Transgender Athletes

[Alex99]

I’m sure the batshit owner of Perugia 20 or so years ago tried to sign a female player but she turned it down for various reasons. He did sign Gaddafi’s son though

I remember talk in the mid 00s when Marta first started making waves about how various men's clubs were interested in signing her.

 

[maniak]

Then I'd suggest you've not really been engaging in the actual discussion, but the separate debate I alluded to about the core principles of youth sport.

You're essentially arguing that all youth sport should be non-competative. It's fine to have that stance, it's just not one I agree with.

Not at all, I'm arguing that if in specific instances competitiveness has to be reduced in order to be more inclusive, that should have priority.

 

[Carolina Red]

You are right and that's why the male competitions shouldn't be male sports but an open category. Banning is not the right way and it's not even close to be the most obvious way.

^ this

 

[maniak]

Hold one, this is Schroedinger's trans kids, they are both a rare minority, yet there are simultaneously millions of them?

Per school they are an absolute minority with little to no impact on other kids.

If you pass global laws for entire countries you affect millions of them.

In this thread I notice more of a Schroedinger's school sports. On the on hand some people praise how organized and competitive they are, but at the same time, the average of 1 transgender kid joining a sport in a single school is enough to make the whole thing crumble down and become noncompetitive.

 

[Alex99]

Not at all, I'm arguing that if in specific instances competitiveness has to be reduced in order to be more inclusive, that should have priority.

... which is a separate argument about the core principles of youth sport.

 

[maniak]

... which is a separate argument about the core principles of youth sport.

I don't see how you can separate them, to be honest.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

Per school they are an absolute minority with little to no impact on other kids.

If you pass global laws for entire countries you affect millions of them.

In this thread I notice more of a Schroedinger's school sports. On the on hand some people praise how organized and competitive they are, but at the same time, the average of 1 transgender kid joining a sport in a single school is enough to make the whole thing crumble down and become noncompetitive.

No, this is a strawman.

You have both physical education, then you have what could be defined as tiered sports for those looking at it as a pathway to higher education. I think everyone in the thread (bar perhaps a few) is able to differentiate between the two. It feels like you are, deliberately or not conflating the two.

 

[maniak]

No, this is a strawman.

You have both physical education, then you have what could be defined as tiered sports for those looking at it as a pathway to higher education. I think everyone in the thread (bar perhaps a few) is able to differentiate between the two. It feels like you are, deliberately or not conflating the two.

I have explained multiple times why I don't think the scholarships issue is a valid justification. Add a few more scholarships and the problem is solved. The current system, by excluding transgender kids, also blocks them from those scholarships, so double injustice.

 

[stepic]

Somewhat different when it’s done to an already vulnerable minority with high suicide rates. Someone’s getting the shorter end of this stick regardless, I can see the point in trying to allevite a very rough existence for trans people.

quite.

at the end of the day, if it's a choice between a small number of cis women having to drop down a spot because of the inclusion of a trans woman (but still having the opportunity to participate/improve/compete), or the outright banning of an already marginalised group because of who they are, then it's a pretty clear one for me. and it's not misogyny to err in favour of the marginalised.

talk of separate categories/open categories where trans women would compete with men are ultimately non-starters. otherwise accepting that trans women are women is meaningless.

this isn't even about trans rights, it's about human rights. and (for me, anyway) human rights fundamentally has to trump the supposed 'fairness' of sports. but, as i say, this is my view.

 

[Carolina Red]

Aren’t ciswomen marginalized?

 

[stepic]

Aren’t ciswomen marginalized?

if they're allowed to compete in the first place and fight for their spot, then they're less marginalised than trans women, clearly.

 

[Alex99]

I don't see how you can separate them, to be honest.

Because the core of your argument is that all youth sport be non-competitive, and this is a discussion where the competitive element of sport is key.

Trans youth can participate in the physical education provided by their school and recreational sport. I would imagine you'd also find little opposition to them participating in competitive sport aligned with their sex.

 

[Carolina Red]

if they're allowed to compete in the first place and fight for their spot, then they're less marginalised than trans women, clearly.

