Transgender Athletes

[stepic]

Bold of you considering you didn’t answer the question in mine.

I know you were making the point that finishing 8th is still an incredibly difficult achievement. I ignored it to make the wider point: that where she finishes is irrelevant. If she finished 100th that’s no good. If she was the 281st qualifier that’s no good either, right? No matter where she finishes a cis woman would miss out somewhere.

Hence we’re back where we started. You just don’t want trans women competing at all. Whether they are dominant or not is irrelevant. I’m just pointing out why this issue is far from straightforward. Because outright banning trans women, whether they are any good or not, is discriminatory and problematic.

 

[Wibble]

No place would be good enough for you, though. Even if she finished 100th that would mean a cis woman somewhere down the line missed out.

With NCAA you aren't only talking about placings in a sporting event but you are also talking about other things like scholarships, so a trans athlete is almost certainly taking a scholarship, and probably the chance to attend an elite University, that a CIS woman would otherwise have got. That is a very big deal imo. And it also then has knock on effects to a sporting career after Uni and if not a loss of important networking that is an inherent part of attending an elite US Uni.

And in the US a scholarship isn't just a few quid to help you out. Fees alone can be as much as US$70,000 per year and that is before accommodation and food.

You basically just want to ban trans women from women’s sports. It’s not even about them being successful or dominant. If you don’t see how problematic that sounds I don’t know what will.

I see the problem but I also am far from convinced that there is a solution. Not one that is fair to everyone at least.

 

[VorZakone]

I know you were making the point that finishing 8th is still an incredibly difficult achievement. I ignored it to make the wider point: that where she finishes is irrelevant. If she finished 100th that’s no good. If she was the 281st qualifier that’s no good either, right? No matter where she finishes a cis woman would miss out somewhere.

Hence we’re back where we started. You just don’t want trans women competing at all. Whether they are dominant or not is irrelevant. I’m just pointing out why that view is problematic and why this issue is far from straightforward. Because outright banning trans women, whether they are any good or not, is problematic.

Life is a constant evaluation of trade-offs. Often there is no single solution that benefits everyone. I would personally prefer for biological women (who outnumber trans) to be the winner in this tradeoff, as in avoiding them competing with trans.

But I suppose you don't mind seeing more Lia Thomas-esque cases and that's worth more to you. I don't mean that in a demeaning way, but obviously your outlook is different.

 

[Carolina Red]

I know you were making the point that finishing 8th is still an incredibly difficult achievement. I ignored it to make the wider point: that where she finishes is irrelevant. If she finished 100th that’s no good. If she was the 281st qualifier that’s no good either, right? No matter where she finishes a cis woman would miss out somewhere.

Hence we’re back where we started. You just don’t want trans women competing at all. Whether they are dominant or not is irrelevant. I’m just pointing out why this issue is far from straightforward. Because outright banning trans women, whether they are any good or not, is discriminatory and problematic.

@Wibble put it nicely in his reply above.

 

[stepic]

With NCAA you aren't only talking about placings in a sporting event but you are also talking about other things like scholarships, so a trans athlete is almost certainly taking a scholarship, and probably the chance to attend an elite University, that a CIS woman would otherwise have got. That is a very big deal imo.

Likewise, banning trans women from women’s sports also denies them the chance at attending an elite University too. It works both ways.

I see the problem but I also am far from convinced that there is a solution. Not one that is fair to everyone at least.

When you have people complaining about a trans woman finishing 200th, it feels less about unfairness for women. If the 281st qualifier drops out, then perhaps she should be looking at why she lost out to 280 cis women rather than the 1 trans woman ahead of her.

 

[arnie_ni]

Likewise, banning trans women from women’s sports also denies them the chance at attending an elite University too. It works both ways.



When you have people complaining about a trans woman finishing 200th, it feels less about unfairness for women. If the 281st qualifier drops out, then perhaps she should be looking at why she lost out to 280 cis women rather than the 1 trans woman ahead of her.

Why cant the solution be to compete against your birth sex?

 

[Wibble]

Likewise, banning trans women from women’s sports also denies them the chance at attending an elite University too. It works both ways.

