Transgender Athletes

[NotThatSoph]

Good for you, I disagree and spend time reading about this and that a lot of the studies seem to be flawed or don't show the reduction in suicidality, at the rates claimed.

Raising this point seems to bring a response that people are anti-trans etc.

Which is fine I suppose.

Are you claiming that Michael "Henry Wimbush" Biggs isn't anti-trans?

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Are you claiming that Michael "Henry Wimbush" Biggs isn't anti-trans?

I have no idea who he is.

 

[NotThatSoph]

I have no idea who he is.

Then how could you possibly have an opinion on what gets him labelled as anti-trans?

https://www.oxfordstudent.com/2018/10/26/transphobic-tweets-linked-to-oxford-sociology-professor/

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Then how could you possibly have an opinion on what gets him labelled as anti-trans?

https://www.oxfordstudent.com/2018/10/26/transphobic-tweets-linked-to-oxford-sociology-professor/

Well because when you've been reading and observing this issue for as long as I have, pretty much everyone has been "problematic".

For what it's worth I've googled him and that article came up, as did Transgender Map article on him, which seemed to just quote the previous article and then his wider life/work from what seemed like Wikipedia.

I then read his Oxford uni sociology page about his course and his interests, seems he is still employed by Oxford? Wouldn't have thought they'd still employ a rampant transphobe?

I then searched for him on twitter and an interview with Wesley Yang came up.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I then looked at the Henry Wimbush twitter, which hasn't been updated in five years and has 1700 followers but was retweeting stuff like this from Anonymous;

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Seemed fairly unkind and insensitive but much of a muchness so far as Gender Critical twitter accounts go, there are plenty worse and given how toxic the debate is and how the algorithm is set up, the loudest, most brash accounts get the most traction.

But calling him a transphobe, even if he is one, doesn't discount points he might raise on certain studies, if his critiques are genuine.

Perhaps you could say he is always going to disagree with these studies on some "moral" point or because he is truly a bigot. But the risk is always seeing disagreements as bigotry, which I'm not saying you are, but it's a risk.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Saw these tweets today and thought of the thread, seems the differences are quite vast.

The question I suppose is whether controlling for hormones will lessen this gap to a point which would be "fair" in physical competition.

 

[berbatrick]

I then read his Oxford uni sociology page about his course and his interests, seems he is still employed by Oxford? Wouldn't have thought they'd still employ a rampant transphobe?

If he has tenure, he could be an open eugenicist and white nationalist, and still be employed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn

Lynn only lost his position after 40 years, after he already retired into emeritus status.
...

I don't call him "rampantly transphobic", I didn't say he was "problematic", I said he was anti-trans. From the article you linked, which quotes his tweets, I'd say that's true.

e - read more into that article. Nah, "rampantly transphobic" would have been right.

 

[NotThatSoph]

But the risk is always seeing disagreements as bigotry, which I'm not saying you are, but it's a risk.

Funny, flip it around and it also applies. Sometimes bigotry isn't just disagreement.

#transthegayaway, right?

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

If he has tenure, he could be an open eugenicist and white nationalist, and still be employed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn

Lynn only lost his position after 40 years, after he already retired into emeritus status.
...

I don't call him "rampantly transphobic", I didn't say he was "problematic", I said he was anti-trans. From the article you linked, which quotes his tweets, I'd say that's true.

e - read more into that article. Nah, "rampantly transphobic" would have been right.

Fair point. Although it's quite rare for someone to be like Richard Lynn and maintain their role in academia today?

As an aside, his Wikipedia is quite the page.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Funny, flip it around and it also applies. Sometimes bigotry isn't just disagreement.

#transthegayaway, right?

Well, trans the gay away is a hashtag, I believe derived from the L and G part of the LGBT community, who see some of the unintended affects of childhood transition or parents worrying their child is trans because the children might display gender non conforming behaviour (gender confirming behaviour being a social construct of course).