Nobody has said to not allow trans women to compete. They’ve just said to not allow trans women to compete against ciswomen, who are a marginalized group.

 

[Alex99]

quite.

at the end of the day, if it's a choice between a small number of cis women having to drop down a spot because of the inclusion of a trans woman (but still having the opportunity to participate/improve/compete), or the outright banning of an already marginalised group because of who they are, then it's a pretty clear one for me. and it's not misogyny to err in favour of the marginalised.

talk of separate categories/open categories where trans women would compete with men are ultimately non-starters. otherwise accepting that trans women are women is meaningless.

this isn't even about trans rights, it's about human rights. and (for me, anyway) human rights fundamentally has to trump the supposed 'fairness' of sports. but, as i say, this is my view.

Is it "a small number of cis women" though? One trans athlete highly ranking in a sport affects every single cis woman now dropping a rank. What happens if another trans athlete emerges and becomes highly ranked?

Your arguments surrounding this all seem to be based on the currently low number of trans athletes. Would your view change at all if women's sports were to become dominated by trans athletes?

Without trying to sound "slippery slope", you're basically dismissing half of the global population (who have been marginalised themselves through much of human history) and ignoring a clear and potentially huge impact such blanket inclusion would have on them.

Is it a human right to participate in a competitive sport just because you want to?

 

[Gavinb33]

quite.

at the end of the day, if it's a choice between a small number of cis women having to drop down a spot because of the inclusion of a trans woman (but still having the opportunity to participate/improve/compete), or the outright banning of an already marginalised group because of who they are, then it's a pretty clear one for me. and it's not misogyny to err in favour of the marginalised.

talk of separate categories/open categories where trans women would compete with men are ultimately non-starters. otherwise accepting that trans women are women is meaningless.

this isn't even about trans rights, it's about human rights. and (for me, anyway) human rights fundamentally has to trump the supposed 'fairness' of sports. but, as i say, this is my view.

Competing in elite level sports is a human right?

 

[The Corinthian]

quite.

at the end of the day, if it's a choice between a small number of cis women having to drop down a spot because of the inclusion of a trans woman (but still having the opportunity to participate/improve/compete), or the outright banning of an already marginalised group because of who they are, then it's a pretty clear one for me. and it's not misogyny to err in favour of the marginalised.

talk of separate categories/open categories where trans women would compete with men are ultimately non-starters. otherwise accepting that trans women are women is meaningless.

this isn't even about trans rights, it's about human rights. and (for me, anyway) human rights fundamentally has to trump the supposed 'fairness' of sports. but, as i say, this is my view.

It's not a human right though. That's a nonsensical point to make.

What you dismiss so casually, re: small number of cis women having to drop down a spot, is the whole crux of the issue. We're talking about female athletes who have pushed themselves, sacrificed so much of their time, money and life to get to a point where they could gain everything. Why should they just drop down a spot? It's not like anyone in this thread is advocating for trans people to not compete, just not do it in the female category. It's especially galling for a trans woman to get a podium spot when they were no where near it in the male category. And it comes down to basic, inherent, genetic and biological differences between the male and female species. As I alluded to previously, it's in this context where we reach a limitation to self identification.

So, you really can't advocate for this unless you think women are less deserving of the benefits of winning competitions and what not.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

I have explained multiple times why I don't think the scholarships issue is a valid justification. Add a few more scholarships and the problem is solved. The current system, by excluding transgender kids, also blocks them from those scholarships, so double injustice.

It's not, this is wildly blaise.

It feels like you are at this point hiding behind the "school sports is about inclusion" so you can justify changing the entire sports programs at schools.

You're setting out to define all school sports as solely for inclusivity, so you can then claim, scholarships and collegiate adjacent sports are easily solved because the goal is inclusivity so nothing else matters. The fact sports at this level are inherently exclusionary is not solved by just giving 50% of the race entrants a scholarship.

 

[Alex99]

It's not, this is wildly blaise.

It feels like you are at this point hiding behind the "school sports is about inclusion" so you can justify changing the entire sports programs at schools.