It does unless they are good enough to win a scholarship in the men's teams. Not allowing trans women from competing in women's divisions could also be seen as being denied a place that would have only been given due to unfair advantage. Which, if that is what is decided as a rule, isn't as unfair as the other way round. As I say I'm not sure of the best solution but I fear the best solution will be a least shit option that can't be fair to everyone.

When you have people complaining about a trans woman finishing 200th, it feels less about unfairness for women. If the 281st qualifier drops out, then perhaps she should be looking at why she lost out to 280 cis women rather than the 1 trans woman ahead of her.

Not sure that would qualify as elite sport but either way that doesn't solve the issue or give us a way forward IMO. I don't see how you get around both having male and female divisions of competition for a good reason and then allow trans men to compete in female competitions. I don't like excluding trans men but I also don't see testosterone regulation as levelling the playing field sufficiently (or being ethical for that matter).

 

[Carolina Red]

Why cant the solution be to compete against your birth sex?

 

[maniak]

As I say I'm not sure of the best solution but I fear the best solution will be a least shit option that can't be fair to everyone.

I think eventually the world of sports will have to decide if transgender women are women or women*.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

In the case of male to female transition and competitive sport, the advantage provided by years of testosterone fuelled physical development feels a lot like doping.

 

[Zarlak]

In the case of male to female transition and competitive sport, the advantage provided by years of testosterone fuelled physical development feels a lot like doping.

The process of transitioning reduces bone density and strength levels substantially. Plus nobody cares about the natural large differences in hormonal levels between men. Nobody is testing male athletes with 1000 ng/dl testosterone levels and banning them from competing with men sitting at 200 ng/dl despite the decades of physical development advantages that that afforded them. The only time this is on anybody's radar is if it's a trans person involved, outside of that they don't care about differences in hormone levels.

 

[stepic]

Why cant the solution be to compete against your birth sex?

Because trans women are women.

Trans women suffer mass discrimination and prejudice on a daily basis. They get misgendered. They get targeted for abuse. They are labelled by terfs and others as predators for wanting to use bathrooms that align with their gender. They frequently suffer from gender dysphoria, leading to depression and anxiety.

Telling trans women to compete with men is telling them: you’re a man. It undoes all the progress made in trans rights in recent years. It doesn’t just affect trans sports persons but the entire trans community. It gives terfs the justification to continue their ongoing hate speech.

I’m not sure why people are failing to see why this is problematic in so many ways.

On top of all that, as I’ve said multiple times, trans women do not dominate women’s sport, as much as some people here would like you to think they do.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

The process of transitioning reduces bone density and strength levels substantially. Plus nobody cares about the natural large differences in hormonal levels between men. Nobody is testing male athletes with 1000 ng/dl testosterone levels and banning them from competing with men sitting at 200 ng/dl despite the decades of physical development advantages that that afforded them. The only time this is on anybody's radar is if it's a trans person involved, outside of that they don't care about differences in hormone levels.

It's not about the hormones you have, it's about the hormones you had and what they did for you.

Love for competitive athletics starts early in life. Those who work hard at it, especially through puberty to adulthood, develop their natural physical advantages well beyond those of most people Although you indicate a substantial reduction in bone density and strength, this will be relative to their pre-transition physique. A transwoman athlete is likely starting from a much higher level relative to even cis-women athletes and retaining some of that advantage, at least in events where size and power are major factors.

You note that no one cares about the natural large differences in hormones in men. That's true, people only start having a problem with these things when they are seen as unnatural, like with Ben Johnson's 100m world record in 1988. It is detrimental to the idea of sport as meaningful competition. The question is where does a late transition athlete fall here? For some it seems like an unfair advantage because of the obvious physical disparity between the genders at the onset of adulthood, despite the diminished physical condition brought on by transitioning.

 

[JohnZSmith27]

Because trans women are women.

Trans women suffer mass discrimination and prejudice on a daily basis. They get misgendered. They get targeted for abuse. They are labelled by terfs and others as predators for wanting to use bathrooms that align with their gender. They frequently suffer from gender dysphoria, leading to depression and anxiety.

