Are you disputing the fact that testosterone exposure in utero has profound effects on the resulting phenotype or are you only disputing whether the exposure to testosterone influences the neuromuscular system? 'Cause differences in the development of the brain and genitalia (the latter of which is muscular to some extent, obviously) are well established as it relates to high/low levels of testosterone. They're responsible for a lot of the differences in pre pubescent boys and girls. So somehow these differences are muscular and neurological, but not neuromuscular? how does that work?A bit of reading suggests that studies purporting to show causal links between digit ratios and various physiological traits are generally of low quality and findings are impossible to replicate. Digging a bit deeper it appears that the purported link between digit ratio and testosterone exposure in the womb is itself dubious. The largest study run to date found no significant correlation between the two, and the most notable study which claimed a correlation has never been successfully replicated. By all accounts the consensus in the scientific community seems to be that 2D:4D is a bit of a joke.
No, but thanks for arguing my case better than I haveCancel swimming.
Serious Q though: Are there examples of FTM athletes who are performing well and competing against men? Even winning?
They maintain an advantage that many CIS men have over other CIS men - which means the problem is not the advantage itself existing because it's selectively applied as problematic.Well, the whole reason why this thread has been reopened is because the world governing body for swimming has released scientific evidence that MTF athletes maintain an unfair competitive advantage, and that was brought about by a MTF swimmer winning a national championship, beating multiple Olympic team members / silver medalists in the process.
A swimmer barely ranked before transitioning now demolishes the best of the best in the womens sport but you think it is being "selectively" applied. Ok chief.They maintain an advantage that many CIS men have over other CIS men - which means the problem is not the advantage itself existing because it's selectively applied as problematic.
how many olympic medals have trans women won?A swimmer barely ranked before transitioning now demolishes the best of the best in the womens sport but you think it is being "selectively" applied. Ok chief.
Right…They maintain an advantage that many CIS men have over other CIS men - which means the problem is not the advantage itself existing because it's selectively applied as problematic.
They’d won 0 women’s national titles until this year. Solid argument.how many olympic medals have trans women won?
We’ll for what it’s worth a former Olympian and now human rights lawyer is offering their services should (when) this is challenged legally, as the belief is that the “evidence” released is entirely selective and not representative.Well, the whole reason why this thread has been reopened is because the world governing body for swimming has released scientific evidence that MTF athletes maintain an unfair competitive advantage, and that was brought about by a MTF swimmer winning a national championship, beating multiple Olympic team members / silver medalists in the process.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Cool. I look forward to seeing how that case goes.We’ll for what it’s worth a former Olympian and now human rights lawyer is offering their services should (when) this is challenged legally, as the belief is that the “evidence” released is entirely selective and not representative.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
She did not demolish the best of the best. It was a very good performance, granting her a narrow win in one of the weakest fields in a long time. No need to make things up.A swimmer barely ranked before transitioning now demolishes the best of the best in the womens sport but you think it is being "selectively" applied. Ok chief.
Great way to not attempt to address what I actually wrote, ok chief. You also completely misunderstood what I meant by selectively applied. Not to mention you're wrong about the swimming example.A swimmer barely ranked before transitioning now demolishes the best of the best in the womens sport but you think it is being "selectively" applied. Ok chief.
The innate advantage men have over women is not something arbitrary and its why you have men competing against men and women against women.They maintain an advantage that many CIS men have over other CIS men - which means the problem is not the advantage itself existing because it's selectively applied as problematic.
No, I wasn't disputing things you hadn't said yet, I was disputing what you said in the post I was quoting, which was:Are you disputing the fact that......
In practical terms, it's a novel situation. The old Olympic rules - surgical transformation + legal recognition + testosterone reduction monitoring over several years - combined with the typical transition pattern (most people starting transition at 20+) made it more or less impossible for someone in their athletic prime to qualify.how many olympic medals have trans women won?
Got it, and I'll take your word for it. I don't care enough about fingers nor was it the basis of my argument, which was critiqueing the notion that the differences between the sexes from a performance perspective can (near) exclusively be attributed to puberty and the associated hormonal changes.No, I wasn't disputing things you hadn't said yet, I was disputing what you said in the post I was quoting, which was:
"The 2D:4D digit ratio is a well known bio marker of prenatal T effects and there's a myriad of studies demonstrating it's relationship with athletic performance."
As I said, a short internet search reveals both of those claims to be dubious at best, pseudoscientific nonsense at worst.
