FYI: i've given blackhole a(t least a) 3 day ban; you no longer need to engage with them in this thread, as it will not be productive to do so. thanks
To be clear, the report doesn't claim it's proven that trans women have no advantage in elite sports, but rather that the biomedical evidence is inconclusive and that the methodology of existing studies has been highly flawed.
It does go into some sociological factors which is good, and it draws attention to the fact that these studies are seemingly often conducted from a place of transphobia to begin with.
I suppose it's hard to do science on it as it's such a loaded topic, and the number of trans athletes is relatively small.
Right. I think that's a very important distinction.
To take it a step further, I think it's probably quite intuitive and obvious that if you're born a male, go through puberty as a male, you will have a different body composition than a female. Even with hormone suppressors. They are claiming there is no evidence that this is an advantage.
Well it is, absolutely, depending on the sport. I don't know that it could be proven that bone density, for instance, helps people perform better. But I know that some sports there is an advantage to being taller. And hormone suppressors aren't going to reduce that advantage. So that alone is definitive proof that being born a male and going through puberty as a male is advantageous in certain sports (as male's are taller on average, than females). I don't know how you could argue that isn't true.
Sports is inherently unfair. Biological advantages are the basis for global competition. If the goal is fairness in sports then why is no consideration directed at any other kind of advantage until a trans woman is involved?
Uh... it is. We have considerations taken into account for age, weight, and skill level, at various levels of sports. Yes, obviously there are biological advantages in sports, and that is a big part of the sport. That's precisely why we separate men and women, BECAUSE of those advantages.
So for you to say there is no consideration given to those advantages until trans woman are involved is just flatly wrong. That's the basis of this entire conversation, the fact that we do take that into account already.
So why is the discussion not how we can further categorize people then? You know, to account for the biological advantages?
Its not fair to short women that only tall women can compete in sprinting on an international scale. There's nothing they could ever do to compete on that level. It's not physically possible for them. So why is the Olympics not dividided into height categories? Why not categories based on wingspan in swimming? Why not categories based on muscle to fat ratio in lifting? Why not categories based on leg length in cycling? Why don't we categorize any sport that requires prolonged deep breathing into lung capacity? Why don't we measure any relative advantage causes by these things and measure everyone accordingly?
Look into how the special Olympics is measured such that anyone can compete. Anyone can, and their results take into consideration their relative handicaps and advantages.
Fairness in sports is not the point. Never has been. The point is "perfection of the human body". How strong can can the strongest people possibly get? How fast can the fastest people possibly get? How high can the highest jump ever get?
Why is it currently impossible for 99.99% of cisgender women, no matter how much they train, to compete in a sporting event at an Olympic level? How is the inclusion of trans women fundamentally changing this process in any way?
You do realize trans women are women, right? You're just tlaking about taking women out of women's sports. Castor Semenya, several other black women have been told they are not woman enough to be treated as women. Do you think there's any motivation behind that?
Is sports meant to be exclusionary? If so, who is women's sports for? Upper middle class women from well off families? What about wealth disparity? If we add in wealth disparity the percentage of women who will ever be able to compete is even smaller. So what about poor women?
Why is the category for shooting divided by sex?
Why has there been significant discussion about excluding trans women from beauty competitions? Do you not understand the movement has nothing to do with fairness, and is just a conservative culture war talking point to spread hatred of trans women?
Do you not understand that by perpetuating this culture war talking point, you're just proving conclusively that you do not see trans women as women and that you're hypocritical for focusing solely on any advantage a trans woman has ignoring that every single olympic level athlete at this stage has massive biological advantages that already exclude 99.99% of women from ever competing at that level?
Trans women are women. We take hormones that destroy our muscle mass and cause significant physical impairment to our bodies. I'm not the incredible hulk, I'm not a massive testosterone machine, I have had GRS and I have no blood testosterone at all. I've been this way for nearly a decade. In any competition I would be utterly destroyed by even a teenage girl. Is it necessary to exclude me from participation? Am I not woman enough to compete, like Castor Semenya? Am I not who sports is for? Is sports only for cis boys and girls, is that the message you want to send to trans kids?
I'm going to say this, and you're probably going to get pissed. I'm sure my post will get deleted, but if ya'll can't handle having conversations with people who don't 100% align with your views, than we will never make progress.
You said 'you do realize trans women are women, right'.
Yes. They are. I will treat them like a woman. I will acknowledge them to be a woman. I will use the pronouns they prefer, and think in 99% of scenarios, none of this should be problematic.
But they are not the SAME as all women. Yes, they are a woman. But they have a slightly different experience/body type than all of the other women, and that difference gives them an advantage over other women, that none of the other women get.
You're completely correct that sports is about being the best. It's about seeing what the human body can achieve at it's maximum. And we've broadly separated those sports endeavors into two categories. Male and female (with the exception of some sports that we put additional restraints in, weight classes etc).
