athletes who can beat cis male athletes. Anyone who’s played sport at any sort of decent level knows that elite female athletes are strong as feck. So pointing this out is really just stating the bleeding obvious. But it’s completely irrelevant to a discussion around the advantage that being born (and going through puberty) as a male will give athletes on average compared to being born female.
Success in elite sports comes down to very fine margins and the physical advantages we’re talking about here are more than enough to cause an uneven playing field, which is the concern here. It’s also the reason that sports have had male and female categories going back a very long time, with large differences between the world records in the two categories. So trying to point out that some women can beat some men at sports is a straw (wo)man.
Last edited:
Having any kind of opposing or challenging view doesn't make the person transphobic, you do understand that don't you? That's the trouble with these kinds of issues. People tend to highlight things that just aren't there.
well my actual original point was that given these supposed advantages you’d think there’d be at least one trans woman on the planet who massively dominated their sport like Bolt did in his.
even liv thomas for all the attention she gets when she wins the odd race isn’t anywhere near the best ranked swimmer.
Even if we grant that there are some differences/advantages, they’re no different to the inherent advantages some of us have as individuals over other individuals, cis/trans/whatever.
once trans women start completely dominating their sports in Bolt or Phelps-like fashion then happy to re-think my position. I don’t expect that to happen though really.
Last edited:
It’s already been explained multiple times why using terms like ‘biological man’ to describe a trans women, even in the context of sports, is problematic. The fact people continue to ignore that is exactly the point BD is making.
What is the preferred nomenclature if one is attempting to express a biological difference though? It does seem to be a bit of a minefield. Woman born with male physiology?
Transgender woman?
Those last two paragraphs are quite something.
how so?
the advantages phelps had over his rivals were more pronounced than any advantage any trans woman competing currently has over their rivals, as evidenced by the fact no trans woman has ever dominated a sport like phelps did.
and I don’t expect trans women to ever dominate because a) there’s so few of them therefore the chances are incredibly unlikely, and b) the supposed advantages aren’t actually as large as people make out - again, clearly, based on the historical evidence.
neither are controversial statements. it’s just a load of hysteria, much like most of the discourse currently around trans people. wedge issue within culture war bullshit.
In general, yes, but that term doesn't seem to make much sense if attempting to draw attention to specific or inherent physical differences between a transgender woman vis a cis woman. Like, it seems to me that the objection to the term "biological male" is that it gives the impression of denying a female identity. I'd like to avoid that. I'm of the opinion that transgender women are undoubtedly women. I would never want to deny them that identity. Nevertheless I do think that being a trans woman confers certain physical advantages, a portion of which endure beyond transition, which unfortunately endanger fairness in female competition. I'm of the belief that these advantages are as a result of transgender women being born with unwanted but nonetheless extant and pertinent male characteristics.
There has to be some way of expressing this that remains palatable while allowing for more nuanced discussion than saying tautological stuff like "I don't think a transgender woman should participate with cis women in boxing because they're a transgender woman." If anything putting it like that is even more offensive because it comes across as a denial of rights purely as a function of identity.
That's as far away from what I want to say as possible. The division between male and female sports has never been about female identity as much as the simple truth that generally speaking a female physique is unable to successfully compete with an equivalent male one. It sucks, but as far as the science goes it seems like it's an unfortunate truth that transgender women retain a portion of the advantages conferred by growing into a male physique. Of course more generally speaking it is no advantage, it's a constant and miserable millstone these women have to endure, overcome or accept. Nonetheless when it comes to competitive sport there seem to be reasonable grounds for concern that these characteristics violate the reason for the division between male/female sports to begin with.