You're setting out to define all school sports as solely for inclusivity, so you can then claim, scholarships and collegiate adjacent sports are easily solved because the goal is inclusivity so nothing else matters. The fact sports at this level are inherently exclusionary is not solved by just giving 50% of the race entrants a scholarship.

The scholarships argument also assumes that the funding for additional scholarships is already available and just not being used.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

The scholarships argument also assumes that the funding for additional scholarships is already available and just not being used.

That there are more places available at the colleges.

This is of course all hypothetical but it doesn't seem like the process or consequences have been logically thought through

 

[Carolina Red]

@Murder on Zidane's Floor @Alex99

This exchange from earlier in the thread would provide some context onto the current discussion…

Have you ever been involved in the collegiate athletics recruitment process?

That sounds nice… but we’re talking about actual competitive athletics here.

We have academic scholarships here too.

Schools can’t. Athletic scholarships are regulated and limited by the NCAA / NAIA.

No, and I don't care to learn as it has nothing to do with I'm defending here.

I don't think school competitions trump the well being of an already marginalized group of kids.

We have academic scholarships for everyone. No number limit. You're a good student but don't have money? The state pays 100%. Maybe the energy spent on trying to exclude transgender girls from sports could be spent on pushing for something like that.

Are you telling me rules can be changed to exclude transgender girls but not changed to allow for more scholarships? Priorities...

 

[stepic]

Nobody has said to not allow trans women to compete. They’ve just said to not allow trans women to compete against ciswomen, who are a marginalized group.

i've already stated that an open category or telling trans women to participate with men is a non-starter. no trans woman wants to compete with men, it goes against the entire point of trans inclusivity and tolerance.

Is it "a small number of cis women" though? One trans athlete highly ranking in a sport affects every single cis woman now dropping a rank. What happens if another trans athlete emerges and becomes highly ranked?

Your arguments surrounding this all seem to be based on the currently low number of trans athletes. Would your view change at all if women's sports were to become dominated by trans athletes?

possibly. we're still in the formative years of working all this out, and I expect that to continue. at the moment there is no historic evidence to suggest this will happen though, so we shouldn't be basing policy on what 'may' happen.

Without trying to sound "slippery slope", you're basically dismissing half of the global population (who have been marginalised themselves through much of human history) and ignoring a clear and potentially huge impact such blanket inclusion would have on them.

more women support trans rights than men, particularly young women. it's incorrect to pit this as women v trans. i would hope that as acceptance of trans people grows, more women, including those potentially affected in a sporting sense, would still rather the inclusive choice that doesn't involve banning people for who they are.

Is it a human right to participate in a competitive sport just because you want to?

Competing in elite level sports is a human right?

It's not a human right though. That's a nonsensical point to make.

it's a human right to be able to try to compete, as a free choice to make in your life. it certainly doesn't sit right with me that people are effectively banned from participating because of being trans (and the alternative of asking trans women to compete against men is, as already mentioned, is not a practical solution). what's next, asking trans women to use the men's bathrooms too?

 

[The Corinthian]

it's a human right to be able to try to compete, as a free choice to make in your life. it certainly doesn't sit right with me that people are effectively banned from participating because of being trans.

No one is banning trans people from competing. This is a made up scenario in your head. If you can find one post from a poster in the last few pages that has advocated for trans women to be banned from competing, then I'll concede.

Literally everyone has made the point that they should compete in a category that is separate from the female only one.

Also saying it's a human right to 'try' and compete - what does that even mean? You're just making things up, it seems.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

@Murder on Zidane's Floor @Alex99

This exchange from earlier in the thread would provide some context onto the current discussion…

Thank you Carolina.

 

[Carolina Red]

i've already stated that an open category or telling trans women to participate with men is a non-starter. no trans woman wants to compete with men, it goes against the entire point of trans inclusivity and tolerance.

That would be them choosing to not compete. The opportunity would be there. That’s not a ban.

And once again I’d like to point out… in instances where ciswomen want to compete and there aren’t enough numbers for a women’s team, they compete on the men’s team. So this would be following what was / has / is currently done for ciswomen.

