Also in the News - Part 2

[Otis]

3 minutes ago, RobHawk said:

A possible solution which would be inclusive but probably not viable at this point would be a trans Olympics. Much like we allow Paralympics, this would allow all to compete.

Good post.

 

Can they not complete in their birth gender category?

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, The Doctor said:

it's a very dubious categorisation tbh because biological sex is not this neatly divided binary. Like obviously there's genetic sex, which is based on chromosomal configuration (although that's still not quite true because the gene that causes masculinisation of the foetus is the SRY gene which is typically but not always found on the Y chromosome), but then there's reproductive sex based on gonads and fertility, which was historically used and why Judaism had six sexes (male, female, both, neither, infertile male, infertile female), and there's endocrinological sex, which is arguably day to day the most important one because it determines a lot of your biology and your responses to medicines and where symptoms are gendered to a degree (e.g. heart attacks). typically they align but not always, and in the case of a post-op trans woman she'd be likely genetically male, reproductively neuter and endocrinologically female, three different sexes depending on how you judge it, and to suggest she fits neatly into "biological man" (and conversely trans men into biological women) is a huge oversimplification 

 

31 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

the answer is don't give a ****. that's what happens when you kowtow to Christian conservatives creating a moral panic to try and undo gay marriage (there's a reason this fuss about trans people didn't start until about 2015). Like generally research into transfeminine athletic performance indicates after 12 months hormone therapy your key markers of athletic capacity are within the female range but in the top 5%, probably still an unfair advantage sure, but the research doesn't go past 12 months often because of a lack of funding. if the objections from those with power were genuinely motivated by concerns about fairness, they'd also be announcing studies into participation, increasing funding to establish what fair restrictions would be. they're not because it isn't about fairness, it isn't motivated by the science, it's driven by lawmakers who want to undo every last bit of progress towards LGBT equality and have identified a divide and conquer approach 

Bringing these to the front again for the reference of anyone wanting more than a simplistic look at the topic.

[The Doctor]

6 minutes ago, Otis said:

Good post.

 

Can they not complete in their birth gender category?

creates its own issues of fairness. trans men on testosterone therapy would outstrip most women, trans women on oestrogen therapy would have a significant disadvantage against cis men because altering your hormonal profile does alter your athletic abilities, it's just a long term effect.

[Captain...]

1 hour ago, RobHawk said:

I don't have a real strong opinion either way on trans issues. I'm not well versed on it and may unintentionally come across as ignorant. I've tried to write multiple posts in this thread but haven't had the conviction to post any of them.

 

I've read posts In this thread and not understood them, I haven't heard of that British women out in Australia and it's not a issue that's close to home for me. I've had transitioning friends in the past and it was never much of an issue either way for me. 

 

I think when we talk about elite level sport, there's no answer that suits everyone. And at what point does inclusivity take precedent. 

 

For me, if you are born male, you should not be allowed to transition and compete as a female. That may not be inclusive, but it is fair. Laurel Hubbard for instance, was a junior champion weightlifter as a male, gave up, transitioned in her early 30s and then become a champion female weightlifter. It's pretty obvious to me that there's an unfair advantage to her being male for 30 years before transitioning. 

 

A possible solution which would be inclusive but probably not viable at this point would be a trans Olympics. Much like we allow Paralympics, this would allow all to compete.

 

This may be to simple a answer to a complicated question. But sometimes we need to get a little more basic to include more in the conversation 😉

The other option would be an open competition and a (cis)female competition. 

 

I don't want to get into the political side of it, but from a pure access and enjoyment of sport and fairness of competition nobody should be denied the opportunity to compete. So anyone can enter the open competition, male, female, trans, disabled, everyone has the same opportunity to compete. We've already seen women compete in darts and golf 

 

Then there is a female category to ensure that women have a competitively accessible sport.

 

This might not be practical for all sports, but the majority should be able operate under an open category.

[Captain...]