 

[NotThatSoph]

Well, trans the gay away is a hashtag, I believe derived from the L and G part of the LGBT community, who see some of the unintended affects of childhood transition or parents worrying their child is trans because the children might display gender non conforming behaviour (gender confirming behaviour being a social construct of course).

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Come on, now. Even you must have a limit for what you'll attempt to explain away. The guy is anti-trans, and would happily agree with that himself except maybe at work.

It doesn't come from the "L and G part", it comes from the gender critical community.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Come on, now. Even you must have a limit for what you'll attempt to explain away. The guy is anti-trans, and would happily agree with that himself except maybe at work.

It doesn't come from the "L and G part", it comes from the gender critical community.

Of which, there are lesbian and gay people?

 

[NotThatSoph]

Of which, there are lesbian and gay people?

Yes, there are lesbian and gay and straight people in the gender critical community.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Yes, there are lesbian and gay and straight people in the gender critical community.

I don't understand why you dismissed my comment of the L and G part and said it comes from the gender critical community?

Doubt you meant it but seemed to be intimating that those people can't be part of the LGBT community and Gender Critical.

But we are getting into the weeds and conscious the thread is about athletes, hence why I posted a study on musculature and strength differences.

 

[NotThatSoph]

I don't understand why you dismissed my comment of the L and G part and said it comes from the gender critical community?

Doubt you meant it but seemed to be intimating that those people can't be part of the LGBT community and Gender Critical.

But we are getting into the weeds and conscious the thread is about athletes, hence why I posted a study on musculature and strength differences.

Because it's not coming from the L and G parts of the LGBT+ community. It's coming from the gender critical community, some of who are also members of the L and G parts of the LGBT+ community.

It would be a bit like saying that it comes from the author community, because some gender critical people are authors. Or the Redcafe community, because we had that one member who kept going on about Genspect a while back.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Because it's not coming from the L and G parts of the LGBT+ community. It's coming from the gender critical community, some of who are also members of the L and G parts of the LGBT+ community.

It would be a bit like saying that it comes from the author community, because some gender critical people are authors. Or the Redcafe community, because we had that one member who kept going on about Genspect a while back.

The first sentence is tautological but I appreciate your response.

 

[NotThatSoph]

The first sentence is tautological but I appreciate your response.

The first sentence is just repeating the answer, because it is the answer. I dismissed your answer about the L and G part of the LGBT+ community, and instead said that it comes from the gender critical community, because what you said was wrong and what I said was right.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

The first sentence is just repeating the answer, because it is the answer. I dismissed your answer about the L and G part of the LGBT+ community, and instead said that it comes from the gender critical community, because what you said was wrong and what I said was right.

Cool.

 

[The Corinthian]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Saw these tweets today and thought of the thread, seems the differences are quite vast.

The question I suppose is whether controlling for hormones will lessen this gap to a point which would be "fair" in physical competition.

But but testosterone and something and testing.

 

[SilentWitness]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/swimming/66505976

Swimming World Cup 2023: Transgender swimmers to compete in new open category in Berlin

 

[Denis79]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/swimming/66505976

Swimming World Cup 2023: Transgender swimmers to compete in new open category in Berlin

This is a good solution is it not?

 

[gaffs]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/swimming/66505976

Swimming World Cup 2023: Transgender swimmers to compete in new open category in Berlin

Seems like a good solution.

 

[berbatrick]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Trans women, with their fast-twtich muscles, had an unfair advantage in hitting the clock fast, had to be remedied.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Trans women, with their fast-twtich muscles, had an unfair advantage in hitting the clock fast, had to be remedied.