This isn’t exactly true to be fair. Caster Semenya has been treated like shit by every sports governing body for no good reason for a good 15 years or so.Great way to not attempt to address what I actually wrote, ok chief. You also completely misunderstood what I meant by selectively applied. Not to mention you're wrong about the swimming example.
As somebody who has been on testosterone replacement therapy for the last 5 years with the natural levels of an 80 year old man I can confidently say that before I was prescribed therapy if you and I were put into a competition the advantage you would have over me would be far higher than the advantage present when a MTF trans athlete finishes their transition and competes against CIS females - yet nobody would care, nobody would say this was a problem, nobody would say 'omg Gandalf has such a massive advantage this is clearly unfair' - let's face it, the only time this is applied as problematic is when it comes to trans people which by definition makes it selective. Outside of trans people, nobody considers the presence of this kind of competitive advantage to be a problem and they've likely never even given a second thought to this within the context of sport before the trans issue brought it to the forefront. Nobody tests the testosterone levels (outside of exogenous steroid abuse via absurdly elevated levels) of CIS male boxers/swimmers/MMA athletes to make sure one doesn't have a competitive advantage via hormone levels with a view to prohibiting the match up if such advantage exists. The existence of this competitive advantage is quite simply not viewed by anybody as a problem unless a trans person is involved.
You’re right, Thomas just beat Olympic silver medalists, not gold.She did not demolish the best of the best. It was a very good performance, granting her a narrow win in one of the weakest fields in a long time. No need to make things up.
how exactly is it for greater participation when those trying to compete (trans women) are excluded from it?In practical terms, it's a novel situation. The old Olympic rules - surgical transformation + legal recognition + testosterone reduction monitoring over several years - combined with the typical transition pattern (most people starting transition at 20+) made it more or less impossible for someone in their athletic prime to qualify.
It's the attempt to reform those rules and allow greater participation that has started creating the test cases and discussion we're seeing now.
There's some indirect evidence from the experience of DSD athletes, who are proportionately overrepresented in elite women's competition - with the effect much larger in some events than others.
The Olympics committee were trying to reduce barriers to participation. Initially that meant they removed some of their old rules - including legal and surgical definitions of transition and they reduced the period of consistently low testosterone required before a transwoman became eligible to compete. A couple of years after that policy change they removed the recommendations entirely and asked sports to make up their own rules.how exactly is it for greater participation when those trying to compete (trans women) are excluded from it?
Because people believed she was a man, and forced her to go through sex testing. It had nothing to do with hormones, her literal gender was questioned by the public and the IAAF who made her prove that she was female. This competitive advantage which exists at all CIS levels and nobody has ever cared about before, only rears its head if people think a man is competing against a woman. If it's a man against a man? feck yeah, have at it with hormonal advantages, dude has 6x the testosterone levels of his competitor but the total levels don't indicate steroid use? No-one gives a shit, 'round 1 - fight'.This isn’t exactly true to be fair. Caster Semenya has been treated like shit by every sports governing body for no good reason for a good 15 years or so.
while it might seem progressive on paper when compared to the old rules, they are clearly still not inclusive of the majority of trans women.The Olympics committee were trying to reduce barriers to participation. Initially that meant they removed some of their old rules - including legal and surgical definitions of transition and they reduced the period of consistently low testosterone required before a transwoman became eligible to compete. A couple of years after that policy change they removed the recommendations entirely and asked sports to make up their own rules.
We're seeing the first test cases of the sport-by-sport rule changes that were introduced a couple of years ago. Most of those rules basically use "low testosterone" as the standard and put a minimum test period on it - typically one or two years. It's those new rules, which were simpler and more open than any used in the past, that are under pressure now.
She won by more than 1.5 seconds which is a large margin in elite swimming. NCAA Championships are firmly in the realm of elite sport so are very pertinent to the discussion. But agreed that if she had beaten Katie Ledecky's time it would be more impressive, if that is the right word.She did not demolish the best of the best. It was a very good performance, granting her a narrow win in one of the weakest fields in a long time. No need to make things up.
Women's sport was created so that they could participate in as fair an arena as possible. Including trans women in CIS female sport undermines this as going through puberty as a male undoubtable gives most trans women an advantage in most sports. At all levels below elite inclusion should drive things but I can't see how you can be fair to both trans women and CIS women if you allow trans women to compete at the elite level. I wish there was.Because people believed she was a man, and forced her to go through sex testing. It had nothing to do with hormones, her literal gender was questioned by the public and the IAAF who made her prove that she was female. This competitive advantage which exists at all CIS levels and nobody has ever cared about before, only rears its head if people think a man is competing against a woman. If it's a man against a man? feck yeah, have at it with hormonal advantages, dude has 6x the testosterone levels of his competitor but the total levels don't indicate steroid use? No-one gives a shit, 'round 1 - fight'.