 

[maniak]

I'm going to take a break from this thread, I've made my point (over and over) and to be honest the lack of basic empathy shown here is bringing me down, so for my own mental health I'll step aside.

 

[stepic]

No one is banning trans people from competing. This is a made up scenario in your head. If you can find one post from a poster in the last few pages that has advocated for trans women to be banned from competing, then I'll concede.

Literally everyone has made the point that they should compete in a category that is separate from the female only one.

Also saying it's a human right to 'try' and compete - what does that even mean? You're just making things up, it seems.

and i continue to tell you that it is effectively a ban, because no trans woman is going to compete against men, and nor should they have to - because they are women. to even suggest this as an option is to show a fundamental misunderstanding of what trans people face on a daily basis, and trans rights generally.

it doesn't matter how many of you say that a separate category should be made - it's not an option. if it was, it would have been done already.

That would be them choosing to not compete. The opportunity would be there. That’s not a ban.

And once again I’d like to point out… in instances where ciswomen want to compete and there aren’t enough numbers for a women’s team, they compete on the men’s team. So this would be following what was / has / is currently done for ciswomen.

see above

women competing against men because there aren't enough numbers is not the same as trans women being forced to compete against men - i mean, it's probably the worst possible thing you can ask a trans woman to do, and again, displays an utter lack of empathy about what trans people suffer on a daily basis.

 

[stepic]

I'm going to take a break from this thread, I've made my point (over and over) and to be honest the lack of basic empathy shown here is bringing me down, so for my own mental health I'll step aside.

frankly i don't blame you.

 

[SilentWitness]

and i continue to tell you that it is effectively a ban, because no trans woman is going to compete against men, and nor should they have to - because they are women. to even suggest this as an option is to show a fundamental misunderstanding of what trans people face on a daily basis, and trans rights generally.

it doesn't matter how many of you say that a separate category should be made - it's not an option. if it was, it would have been done already.



see above

women competing against men because there aren't enough numbers is not the same as trans women being forced to compete against men - i mean, it's probably the worst possible thing you can ask a trans woman to do, and again, displays an utter lack of empathy about what trans people suffer on a daily basis.

Swim England are creating an open category -

https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2...gender-policy-with-open-and-female-categories

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

i've already stated that an open category or telling trans women to participate with men is a non-starter. no trans woman wants to compete with men, it goes against the entire point of trans inclusivity and tolerance.



possibly. we're still in the formative years of working all this out, and I expect that to continue. at the moment there is no historic evidence to suggest this will happen though, so we shouldn't be basing policy on what 'may' happen.



more women support trans rights than men, particularly young women. it's incorrect to pit this as women v trans. i would hope that as acceptance of trans people grows, more women, including those potentially affected in a sporting sense, would still rather the inclusive choice that doesn't involve banning people for who they are.







it's a human right to be able to try to compete, as a free choice to make in your life. it certainly doesn't sit right with me that people are effectively banned from participating because of being trans (and the alternative of asking trans women to compete against men is, as already mentioned, is not a practical solution). what's next, asking trans women to use the men's bathrooms too?

Well, as a demographic (stereotype alert) women are much more agreeable than men. They also understand marginalized groups (given they are one) and empathize more. They also see how women who do voice concerns are treated.

Is this all women? No. Am I making a broad generalization? Yes.

 

[stepic]

Swim England are creating an open category -

https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2...gender-policy-with-open-and-female-categories

i wonder what trans swimmers think of this.

 

[The Boy]

It feels like alot of posters are just trying to do a bit of point scoring in this thread.

It's a really difficult situation that we're right at the beginning of and as different associations and sporting bodies feel their way through it, it is inevitable that people are going to be treated unfairly.

But it can be split into different age categories, as children there is no issue in my mind of trans kids (and yes there are trans kids and they often know it from a very early age) competing alongside the sex they identify with.

Outside of the States I don't see a huge problem with this carrying on into teenage years, I can't speak for other countries but in the few countries I have lived in sports scholarships are not a big thing.