Utterly mental

 

[whitbyviking]

Utterly mental

I expected this to be from one of the satire news sources, sounds too silly to be true.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Utterly mental

Yeah, very weird decision.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

I Was Banned From Competitive Cycling Because I’m Trans. That Won’t Stop Me Fighting For My Rights

I was 10 when I started cycling competitively. I did a few sessions in a velodrome, and I was instantly hooked. Soon after, I began working my way up through the British cycling ranks, setting a national record in 2018 before joining the GB cycling team for a year in 2020. I left the team that year to transition, and in 2022, I was in talks to rejoin the GB cycling team with an eye on the 2024 Olympic campaign. However, in May 2023, news came that British Cycling, the national governing body for the sport, was placing a ban on transgender women competing in the women’s category. I has foreseen it happening, but the confirmation was still devastating. Cycling competitively was my life for the past 12 years. But now, I’m divesting from the sport – I have to.

 

[Mike Smalling]

I Was Banned From Competitive Cycling Because I’m Trans. That Won’t Stop Me Fighting For My Rights

I was 10 when I started cycling competitively. I did a few sessions in a velodrome, and I was instantly hooked. Soon after, I began working my way up through the British cycling ranks, setting a national record in 2018 before joining the GB cycling team for a year in 2020. I left the team that year to transition, and in 2022, I was in talks to rejoin the GB cycling team with an eye on the 2024 Olympic campaign. However, in May 2023, news came that British Cycling, the national governing body for the sport, was placing a ban on transgender women competing in the women’s category. I has foreseen it happening, but the confirmation was still devastating. Cycling competitively was my life for the past 12 years. But now, I’m divesting from the sport – I have to.

Setting the actual decision aside, the rhetoric she has used in other statements, interviews, etc. are simply not helpful to her cause. A quick search reveals she has accused British Cycling of "furthering a genocide" and "committing a violent act" by banning transgender cyclists from competing at the highest level. I'm not sure how she imagines she will get more people to her side that way. These unions face an impossible task in setting rules for this, because whatever they do they will make a group of people unhappy.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Setting the actual decision aside, the rhetoric she has used in other statements, interviews, etc. are simply not helpful to her cause. A quick search reveals she has accused British Cycling of "furthering a genocide" and "committing a violent act" by banning transgender cyclists from competing at the highest level. I'm not sure how she imagines she will get more people to her side that way. These unions face an impossible task in setting rules for this, because whatever they do they will make a group of people unhappy.

The interview piece was really odd, the language and such seems so, I dunno, contradictory.

 

[Alex99]

The interview piece was really odd, the language and such seems so, I dunno, contradictory.

The Canadian report cited is also a bit strange:

• Biomedical studies are overvalued in sports policies in comparison to social sciences studies.

I'm not sure why a sports body primarily concerned with fairness in sports (my understanding is they're essentially the ones in charge of drug testing) is concluding that social sciences should be dictating sporting policy.

 

[hobbers]

I'm not sure why a sports body primarily concerned with fairness in sports (my understanding is they're essentially the ones in charge of drug testing) is concluding that social sciences should be dictating sporting policy.

Because one field gives nice inclusive answers that they like, and the other doesn’t.

 

[Alex99]

Because one field gives nice inclusive answers that they like, and the other doesn’t.

I'm fairly sure no actual study went on in that report and it's essentially a literature review. The "key findings" on the biomedical front are also weird. Two points on how the data is limited, and what data there is has often been gathered using flawed methodology, then the final point is that the data available shows no advantage.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

The Canadian report cited is also a bit strange:



I'm not sure why a sports body primarily concerned with fairness in sports (my understanding is they're essentially the ones in charge of drug testing) is concluding that social sciences should be dictating sporting policy.

Trans inclusion in sports has long been a highly contentious issue due to unsubstantiated concerns about transgender women having a physical advantage over cisgender women

Sport is inherently unfair. That’s why there are winners and losers. Competitors are put into categories so everyone has a reasonable shot at winning, but the reality is that the playing field is never completely level in the first place. All athletes have different levels of endurance and physical ability – that’s why we train relentlessly

These two quotes just seem so wildly off, I truly just don't understand the perspective or argument being put forward. It all feels so off-kilter. I also don't understand how there is a ban in place for this person, when they are (I presume) free to race in open categories etc?