If people cared about the existence of this advantage as much as they claim to, they'd be equally passionate about eliminating it from CIS sports because fair is fair. The truth is, people are selective about when this advantage is deemed unfair and it's when a trans person is involved or in the case of Caster, where people believe that she's lying about her gender.
I talked about Caster because someone quoted me first on that, but women's sport was created so they didn't have to face fully fledged men so it's a bit dishonest to figure trans women into that because they no longer have the strength that first required that distinction. Some people cannot make this distinction, so the debates end up pointless for the most part.Women's sport was created so that they could participate in as fair an arena as possible. Including trans women in CIS female sport undermines this as going through puberty as a male undoubtable gives most trans women an advantage in most sports. At all levels below elite inclusion should drive things but I can't see how you can be fair to both trans women and CIS women if you allow trans women to compete at the elite level. I wish there was.
I'm not a fan of whataboutism but I also look at my son who is decent at his sport and huge (6ft 5 and 110kgs). As a man he plays Div1 NCAA and will play pro and hopefully for his country at the next Olympics. So good, but not truly world class. If he was trans, even with declined testosterone/performance, he would be the best female player in the world by a considerable distance. These sort of cases will arise from time to time and they will devalue elite female sort and disadvantage many CIS women.
Such bans will have an adverse effect on trans sport participation at all levels sadly, so at the very least increased promotion of trans participation at non-elite levels is required. I also know that competing as a woman is important to trans women but I just don't see a solution that will be fair to all, so perhaps we have to take the least shit option and be fair to the majority as best we can?
I also think this is very different from Caster's case where things are far more complicated.
Just on this point I think the important difference is that we are talking about an advantage that having male and female sports is meant to eliminate. If you go to the logical extension of "people are people" you end up with a single open category that men win all the time.You can't just say 'they have an advantage' because advantages exist all over sport, so what?
Is that even a thing? Most of us will have levels between 300 and 1000 nangrams per decilitre of blood. It varies all the time for a variety of reasons but within that range there is only a small variation in things like muscle mass. In your example I am assuming you are saying that the hyper- testosterone person will be bigger/more muscly than you? In this case weight divisions are in place to protect from precisely this level of dangerous inequality. Not to mention current testosterone levels aren't, IMO, the biggest issue but rather having gone through puberty as a male.I've pointed out several times how nobody here would stop a proposed bout between me and another CIS man with 6x my testosterone levels - nobody would consider it so unfair that they would call for it to be banned, but people conveniently gloss over it because they can't allow themselves to concede the point because it undermines their stance.
Yes, but it wasn't just not Ledecky's time. I remember looking at the last 10 or so years, and I can't remember if this year was the only year she would've won or if she would have gotten another narrow victory as well. The runner up, who would have won if Thomas didn't race, was not close to normal winning times.She won by more than 1.5 seconds which is a large margin in elite swimming. NCAA Championships are firmly in the realm of elite sport so are very pertinent to the discussion. But agreed that if she had beaten Katie Ledecky's time it would be more impressive, if that is the right word.
Agreed but you only need to finish 1st and a CIS woman missed out on an NCAA championship to a trans woman.Yes, but it wasn't just not Ledecky's time. I remember looking at the last 10 or so years, and I can't remember if this year was the only year she would've won or if she would have gotten another narrow victory as well. The runner up, who would have won if Thomas didn't race, was not close to normal winning times.
That's not a problem though, unless the trans woman has aced the world record by a mile, if she's not even beating the bets times out there why is it an issue?Agreed but you only need to finish 1st and a CIS woman missed out on an NCAA championship to a trans woman.
most likely ultra long endurance e.g. power walking and swimming the English channelCancel swimming.
Serious Q though: Are there examples of FTM athletes who are performing well and competing against men? Even winning?