Telling trans women to compete with men is telling them: you’re a man. It undoes all the progress made in trans rights in recent years. It doesn’t just affect trans sports persons but the entire trans community. It gives terfs the justification to continue their ongoing hate speech.

I’m not sure why people are failing to see why this is problematic in so many ways.

On top of all that, as I’ve said multiple times, trans women do not dominate women’s sport, as much as some people here would like you to think they do.

Being targeted for abuse or facing discrimination is awful I agree. Anyone abusing someone for being trans should be called out. But that has nothing to do with the biological differences between males and females. You keep saying trans women are women but in the biological sense, they are not. Trans women I'm sure are more aware than anyone of that fact. That doesn't make them any less deserving of compassion or the chance to compete but not against biological women where those differences on average give males an advantage over females.

 

[Carolina Red]

Being targeted for abuse or facing discrimination is awful I agree. Anyone abusing someone for being trans should be called out. But that has nothing to do with the biological differences between males and females. You keep saying trans women are women but in the biological sense, they are not. Trans women I'm sure are more aware than anyone of that fact. That doesn't make them any less deserving of compassion or the chance to compete but not against biological women where those differences on average give males an advantage over females.

Well said.

 

[Sky1981]

Because trans women are women.

Trans women suffer mass discrimination and prejudice on a daily basis. They get misgendered. They get targeted for abuse. They are labelled by terfs and others as predators for wanting to use bathrooms that align with their gender. They frequently suffer from gender dysphoria, leading to depression and anxiety.

Telling trans women to compete with men is telling them: you’re a man. It undoes all the progress made in trans rights in recent years. It doesn’t just affect trans sports persons but the entire trans community. It gives terfs the justification to continue their ongoing hate speech.

I’m not sure why people are failing to see why this is problematic in so many ways.

On top of all that, as I’ve said multiple times, trans women do not dominate women’s sport, as much as some people here would like you to think they do.

Not winning by default isnt some kind or human rights. The rights to be recognized, protected, given equality, etc is fine and should be given.

Winning in sport in an unfairly gained advantages at the expense of every natural women is impeding the rights of natural women.

Sucks, maybe. But at the moment until we find something that works they just have to compete either separately or in their pretransformation class, maybe downgrade one tier to compensate.

Many other athletes got cut off for much less. A kg heavier, a cm taller, a year younger or older, born in unlucky countries with less facilities, born in the same era with dominating athletes. Such is the luck of the draw, but at least nobody is complaining.

And class classification is not discrimination. Its just common sense.

And you said about small number. The number is not small. One trans athlete transitioning into women category would mean that for the next 5 or 10 or however long their athletes lifeshelf no women would be able to compete against them. And thats not even counting that another younger trans women wont compete.

Saying that they do not have an unsurmountable advantages and that hormone limitation works is technicality. They dont work at all. Any trans women joining women sports would decimate the competition. Even if they dont become the winner theyre there at the expense of many natural women bellow the pecking order. A good trans athlete joining meant the end for everyone else. And at some point natural women would just stop trying because its not even realistic to compete against one.

Take olympic for example, even if trans athelete might not win the gold medal they would be picked in place of natural women who worked their traits for years only to be displaced by virtue of said athlete was a man for some years.

And a 10th placed trans athelete in olympic doesnt mean its ok since theyre not winning. But the fact that theyre there in first place meant theyre there as the nations representative, which meant the whole natural women in the country got cut.

It really is not even remotely fair. If you care about fairness then you should also see the other side of the coin.

The aim is fairness for everyone. Not just what's fair for the trans athlete

 

[maniak]

Not winning by default isnt some kind or human rights. The rights to be recognized, protected, given equality, etc is fine and should be given.

Winning in sport in an unfairly gained advantages at the expense of every natural women is impeding the rights of natural women.

I'm confused about this, what's the difference between the human rights you mention for trans people and the rights of natural women you mention next?

Surely the only rights that exist are the ones we as society say exist. So if we decide transgender women are women like all the others, then surely they have the same rights.

 

[Sky1981]

I'm confused about this, what's the difference between the human rights you mention for trans people and the rights of natural women you mention next?

Surely the only rights that exist are the ones we as society say exist. So if we decide transgender women are women like all the others, then surely they have the same rights.