The difficulty is the paradox of those people who say that post male puberty trans women shouldn't be regarded as women when it comes to sports are also the ones who say that kids who realise they are a different gender to the one they've been assigned at birth are too young and shouldn't be allowed to do anything about it. (To be clear, I'm not referring to posters here, but to society in general.)

Within the States this is clearly an issue and I understand @Carolina Red's arguments in this aspect as his lived experience is working with these teens in wrestling I think, which I can understand is a sport with a real problem with this. I don't know the answer, but it is very harsh to say you are a women in some aspects but not others, but it's also harsh to watch cis women possibly lose out to someone who has a clear genetic advantage. This problem becomes global once you get to elite level.

Open categories don't really work, and it's not just about inclusion. Remember we're not talking about blokes in dresses who have decided to identify as a different gender just so they can win something.

Adults who have been through male puberty, taking hormone therapy, for instance, will see a reduction in their testosterone levels and a reduction in muscle mass, at the moment it doesn't seem to be enough but it would certainly disadvantage them hugely in any open category.

Maybe as medicines improve and our understanding of how to prescribe hormone therapy grows, the playing field will level out more, but where you draw the line will still be very difficult.

 

[Carolina Red]

women competing against men because there aren't enough numbers is not the same as trans women being forced to compete against men

…because there aren’t enough numbers

^ you left that part out

 

[Carolina Red]

Within the States this is clearly an issue and I understand @Carolina Red's arguments in this aspect as his lived experience is working with these teens in wrestling I think, which I can understand is a sport with a real problem with this.

I appreciate that.

 

[Alex99]

i've already stated that an open category or telling trans women to participate with men is a non-starter.

I have a feeling you'll be in the minority with such a hard-line stance.

An open category is currently the fairest way to include trans women in competitive sport. The science simply doesn't support anything else at the moment.

no trans woman wants to compete with men, it goes against the entire point of trans inclusivity and tolerance.

I would argue that inclusion is exclusive of tolerance.

possibly. we're still in the formative years of working all this out, and I expect that to continue. at the moment there is no historic evidence to suggest this will happen though, so we shouldn't be basing policy on what 'may' happen.

We have a wealth of evidence that biological males routinely outperform biological females in athletic feats. So much so, that up until very recently (and seemingly only among people with certain ideological beliefs), such a statement need not be made because it was considered a universal truth.

We also have a (growing) amount of evidence that where biological males move into competition with biological females, their relative performances/rankings often see marked improvements. It's precisely the reason we're having this debate.

I would argue that until we have evidence that biological advantage is not a factor, competitive sports should not be used as a trial programme.

more women support trans rights than men, particularly young women. it's incorrect to pit this as women v trans. i would hope that as acceptance of trans people grows, more women, including those potentially affected in a sporting sense, would still rather the inclusive choice that doesn't involve banning people for who they are.

1. I'd like to see the surveys/studies that show this and what questions have been asked to draw these conclusions. I would imagine not many specifically mention competitive sports.
2. I'm also not even sure how relevant this is to the specific nature of competitive, particularly elite, sports.
3. No one is banned from sports. It's disingenuous to keep repeating this, especially as you are simultaneously dismissing one of the only suggested compromises for inclusion.

it's a human right to be able to try to compete, as a free choice to make in your life. it certainly doesn't sit right with me that people are effectively banned from participating because of being trans (and the alternative of asking trans women to compete against men is, as already mentioned, is not a practical solution). what's next, asking trans women to use the men's bathrooms too?

But they do have a right to try and compete.

I don't want to distract from the topic with a tired bathroom debate.

I'm going to take a break from this thread, I've made my point (over and over) and to be honest the lack of basic empathy shown here is bringing me down, so for my own mental health I'll step aside.

I'm sorry you feel this way, but frankly it's deeply unfair to those engaging with you to claim that they have a "lack of basic empathy" simply because they don't agree with you.

no trans woman is going to compete against men, and nor should they have to - because they are women.