That thought exercise makes perfect sense. If you remove the wall between mens and womens sports and just have a combined event. You are ignoring the crux of the problem and jumping to solution on an empty premise.As a thought exercise if we remove all gender from this debate and we just talked about what people claim is their view that seems to be paraphrased as 'significant advantages brought about by the presence of elevated testosterone levels over time and the effect that has on the human body are unfair and should not exist in sport between two competitors' then they should apply that equally across CIS divisions because after all, the gender isn't important here, it's the advantage that they're pretending they care about. They won't, though, because the truth is they don't care about the very same advantage when it shows up elsewhere. Usually when someone only cares about something sometimes but not other times, it's not actually the thing they care about.
fact is trans women are not dominating any sport on the planet. when a trans woman wins something everyone cries foul, but when they lose it's barely mentioned - confirmation bias 101.That's not a problem though, unless the trans woman has aced the world record by a mile, if she's not even beating the bets times out there why is it an issue?
his point is that these advantages exist naturally already within male and female sports. you can never eliminate every advantage, not in any sport. no one cares except when trans people are involved.Just on this point I think the important difference is that we are talking about an advantage that having male and female sports is meant to eliminate. If you go to the logical extension of "people are people" you end up with a single open category that men win all the time.
This is excellent context, I did not know, thank you. It makes a huge difference and removes the "dominating the sport" argument almost entirelyyes, Lia is doing better against women than she did against men. that's to be somewhat expected, as she's only been transitioning for 2 years. she is performing significantly worse than she did as a man though due to the hormone treatments, and it can take up to 5 years to complete transitioning properly. but she's not 'dominating'. she lost to a trans man who has taken no testosterone just a few days after her win.
I completely agree with this and have seen first hand how decisions at the top of a sport affect trans people and their treatment everywhere. A FtM trans person I know very well has been questioned about their opinion on this over and over again by people who believe "common sense has won out " he is 12 years old, though the questioners are adults in the main, all seemingly trying to score a point or two. People are weirdly aggresive about it even when they think they are trying to make a relevant point.do we have the right balance right now? maybe, maybe not. it's still a relatively new phenomenon that sporting bodies are working to get right. but just outright banning trans women from competing is a stupidly blunt move borne frankly out of hysteria. there are barely any trans athletes, they rarely win, and they are clearly not dominating every race. segregation also has massive consequences elsewhere in society, at grass roots sports, at the treatment of trans people generally in society.
I think the point @Wibble was making is that people generally race to win, not to break records.That's not a problem though, unless the trans woman has aced the world record by a mile, if she's not even beating the bets times out there why is it an issue?
I should add that I think you and @Zarlak have made the most interesting arguments in this thread by a mile, but this comment stood out a bit to me.
I absolutely get and understand the issue and why it is not easy to be fair, but an outright ban does feel a bit reactionary and does do a huge amount of damage as I have written about above.I think the point @Wibble was making is that people generally race to win, not to break records.
It's not an easy situation to resolve and essentially comes down to the fact that in most sports - the complaints will come in if a transwoman is successful and will do so irrespective of any rules about blood chemistry measurements. In fact the complaints will come in if any athlete improves their ranking following transition - despite the fact that peak adult rankings don't always map directly onto adolescent performance rankings.
Is that fair? In the interests of sporting competition we make unfair rules all the time - about age, weight, past performance, nationality etc. We don't however generally make distinctions based on things like foot size or height etc. More subtle differences only really get acknowledged in para-sports where there's a lot of debate around fair classification and fair placement of individuals in categories.
This is where it gets complicated and it becomes hard to resolve the social desire for inclusion against the concept of sporting fairness. The separation into men's and women's events were historically not seen as "subtle differences" - they were either like the age category immutable, or like the weight category something easy to measure and define. We knew and accepted the sporting fairness of those rules.
It's not easy to define sporting fairness, and unfortunately it's very difficult to prescribe a fair set of rules for each individual or even for each event - ask the para Olympics teams about that. Which is why seemingly arbitrary rules (like current testosterone blood level) get written and then rejected. Which sends us back to birth biological sex (and even genotype) as a starting point. It's not easy to be fair.
how many genders are there?I absolutely get and understand the issue and why it is not easy to be fair, but an outright ban does feel a bit reactionary and does do a huge amount of damage as I have written about above.
The trouble is the public attitudes to this all over the world. Until there is a common understanding that gender is not binary but is a wide spectrum then people will always conciously or unconciously look to rule against the minority, we've seen it time and time again in all walks of society all around the world.
This is why sporting bodies have such a big responsibility to get it right, to take this slowly and to try to get the balance between fairness and inclusivity right, attitudes like Lord Coe's and this arbitrary ban are not doing that, they are just falling in line with a populist ideal.
this 'solution' keeps coming up. so what category is this then, a third category just for trans people? how many trans athletes do you think there are?the decision is based on biological sex for example male/female which isn't so much a spectrum. Those who have been prevented from competing were males although I believe they should create a new category for the sake of equal opportunity.