While playing sports ir right. Competing in the class you wanted is not rights. Nadal has the rights to play tennis as a professional, but which class he gets thrown into is decided by the PTA for the sake of fairness.

 

[Dave Smith]

I do not really want to get into this debate in isolation as it is something that I feel is very difficult to navigate.

What I will say, however is that the current Transgender debate has brought us, imho, to the edges of an sociological epoch.

I have been reading up on this debate quite a bit as I am someone who is interested in sociology, history and politics. As a result, what I see with this debate is not as simplistic as to whether a transgender women should compete with biological females (sorry, if that is wrong, I do not intend to offend anyone) but rather the conclusion of feminism/the birth of it's successor.

I say this as feminism was born in the late 18th century/early 19th century with the yearning to bring equality to the sexes. Initially this started with education and then evolved/progressed/branched off into separate strands to other areas such as; the right to vote, hold public office, equal pay, contraception, rights within marriage etc.

Throughout this evolution, their have always been feminists who have agreed/disagreed with each other and others' who supported one strand, then disavowed the other. However, what underpinned all of this was that there is no real reason for there to be differentiation between the sexes as a women could do what a man could do.

However, with the transgender strand, it, imho, brings into question the founding principle of feminism; that equality between the sexes can ever truly be achieved.

I say this, as if you play the founding notion of feminism (true equality between the sexes) to it's end point/it's last strand, it is always bound to end with whether their is any need for for categorisation/differentiation to those born with different genitalia/hormonal differences.

Therefore, I am of the belief that this current debate needs to be looked at as a whole when people debate it. By that, I mean, do you believe that true equality between the sexes can/should exist? If so, then I do not see how one can argue, imho, that transgender people cannot compete in biological female sports or that there is a need for categorisation in sport/pretty much anything. However, if you do support this, then is there a need for a new socio-categorisation/movement?

Equally, if you do believe there is a difference/there is a need for categorisation, then where do you stop? (remember that throughout the history of feminism, there have always been people who agree with one strand and disavow the other.) In addition, is there a need to re-evaluate the founding principal of feminism and acknowledge that true equality cannot ever be achieved due to biological differences or if you disagree with this, then where will feminism go from here with it's founding principal being undermined?

I recognise this is a highly philosophical interpretation of this debate, however I really think it needs to be considered when debating this issue at hand as for me it is interconnected and whatever way it goes, it will ultimately see if true equality between the sexes can be achieved or whether will be concluded it cannot.

 

[Zarlak]

It's not about the hormones you have, it's about the hormones you had and what they did for you.

To an extent, but what those hormones did for you is enhance your bone density and strength, things which go backwards with transition.

A transwoman athlete is likely starting from a much higher level relative to even cis-women athletes and retaining some of that advantage, at least in events where size and power are major factors.

I think this is where the discussion needs to be had by experts and not by lay people. The word 'that advantage' is so loose, that it sounds unfair when you say it but advantages occur all the time in competitive sports and nobody cares. There are a million advantages in the average game of football alone, or the average boxing match and nobody cares about them. We do not really strive that hard for equality in competition, and in some sports we celebrate discovering advantages that set you apart from your competition.

So we have a precedent of advantages not being a bad thing in sport, but yet the moment the trans argument comes up 'advantage' is banded about really loosely as if it's forbidden from sports which absolutely isn't the case.

The only way the conversation can be had in a meaningful way is to quantify exactly what that advantage is from a medical science point of view and then have the discussion of how those advantages might compare to other advantages that we may happily overlook in every day sport. Lay people aren't interested in that conversation though, or finding the evidence. All they can see in their head is 'man vs woman is unfair' which isn't the case to begin with. They'll mention differences in strength and ignore that they overlook this in all non trans sports where it occurs naturally. They'll mention bone density without knowing that transitioning weakens bone density, and they don't have the data available to see comparatively how much it is and whether it's to an equitable state but they'll remain entrenched in their view nonetheless because all they can think is 'man vs woman wrong'. If people really had a problem with higher testosterone levels creating stronger bones and muscles, they'd cry out for CIS men with 5x the testosterone levels of their competitor to be banned on unfairness grounds - but the reality is they don't actually care about the thing they then pretend to care deeply about when the trans argument comes up.