I don't particularly want to accuse you of arguing in bad faith, but at this point, it feels like your main tactic is to present your stance in such a manner that anyone that disagrees with you is implicitly transphobic, with the key phrase you bring up being "trans women are women". I've also tried to avoid addressing this with you directly because I know for a fact that you are going to turn around and accuse me of being transphobic.

Your present the statement "trans women are women" as if it is a universal truth. Simply put, it is not.

While it is something that I suspect most, if not all, of the posters in this thread accept as a social (for lack of a better term) truth, it is quite clearly not a biological truth.

In some aspects of life, biology matters. Competitive sports is one such example, and the fundamental differences in physical ability between biological males and biological females is a core component of it.

Maybe we'll reach a point where the words "men" and "women" are used exclusively (or at least overwhelmingly) in terms of gender identity, and the words "male" and "female" are used exclusively (or at least overwhelmingly) in terms of biology, at which point the statement can carry with it the degree of truth you currently attribute to it. We aren't there yet, and it hasn't escaped my notice that you've already been engaged on this matter.

Open categories don't really work, and it's not just about inclusion. Remember we're not talking about blokes in dresses who have decided to identify as a different gender just so they can win something.

Adults who have been through male puberty, taking hormone therapy, for instance, will see a reduction in their testosterone levels and a reduction in muscle mass, at the moment it doesn't seem to be enough but it would certainly disadvantage them hugely in any open category.

Maybe as medicines improve and our understanding of how to prescribe hormone therapy grows, the playing field will level out more, but where you draw the line will still be very difficult.

Addressing this point specifically, what is it about an open category that people are finding problems with?

Additionally, aside from categories specific to gender identity (which have repeatedly been dismissed as impractical), what alternatives are there while maintaining the core component of fairness that must be present for competitive sport to be competitive?

 

[JPRouve]

women competing against men because there aren't enough numbers is not the same as trans women being forced to compete against men

You are right it's not the same and the distinction should be noted and remembered. In one case female athletes are asked to compete against males and in the other case males are asked to compete against males.

 

[The Boy]

Addressing this point specifically, what is it about an open category that people are finding problems with?

Additionally, aside from categories specific to gender identity (which have repeatedly been dismissed as impractical), what alternatives are there while maintaining the core component of fairness that must be present for competitive sport to be competitive?

I'm sure we will get open categories initially while we try to work this out, but they are difficult on two levels I can think of. The first is as I said, hormone therapy, reduces testosterone levels and reduces muscle mass and in some cases reduces your energy as well, maybe not enough to make competing against cis women completely fair, but easily enough to make you uncompetitive against cis males. The second is the message it sends, basically you can be a woman sometimes but not always ie you are different and not normal.

As I've said a few times in this thread I don't have an answer to your final question and I don't think anyone does right now, I just hope we do find one that works for everyone, because right now the arguments are difficult and are used whether purposefully or not to further alienate one of the most preyed on and vulnerable groups in society.

I have no doubt that will improve with time and acceptance, but right now trans people through no fault of there own are at the brunt of a culture war and that is a very tough and unpleasant place to be.

 

[JPRouve]

I'm sure we will get open categories initially while we try to work this out, but they are difficult on two levels I can think of. The first is as I said, hormone therapy, reduces testosterone levels and reduces muscle mass and in some cases reduces your energy as well, maybe not enough to make competing against cis women completely fair, but easily enough to make you uncompetitive against cis males. The second is the message it sends, basically you can be a woman sometimes but not always ie you are different and not normal.

As I've said a few times in this thread I don't have an answer to your final question and I don't think anyone does right now, I just hope we do find one that works for everyone, because right now the arguments are difficult and are used whether purposefully or not to further alienate one of the most preyed on and vulnerable groups in society.

I have no doubt that will improve with time and acceptance, but right now trans people through no fault of there own are at the brunt of a culture war and that is a very tough and unpleasant place to be.

Or "You are a woman all the time but not a female.". In these debates that's the missing part, for some reason we push aside the core point.