 

[Alex99]

These two quotes just seem so wildly off, I truly just don't understand the perspective or argument being put forward. It all feels so off-kilter. I also don't understand how there is a ban in place for this person, when they are (I presume) free to race in open categories etc?

As I understand them, the arguments are that:

• Splitting sports into "Female" and "Open" categories will severely limit the opportunity for transwomen to compete in elite sports
• Splitting sports into "Female", "Male" and "Open/Trans" categories is a form of othering

Ultimately, it's a no-win situation for the sporting bodies, as things stand. Bridges is free to compete in the open category (as I believe the UCI now refer to it as), but I imagine would be not be as competitive, hence the talk of being "banned".

I'm not sure there is an answer to please everybody while maintaining fairness.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

As I understand them, the arguments are that:

• Splitting sports into "Female" and "Open" categories will severely limit the opportunity for transwomen to compete in elite sports
• Splitting sports into "Female", "Male" and "Open/Trans" categories is a form of othering

Ultimately, it's a no-win situation for the sporting bodies, as things stand. Bridges is free to compete in the open category (as I believe the UCI now refer to it as), but I imagine would be not be as competitive, hence the talk of being "banned".

I'm not sure there is an answer to please everybody while maintaining fairness.

Good post.

Also saw the only sportswoman on Vogue's "top 25 powerhouse women" was Bridges.

 

[Mike Smalling]

These two quotes just seem so wildly off, I truly just don't understand the perspective or argument being put forward. It all feels so off-kilter. I also don't understand how there is a ban in place for this person, when they are (I presume) free to race in open categories etc?

The first quote reads like it wants to be fact (the bit about "unsubstantiated claims"), but in reality it's more an opinion. The second is just nonsense to me. Sports being inherently unfair is not a good argument to potentially make it even more unfair.

 

[fergieisold]

The first quote reads like it wants to be fact (the bit about "unsubstantiated claims"), but in reality it's more an opinion. The second is just nonsense to me. Sports being inherently unfair is not a good argument to potentially make it even more unfair.

It's a ridiculous statement designed to try and ignore the physiological differences between biological men and women.

Claiming all athletes have differences in endurance and physical ability and then using it to suggest biological men should be competing in women's categories is ridiculous.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

It's a ridiculous statement designed to try and ignore the physiological differences between biological men and women.

Claiming all athletes have differences in endurance and physical ability and then using it to suggest biological men should be competing in women's categories is ridiculous.

I know there isn't an easy answer, but you have to admit there's a double standard at play. We're happy to accept that sport is unfair in 99.9% of cases. A short, stocky guy could train every day for a lifetime, develop world-class technique and still be slower in the pool than his lean, 6' 3" neighbour who does a few lengths on the weekend. We wouldn't bat an eyelid.

There are examples all across top level sport of male athletes who have ludicrous biological advantages over the average man and, collectively, we don't care. Michael Phelps, in addition to his height and build, has double jointed ankles and his muscles produce half the lactic acid a normal man's do. Should we not be asking him to take some medication to make his muscles less efficient, or ask him to compete in a different category so he's not taking medals from everyone else? If not, why not? Does unfair advantage only impact performance if chromosomes and gonads are involved?

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

I know there isn't an easy answer, but you have to admit there's a double standard at play. We're happy to accept that sport is unfair in 99.9% of cases. A short, stocky guy could train every day for a lifetime, develop world-class technique and still be slower in the pool than his lean, 6' 3" neighbour who does a few lengths on the weekend. We wouldn't bat an eyelid.

There are examples all across top level sport of male athletes who have ludicrous biological advantages over the average man and, collectively, we don't care. Michael Phelps, in addition to his height and build, has double jointed ankles and his muscles produce half the lactic acid a normal man's do. Should we not be asking him to take some medication to make his muscles less efficient, or ask him to compete in a different category so he's not taking medals from everyone else? If not, why not? Does unfair advantage only impact performance if chromosomes and gonads are involved?