You note that no one cares about the natural large differences in hormones in men. That's true, people only start having a problem with these things when they are seen as unnatural, like with Ben Johnson's 100m world record in 1988. It is detrimental to the idea of sport as meaningful competition. The question is where does a late transition athlete fall here? For some it seems like an unfair advantage because of the obvious physical disparity between the genders at the onset of adulthood, despite the diminished physical condition brought on by transitioning.

This is again where the conversation can only really be had with medical science as the basis and foundation of knowledge, not lay peoples personal opinions. We also need to stop brushing it off as an 'advantage' as if that's bad, because advantages occur in all sports and are largely celebrated. If a CIS male boxer had a 1 foot reach advantage along with 5x the testosterone levels of another CIS male boxer, nobody would give a shit if they fought and there you're stacking advantages. So for that reason the fact that there is an 'advantage' is not grounds to base an argument on banning someone, you have to actually quantify exactly what it is and make it relative, comparing it also to non trans sports to assess the fairness otherwise we're being hypocrites choosing to die on a hill that on any other given day we demonstrably don't care about.

 

[Acheron]

Surely the only rights that exist are the ones we as society say exist. So if we decide transgender women are women like all the others, then surely they have the same rights.

Yeah, that's the issue they're giving a sort of legal status as a woman but biologically they're still a male and the dividing sports by sex it was something done taking into account the athletic differences between men and women.

I mean they still have the right to compete in their respective biological sex, like Iszac Henig does. He's a transgender man but was also competing some days ago and making into the finals but nobody has a problem with him, unlike with Lia, competing against girls because biologically he's still a female that is not taking any hormone treatment and thus all his times and records are seen as fair.

Ultimately having transgender women competing at that level is something that compromises the integrity of the competition and it goes against the spirit of fairness.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

To an extent, but what those hormones did for you is enhance your bone density and strength, things which go backwards with transition.

The impact of backwards could be dependant on your baseline. If you are likely to have started off much taller and with more, larger and stronger muscle than your cis-gender counterparts that you now compete against, then losing 14% of your grip strength might be a meaningless statistic relative to your competition.

Other potentially important physical metrics don't change significantly like height or foot size, which in the swimming example can be important to performance.

Muscle memory is another consideration that may not be negatively impacted by transitioning.

Some of the studies also measured a wide range of trans people including non-athletic individuals making the results less applicable to athletics.

So it's maybe not quite as cut and dried when it comes to top performing athletes.

I think this is where the discussion needs to be had by experts and not by lay people. The word 'that advantage' is so loose, that it sounds unfair when you say it but advantages occur all the time in competitive sports and nobody cares. There are a million advantages in the average game of football alone, or the average boxing match and nobody cares about them. We do not really strive that hard for equality in competition, and in some sports we celebrate discovering advantages that set you apart from your competition.

So we have a precedent of advantages not being a bad thing in sport, but yet the moment the trans argument comes up 'advantage' is banded about really loosely as if it's forbidden from sports which absolutely isn't the case.

The only way the conversation can be had in a meaningful way is to quantify exactly what that advantage is from a medical science point of view and then have the discussion of how those advantages might compare to other advantages that we may happily overlook in every day sport. Lay people aren't interested in that conversation though, or finding the evidence. All they can see in their head is 'man vs woman is unfair' which isn't the case to begin with. They'll mention differences in strength and ignore that they overlook this in all non trans sports where it occurs naturally. They'll mention bone density without knowing that transitioning weakens bone density, and they don't have the data available to see comparatively how much it is and whether it's to an equitable state but they'll remain entrenched in their view nonetheless because all they can think is 'man vs woman wrong'. If people really had a problem with higher testosterone levels creating stronger bones and muscles, they'd cry out for CIS men with 5x the testosterone levels of their competitor to be banned on unfairness grounds - but the reality is they don't actually care about the thing they then pretend to care deeply about when the trans argument comes up.