 

[Jippy]

I'm sure we will get open categories initially while we try to work this out, but they are difficult on two levels I can think of. The first is as I said, hormone therapy, reduces testosterone levels and reduces muscle mass and in some cases reduces your energy as well, maybe not enough to make competing against cis women completely fair, but easily enough to make you uncompetitive against cis males. The second is the message it sends, basically you can be a woman sometimes but not always ie you are different and not normal.

As I've said a few times in this thread I don't have an answer to your final question and I don't think anyone does right now, I just hope we do find one that works for everyone, because right now the arguments are difficult and are used whether purposefully or not to further alienate one of the most preyed on and vulnerable groups in society.

I have no doubt that will improve with time and acceptance, but right now trans people through no fault of there own are at the brunt of a culture war and that is a very tough and unpleasant place to be.

I can imagine it's bloody difficult trying to reassure your kid that tolerance will improve when you've got trans bashing threads most days in the popular press.

We think society's becoming more accepting more broadly on LGBT+ issues, but then you see punch ups outside schools about pride month for example, which I was just reading now.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-n...sters-lgbt-activists-clash-california-school/

 

[hobbers]

1. I'd like to see the surveys/studies that show this and what questions have been asked to draw these conclusions. I would imagine not many specifically mention competitive sports.

Just looking at the latest yougov poll

Women disagree that transgender women should be allowed to compete with women in sporting events by a net % of 36. Smaller majority than men (55) but still a massive majority.

It's clearly a red line for the general public along with hormone treatment and surgery for under 16s.

 

[The Corinthian]

I have a feeling you'll be in the minority with such a hard-line stance.

An open category is currently the fairest way to include trans women in competitive sport. The science simply doesn't support anything else at the moment.



I would argue that inclusion is exclusive of tolerance.



We have a wealth of evidence that biological males routinely outperform biological females in athletic feats. So much so, that up until very recently (and seemingly only among people with certain ideological beliefs), such a statement need not be made because it was considered a universal truth.

We also have a (growing) amount of evidence that where biological males move into competition with biological females, their relative performances/rankings often see marked improvements. It's precisely the reason we're having this debate.

I would argue that until we have evidence that biological advantage is not a factor, competitive sports should not be used as a trial programme.

1. I'd like to see the surveys/studies that show this and what questions have been asked to draw these conclusions. I would imagine not many specifically mention competitive sports.
2. I'm also not even sure how relevant this is to the specific nature of competitive, particularly elite, sports.
3. No one is banned from sports. It's disingenuous to keep repeating this, especially as you are simultaneously dismissing one of the only suggested compromises for inclusion.

But they do have a right to try and compete.

I don't want to distract from the topic with a tired bathroom debate.



I'm sorry you feel this way, but frankly it's deeply unfair to those engaging with you to claim that they have a "lack of basic empathy" simply because they don't agree with you.



I don't particularly want to accuse you of arguing in bad faith, but at this point, it feels like your main tactic is to present your stance in such a manner that anyone that disagrees with you is implicitly transphobic, with the key phrase you bring up being "trans women are women". I've also tried to avoid addressing this with you directly because I know for a fact that you are going to turn around and accuse me of being transphobic.

Your present the statement "trans women are women" as if it is a universal truth. Simply put, it is not.

While it is something that I suspect most, if not all, of the posters in this thread accept as a social (for lack of a better term) truth, it is quite clearly not a biological truth.

In some aspects of life, biology matters. Competitive sports is one such example, and the fundamental differences in physical ability between biological males and biological females is a core component of it.

Maybe we'll reach a point where the words "men" and "women" are used exclusively (or at least overwhelmingly) in terms of gender identity, and the words "male" and "female" are used exclusively (or at least overwhelmingly) in terms of biology, at which point the statement can carry with it the degree of truth you currently attribute to it. We aren't there yet, and it hasn't escaped my notice that you've already been engaged on this matter.



Addressing this point specifically, what is it about an open category that people are finding problems with?

Additionally, aside from categories specific to gender identity (which have repeatedly been dismissed as impractical), what alternatives are there while maintaining the core component of fairness that must be present for competitive sport to be competitive?

Top post.