The lesser-spotted Michael Phelps trope out.

Should we not be asking him to take some medication to make his muscles less efficient, or ask him to compete in a different category

What category would this be, seaworld olympics?!

Look, a sport is the ultimate meritocracy and the point is the win the game/race/event by the defined parameters. So if we take swimming, lean muscle mass and endurance will prosper over outright strength and power. Naturally, certain body types will be better at those individual sports, the sports themselves act as a controlling factor if that makes sense. The fact that a lot of sports do control for size advantages also makes the point mute.

Does unfair advantage only impact performance if chromosomes and gonads are involved?

Again, this doesn't make sense because, if we take Phelps, he still was in the usual parameters for a human being. He wasn't a dolphin. He wasn't six feet tall with nine feet of arms and a mermaid's tail. He had certain physiological traits that other people have, or a combination of which, enabled him to have some advantages in the pool. If he had things that were such an outlier that directly benefited his ability in the pool say literal flippers, he would have been banned from competition. Other humans could compete with him and get close. Sometimes they couldn't. Same with Usain Bolt. Same with Adam Peatty. They all fall within the normal parameters for human males.

The issue we have unfortunately is male puberty. Testosterone is, to most competitive sports, a cheat code. Like rocket fuel. There is a reason it's the go-to PED in most sports and the ones women take to cheat. The biological issue we have is that through puberty, males are mainlined this wonder drug and it has lasting and permanent effects (usually) on a male's physiology, ligaments, muscles, bones, heart size, VOmax, blood oxygen etc.

The debate is whether these can be reversed or mitigated to enable trans women (those born male and wish to transition to live as female - good luck to them) to lower certain genetic advantages men have over women in certain sports.

Do we need to control for these differences in pistol shooting, darts, snooker, golf, horse riding, dressage, high board diving, curling, bowls, bowling, and chess? In my opinion, no because the parameters of those sports or pastimes are not rooted in physical advantages.

 

[fergieisold]

I know there isn't an easy answer, but you have to admit there's a double standard at play. We're happy to accept that sport is unfair in 99.9% of cases. A short, stocky guy could train every day for a lifetime, develop world-class technique and still be slower in the pool than his lean, 6' 3" neighbour who does a few lengths on the weekend. We wouldn't bat an eyelid.

There are examples all across top level sport of male athletes who have ludicrous biological advantages over the average man and, collectively, we don't care. Michael Phelps, in addition to his height and build, has double jointed ankles and his muscles produce half the lactic acid a normal man's do. Should we not be asking him to take some medication to make his muscles less efficient, or ask him to compete in a different category so he's not taking medals from everyone else? If not, why not? Does unfair advantage only impact performance if chromosomes and gonads are involved?

I don't think there is a double standard at play, the genetically driven advantages within the male only group are really small compared to the advantages vs women. The short stocky guy would very likely beat the best female swimmer easily for example.

 

[Kag]

I know there isn't an easy answer, but you have to admit there's a double standard at play. We're happy to accept that sport is unfair in 99.9% of cases. A short, stocky guy could train every day for a lifetime, develop world-class technique and still be slower in the pool than his lean, 6' 3" neighbour who does a few lengths on the weekend. We wouldn't bat an eyelid.

There are examples all across top level sport of male athletes who have ludicrous biological advantages over the average man and, collectively, we don't care. Michael Phelps, in addition to his height and build, has double jointed ankles and his muscles produce half the lactic acid a normal man's do. Should we not be asking him to take some medication to make his muscles less efficient, or ask him to compete in a different category so he's not taking medals from everyone else? If not, why not? Does unfair advantage only impact performance if chromosomes and gonads are involved?

Michael Phelps is a man.