This is again where the conversation can only really be had with medical science as the basis and foundation of knowledge, not lay peoples personal opinions. We also need to stop brushing it off as an 'advantage' as if that's bad, because advantages occur in all sports and are largely celebrated. If a CIS male boxer had a 1 foot reach advantage along with 5x the testosterone levels of another CIS male boxer, nobody would give a shit if they fought and there you're stacking advantages. So for that reason the fact that there is an 'advantage' is not grounds to base an argument on banning someone, you have to actually quantify exactly what it is and make it relative, comparing it also to non trans sports to assess the fairness otherwise we're being hypocrites choosing to die on a hill that on any other given day we demonstrably don't care about.

Boxing is a bad example to use because it's a sport where your weight, something that can influence or be related to your other physical characteristics and abilities, results in you being segregated into different competitive classes.

Some advantages are not celebrated in sport, this is why I pointed to the Ben Johnson example. People raise similar concerns here. Men and women develop differently to adulthood and it's reasonable to question if it is fair to develop as a man and then compete against people who developed as women as there is an substantial inherent physical disadvantage for those who developed as women, one that is different from the advantages and disadvantages within a gender.

Because of this, determining the impact of transitioning is paramount but the subject lacks data and research that is focused on athletic individuals, unique events, and could have better performance metrics pre and post transition to help answer the questions people have. Until that time the debate is fair. Yes it's going to attract people who are simply transphobic but that label does not apply to everyone who is discussing this issue.

 

[Acheron]

I recognise this is a highly philosophical interpretation of this debate, however I really think it needs to be considered when debating this issue at hand as for me it is interconnected and whatever way it goes, it will ultimately see if true equality between the sexes can be achieved or whether will be concluded it cannot.

It's a good way to frame it and fundamentally I also think it boils down to whether people consider men and women as equal.

What I believe is that men and women are not equal, not in the sense of one being better but just in the sense of recognizing our biological differences and different mechanics.

The most glaring and obvious difference should be the primary and secondary sexual characteristics along with the differences in athletic performance. Either as a man or a woman is something very tangible to everyone of us. Then stating that we're different shouldn't mean we can't achieve equity or that we can't have the same human rights.

Like if there wasn't any division in categories by sex, then the female competitive scene would disappear.

 

[Wibble]

Because trans women are women.

Trans women suffer mass discrimination and prejudice on a daily basis. They get misgendered. They get targeted for abuse. They are labelled by terfs and others as predators for wanting to use bathrooms that align with their gender. They frequently suffer from gender dysphoria, leading to depression and anxiety.

Telling trans women to compete with men is telling them: you’re a man. It undoes all the progress made in trans rights in recent years. It doesn’t just affect trans sports persons but the entire trans community. It gives terfs the justification to continue their ongoing hate speech.

I’m not sure why people are failing to see why this is problematic in so many ways.

I see all those issues, which is why I worry about "common sense" exclusion as a solution.

On top of all that, as I’ve said multiple times, trans women do not dominate women’s sport, as much as some people here would like you to think they do.

But as just happened in NCAA swimming, we will increasingly see trans women winning. Sooner or later it will occur at the Olympics or other top level competition. If I were a CIS woman who lost out on a medal after a lifetime of dedication and training I would feel very hard done by as in many sports the advantage of being male when your body develops will never totally go away.

 

[frostbite]

"Motorcyclist, Who Identifies As Bicyclist Sets Cycling World Record!"


Okay, bad joke but yeah, I think there should be a limit on this kind of stuff... By the way, people go through unbelievable training and incredible pain just to have a shot at getting a gold medal at the Olympics. I can imagine someone will change gender with just this goal in mind... But anyway, this situation is really unfair to women. As an extreme example, can you imagine what will happen in women's boxing?

I can understand that there are real transgender athletes who want to compete, but I don't think that anyone would have a problem if they did compete with men only. I know it is not perfect, but it is more fair in my opinion.

 

[Moby]

Having a separate division for trans athletes is the closest to a fair solution but that doesn't have the numbers as of now. Until that time trans women shouldn't be allowed in women sports, although it seems there is no other option as of now.