We realize that not everybody can be the best athlete in the world. That doesn't mean we have a need to create 10,000 parameters and classes of sport for people to compete in so that everyone has an equal shot at being the best in the world. There are thousands of reasons why a man or a woman won't ever have a chance at being the best in the world. And we are fine with all of them.
The difference is that we are fine with people not being the best woman they can be. We are not fine with people going through a fundamentally different body growth during puberty, that enables them to have an advantage that no other woman could possibly have, as they were not able to go through puberty as a male, as that's not something that women can do.
It sucks for transgender women. I get it. I feel bad for them. I wish there was a better solution. You know what else sucks for transgender women? Being born a gender that they aren't. Having to deal with society's hatred toward them. There are a lot of things that suck for transgender women. But sticking to the parameters we've had in women's sports at a competitive level is not hatred. It's simply desiring to keep the playing field the same as it's always been. Women, who grew up and went through puberty as women, competing in their sport.
Any advantage a trans woman may or may not have is not universal to trans women though.
A 4'4" trans woman is not going to thrive at basketball, regardless of any bone density or whatever.
This is kind of the point, you have trans women who are just as diverse in both their natural physical attributes as well as varied in the degree to which their body has changed from hormone therapy, depending on factors like age when they began transition, their personal biological response to the replacement, and how long they've been undergoing transition.
This is why "trans" in and of itself is not actually a useful category to blanket ban people from athletics. It only is if you operate by stereotype. In which case it opens questions like "Women from the netherlands tend to be taller, should that category be banned from sports based on their natural advantage?"
Okay, so you admit that sports isn't fair and that fairness isn't the point.
So you just think trans women should be excluded.
Someone who has a genetic mutation that makes their wingspan unnaturally wide has an advantage that no other woman can have. So, no, the only justification possible here is that trans women are not women and so therefore do not deserve to compete as women. And you're okay with saying to young trans boys and girls, that they should give up on sports and athletics, because those things are only for cis boys and girls.
Whats wrong with having many categories of competition to make things fair? Or whats wrong with the methodology of the special Olympics, which uses a combined leader board with calculations for handicap and advantage?
There are actual solutions here, but instead you just want to exclude trans women. Just like Caster Semenya, you don't think trans women are woman enough to be treated as such.
This just reinforces the idea that we should improve the education and support for trans kids at all levels, specially school and early stages, and allow hormone suppressors before they do any irreversible damage on trans kids and teenagers.
If they are able to make an earlier decision, their lives will be closer to what they need.
In what world is it a good idea to give hormone suppressors to literal children? It's not a decision any child is capable of making.
Edit: Alright, you guys do have a point in that it's reversible and safe. My bad.
It's a good idea in a world where that child is aware of their gender identity (which many people develop far earlier than when puberty starts) and about to start going through irreversible changes. The betrayal of their body is a big part of why trans children have such high rates of suicide.
In any case though, if you're worried about them being too young, why would you be making a stink about a medicine than exists to delay permanent changes in their body? We give it to cis children safely in the case of precocious puberty, it can be stopped and puberty will resume, and it stops a huge source of emotional pain for them.
Just because you don't need it doesn't mean that gender affirming care isn't still healthcare.
this is just diet transphobia. it is very well established that these are safe and reversible, and as the other commenter notes there are a plethora of extremely good reasons to start early here (in part because they're safe and reversible, but the changes associated with growing up either aren't or are much more involved to reverse once you've gone through them)
Very awesome to see that you were open enough to learn and incorporate the new information! It's a rare thing these days
@StickBugged @ada @melmi @blackhole
You know that's something that happens even to cis children sometimes, right?
Then do we ban cis women who are tall or have a high bone density from women's sports? Do we allow trans women who don't have these advantages? Why single out trans people? If you judge that certain advantages are too much, why ban all trans people specifically?
This is it, exactly.
Every time I've gone and looked into it, the research seems to indicate that trans women who've been on HRT for a year or two do retain some advantages due to testosterone-fueled puberty, but those advantages they may retain are well within the bounds of what's expected between cis women. In other words, sure, maybe a trans woman is taller than she'd be had she not gone through T-puberty, but there are cis women who are also tall, and we're not banning them on that basis. The same goes for any other advantages they (trans women) retain.
We are banning them specifically because they gained that advantage by going through puberty as a gender they aren't competing as. And none of those other women competitors had the ability to do that.
That is the difference. And I think that's a fine reason to ban someone from competing (AT A HIGH LEVEL, NOT CHILDREN'S SPORTS).
And I'm saying that's a bogus reason to ban trans women from women's sports. If their advantage is no greater than that of the advantages between cis women, then including medically transitioned trans women in women's sports does not un-level the playing field.
ETA: The way that we control for the testosterone-fueled changes a trans woman's body undergoes in puberty is by requiring them to be on HRT (including T suppressors) for a long enough amount of time that those advantages become negligible and they can fairly compete with other athletes, not by outright banning them. It's ridiculous and more than a little offensive to act like outright banning trans women from high level competition is the right thing to do.