 

[stepic]

Having a separate division for trans athletes is the closest to a fair solution but that doesn't have the numbers as of now. Until that time trans women shouldn't be allowed in women sports, although it seems there is no other option as of now.

it will never have the numbers. trans women won't suffer the further ignominy of competing with men, on top of all the other abuse they already face. i don't know why everyone keeps proposing this as a solution: it's not a solution. to propose it shows a lack of understanding about trans rights.

 

[stepic]

But as just happened in NCAA swimming, we will increasingly see trans women winning. Sooner or later it will occur at the Olympics or other top level competition. If I were a CIS woman who lost out on a medal after a lifetime of dedication and training I would feel very hard done by as in many sports the advantage of being male when your body develops will never totally go away.

conjecture at this point. trans women are not dominating competitions and we shouldn't be banning them just because maybe, possibly, one day they will.

and as seen from other comments on here, it's not about them winning or dominating women's sports anyway, it's about them competing at all.

 

[Moby]

it will never have the numbers. trans women won't suffer the further ignominy of competing with men, on top of all the other abuse they already face. i don't know why everyone keeps proposing this as a solution: it's not a solution. to propose it shows a lack of understanding about trans rights.

I'm not gonna pretend that what I posted is an ideal solution. There are definitely issues with it but allowing trans women in women sports is far more problematic.

 

[stepic]

I mean they still have the right to compete in their respective biological sex, like Iszac Henig does. He's a transgender man but was also competing some days ago and making into the finals but nobody has a problem with him, unlike with Lia, competing against girls because biologically he's still a female that is not taking any hormone treatment and thus all his times and records are seen as fair.

yes, the same Iszac Henig that beat Lia.

 

[JohnZSmith27]

conjecture at this point. trans women are not dominating competitions and we shouldn't be banning them just because maybe, possibly, one day they will.

and as seen from other comments on here, it's not about them winning or dominating women's sports anyway, it's about them competing at all.

Nobody is saying that they should not be able to compete at all. We're saying that should not be able to compete against females where, on average, males will have an unfair advantage. It doesnt matter if said trans woman doesn't dominate the sport. If they take the spot of a female due to the benefits of having a male physiology, that is unfair.

Competing with males may or may not affect a trans womans dysphoria. Not all trans people are dysphoric. But it is the fairest way for them to compete. The integrity of the sport should not be compromised to accommodate what was ultimately a choice made by that individual to transition.

More power to them for making that choice if it makes them more comfortable in themselves but we cannot and should not expect them to be given an unfair advantage due to how they choose to identify.

 

[UpWithRivers]

I do not really want to get into this debate in isolation as it is something that I feel is very difficult to navigate.

What I will say, however is that the current Transgender debate has brought us, imho, to the edges of an sociological epoch.

I have been reading up on this debate quite a bit as I am someone who is interested in sociology, history and politics. As a result, what I see with this debate is not as simplistic as to whether a transgender women should compete with biological females (sorry, if that is wrong, I do not intend to offend anyone) but rather the conclusion of feminism/the birth of it's successor.

I say this as feminism was born in the late 18th century/early 19th century with the yearning to bring equality to the sexes. Initially this started with education and then evolved/progressed/branched off into separate strands to other areas such as; the right to vote, hold public office, equal pay, contraception, rights within marriage etc.

Throughout this evolution, their have always been feminists who have agreed/disagreed with each other and others' who supported one strand, then disavowed the other. However, what underpinned all of this was that there is no real reason for there to be differentiation between the sexes as a women could do what a man could do.

However, with the transgender strand, it, imho, brings into question the founding principle of feminism; that equality between the sexes can ever truly be achieved.

I say this, as if you play the founding notion of feminism (true equality between the sexes) to it's end point/it's last strand, it is always bound to end with whether their is any need for for categorisation/differentiation to those born with different genitalia/hormonal differences.

Therefore, I am of the belief that this current debate needs to be looked at as a whole when people debate it. By that, I mean, do you believe that true equality between the sexes can/should exist? If so, then I do not see how one can argue, imho, that transgender people cannot compete in biological female sports or that there is a need for categorisation in sport/pretty much anything. However, if you do support this, then is there a need for a new socio-categorisation/movement?

Equally, if you do believe there is a difference/there is a need for categorisation, then where do you stop? (remember that throughout the history of feminism, there have always been people who agree with one strand and disavow the other.) In addition, is there a need to re-evaluate the founding principal of feminism and acknowledge that true equality cannot ever be achieved due to biological differences or if you disagree with this, then where will feminism go from here with it's founding principal being undermined?

I recognise this is a highly philosophical interpretation of this debate, however I really think it needs to be considered when debating this issue at hand as for me it is interconnected and whatever way it goes, it will ultimately see if true equality between the sexes can be achieved or whether will be concluded it cannot.

I was reading an article in The Guardian yesterday about trans women being refused to leave Ukraine because all the males aren't allowed to leave so the border guards are turning them away. The Trans society obviously think this is a disgrace. So to your point - are men and women equal? If so then why arnt women fighting (i know some women are but they are volunteers not conscripted like the men)? If there are kids then obviously the woman should be able to leave and take care of the kids. But if they are single and in fighting age then isnt it sexist to let them leave and the men not? In the case of transgender women - I presume most are single. Most have a male physique. Why do they get to leave and the men have to stay and get bombed to sht? I've been wrestling with this over the past day. Am I being transphobic? Maybe but I dont see why.
In the case of sports it just seems so obvious that you are choosing discrimination towards trans women to not let them compete with the women or you discriminate against women athletes to have trans women compete against them with an unfair advantage.

 

[frostbite]

it will never have the numbers. trans women won't suffer the further ignominy of competing with men, on top of all the other abuse they already face. i don't know why everyone keeps proposing this as a solution: it's not a solution. to propose it shows a lack of understanding about trans rights.

Look at it this way.

1. If trans athletes compete with men, then trans athletes will feel bad.
2. If trans athletes compete with women, then women athletes will feel bad.

These are the two possible solutions, there's no other possibility. None of those solutions is perfect. Which of the two solutions have the smallest number of human beings feeling bad?

 

[stepic]

Nobody is saying that they should not be able to compete at all. We're saying that should not be able to compete against females where

same thing

More power to them for making that choice if it makes them more comfortable in themselves but we cannot and should not expect them to be given an unfair advantage due to how they choose to identify.

it's not a 'choice', much like being born gay isn't a choice.

 

[JohnZSmith27]

same thing



it's not a 'choice', much like being born gay isn't a choice.

It's very obviously not the same thing.

In what way is transitioning not a choice? Keep in mind theres dysphoric people who don't transition. And there's people who transition that are not dysphoric. Conflating that decision with sexual orientation is dishonest.

 

[jojojo]

Just to put a bit of historical context into the current story, effectively the IOC used to set the sporting rulebook and other sports followed. Prior to 2014, the rules insisted on surgical transformation, multiple years living as a woman, legal recognition as a woman, and some rules around testosterone levels. The net effect was that it was unlikely that any athlete could complete all the steps during their most competitive sporting years. They dropped the surgical requirements in 2014, though the rule changes came too late to impact the 2016 games as qualifying was already underway.

What they did mean was that sports started using testosterone rules across all women's competitions, which moved a lot of DSD/intersex athletes competing in women's athletics into the banned category - unless they took testosterone suppressants. Not a great outcome on the inclusion front.

Further challenges to the rules led the IOC to give up trying to make rules and to ask individual sports to write their own.

That's where we are now - but we more or less literally only just got here. Sports are currently deleting and rewriting their rules. Some of them have been rewritten multiple times and some have changed with qualification already underway.

A couple of transwomen competed at the Tokyo Olympics in 2021. Laurel Hubbard made her weightlifting debut at 43. Chelsea Wolfe was an alternate in the US BMX team but didn't get the chance to compete.

That's why the debate is happening now, because the rules are changing now and some sports currently have no rules at all. Every test case is going to be ripped apart beyond what's reasonable for an individual athlete. Because that's what they are - the test cases.

 

[Drifter]

Just plain wrong and diminishes everything women have worked for to promote women's sport.

 

[Ajr]

People are never going to change their opinion on this so why debate it

 

[Conor]

same thing



it's not a 'choice', much like being born gay isn't a choice.

They are making a choice to transition physically, you can't just ignore their starting point in this discussion.

 

[adexkola]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date