I wish English had a more obvious way to distinguish "no evidence X is" and "evidence X is not." This type of confusion seems to come up a lot, especially about scientific reports where the language is very precise.
Even if there were a "biological advantage" the only reason people started to pretend to care about women's sports is because it's a way to alienate trans people. If there were a good faith discussion being had, it wouldnt be so infuriating.
I hope that something good comes from all this in the end.
Even with the high profile cases that got blasted all over the news (ex. Lia Thomas, Laurel Hubbard) it’s never talked about how those athletes still performed within the same range as their cis female competitors, even if they did perform well.
Lia Thomas won a Division I championship, but what's never mentioned is that her times are comparable to the previous years cis woman. Likewise, Laurel Hubbard qualified for the olympics, but no one talks about how she never ended up even placing.
People like to talk about how trans women are going to smash records etc. but rarely does anyone go back and see if they actually did. Which gives away the game.
Even if there is a "biological advantage", sports have had "biological advantages" all the time. Some people are taller than others, or have longer legs than others. All of the reactionary people don't care about fairness in sports because sports have never been fair.
If we start to examine fairness in sports closer i think it all falls apart pretty quick. There are so much factors that can aid a competitor while drawing someone else back. Where someone was born, how they were raised, which trainers and equipment they have access to, what personal crisis happens to them, etc. all are things that are largely based on luck. Any rules that are made by the hosts of a given sports event are also somewhat arbitrary. That said, i do think there is an advantage for biological males in physical strength, even if it starts do diminish over time with HRT and even this study doesnt prove it otherwise, just states that previous studies were non conclusive.
I think what so often gets missed in these conversations (and they're conversations that happen a LOT in lots of social media spaces and off-line spaces) is that this discussion - about inclusion and access in high-end competitive sport - is absolutely having a negative impact on any trans person trying to engage in any sport and recreation at any level.
We know that sport, recreation, and exercise is a great protective factor for our health and wellbeing - and that trans and non-binary folks are engaging in those activities less often than our cis peers. The excessive attention on inclusion in sport (primarily conversations being had by laypeople, i might add) mean that those of us trying to play sport or exercise in our communities are hyper-aware of the discourse, are even more worried about what people might think of us - - and in some cases are experiencing heightened transphobia in our communities as a result.
Lots of sporting codes have introduced some great standards for trans inclusion that really work, and reflect the evidence base - and those decisions have been made by sports medicine experts and experts in those codes - and that's whose opinion i really trust, not people making assumptions based on what they think about sex and gender.
Exactly this. I really want to do some rec sports just to meet friends and stay active. With they way things are currently with sports - absofuckinglutely not. And ffs I've passed pretty flawlessly for the past 8 years now (although the first few years were rough), and I'm still terrified of that shit.
It's sad that I'm much more scared to be involved in sports now than I was 5 years ago
Yeah, I've been out 10 years and for a good five years at least being trans wasn't even a factor in a lot of my decision making any more - that's changed in the last 18 months with all the negative attention on us.
This article is also really good: https://www.science.org/content/article/scientist-racing-discover-how-gender-transitions-alter-athletic-performance-including
It goes into detail on a real world athletics study (instead of studies on individual factors like muscle mass or grip strength that may not be representative at all of sport performance) in running that shows that after transitioning, trans women perform the same relative to their cis women peers as they did to their cis male peers prior to transitioning — i.e., same place in the distribution curve.
At the end of this I linked an extract of a positive letter that United States Utah governor Spencer Cox wrote. It grounds the conversation back to Earth in a fantastic way. Bear in mind, he's specifically referring to student athletes in this discussion. So this is tangential to OP's discussion, but the underlying premise is near identical from my understanding.
https://beehaw.org/pictrs/image/2d4b3581-fa4e-42d3-b2e2-cdb63c237c5c.png
That's the thing that I find particularly bad. Elite sports, sure there's transphobia aplenty but I get why people take it seriously at least. But kids' sports? Come on, people. Let the kids have fun without demanding you fucking inspect their genitals or whatever they are doing now. People take kids' sports way too seriously, I think it's really harmful.
I'm glad some people see that, like Spencer Cox.
The real issue trans women in sports potentially opens up is bringing scrutiny to the diversity of body and hormone levels people have and how that has a big influence on performance in sports, which would be a big change to sports categories and make blood tests mandatory, and im unsure sports orgs want to open that can of worms given it'd hurt some cis people, as there's already a few examples in a few sports
Would scrapping gender splits in sports and base catagories on weight work?
I honestly do not know and don't like sports in the slightest but it's a question that has come up while discussing things with my kid.
All forms of queer news and culture. Nonsectarian and non-exclusionary.
See also this community's sister subs Feminism, Neurodivergence, Disability, and POC
Beehaw currently maintains an LGBTQ+ resource wiki, which is up to date as of July 10, 2023.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