1 hour ago, The Doctor said:

the answer is don't give a ****. that's what happens when you kowtow to Christian conservatives creating a moral panic to try and undo gay marriage (there's a reason this fuss about trans people didn't start until about 2015). Like generally research into transfeminine athletic performance indicates after 12 months hormone therapy your key markers of athletic capacity are within the female range but in the top 5%, probably still an unfair advantage sure, but the research doesn't go past 12 months often because of a lack of funding. if the objections from those with power were genuinely motivated by concerns about fairness, they'd also be announcing studies into participation, increasing funding to establish what fair restrictions would be. they're not because it isn't about fairness, it isn't motivated by the science, it's driven by lawmakers who want to undo every last bit of progress towards LGBT equality and have identified a divide and conquer approach 

The problem is it's not just about hormone levels, going through puberty as a male will make you taller than most women. It is an advantage that hormone therapy won't counter. There will always be an advantage it's just how you mitigate it to make it fair.

 

The reality is trans women are not dominating female sport but it will only take one average male athlete to transition and become a successful female athlete for it all to kick off.

[The Doctor]

10 minutes ago, Captain... said:

The problem is it's not just about hormone levels, going through puberty as a male will make you taller than most women. It is an advantage that hormone therapy won't counter. There will always be an advantage it's just how you mitigate it to make it fair.

 

The reality is trans women are not dominating female sport but it will only take one average male athlete to transition and become a successful female athlete for it all to kick off.

taller isn't always an advantage and is definitely mitigated in team sports (and where height is important sports would make more sense to be segregated by that, rather than gender), but then, do you allow shorter trans women to compete? do you ban taller cis women because that's unfair? 

 

I'd also highly doubt that someone would transition just for sporting success given the sheer level of discrimination against trans people generally. 

 

to me the answer is to keep participation open at the moment, there's so few trans people competing that there's not an urgent need for a ban, and to invest in further research with longer study periods looking at the impact of transition on VO2 max, grip strength, twitch fibre density and other markers of athletic capacity to determine where a fair reduction has occured.

[Captain...]

9 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

taller isn't always an advantage and is definitely mitigated in team sports (and where height is important sports would make more sense to be segregated by that, rather than gender), but then, do you allow shorter trans women to compete? do you ban taller cis women because that's unfair? 

 

I'd also highly doubt that someone would transition just for sporting success given the sheer level of discrimination against trans people generally. 

 

to me the answer is to keep participation open at the moment, there's so few trans people competing that there's not an urgent need for a ban, and to invest in further research with longer study periods looking at the impact of transition on VO2 max, grip strength, twitch fibre density and other markers of athletic capacity to determine where a fair reduction has occured.

It is an advantage in a lot of sports, I did originally put taller with a more athletic build, then decided that didn't sound right. The point is the average male has physical advantages and not just hormonal, and you can't take those away.

 

The problem is waiting for the inevitable successful trans female is going to cause resentment and stoke up more anti trans feelings. 

 

Having the male competition as an open competition would allow time to analyse the impact of transitions on athletes without removing them from competition.

[Innovindil]

5 hours ago, ozleicester said:

hmmm... 1936...


 

I could probably use this book tbh. I've mocked my dad for being "devil-handed" for so long if my daughter turns out to be a lefty I won't hear the end of it til one of us is dead. 

[RobHawk]

1 hour ago, Captain... said:

The other option would be an open competition and a (cis)female competition. 

 

I don't want to get into the political side of it, but from a pure access and enjoyment of sport and fairness of competition nobody should be denied the opportunity to compete. So anyone can enter the open competition, male, female, trans, disabled, everyone has the same opportunity to compete. We've already seen women compete in darts and golf 

 

Then there is a female category to ensure that women have a competitively accessible sport.

 

This might not be practical for all sports, but the majority should be able operate under an open category.

Not a bad shout, I can see that opening up a whole can of worms in the Paralympic community though. So then you'd bring that back. Then your pretty much back where we started. 

 

Could also have a wider impact in sports like gymnastics where the genders compete on different apparatus. 

 

Not saying it's a bad idea, but like anything it seems in this conversation, it's not all so cut and dry.

[Captain...]

6 minutes ago, RobHawk said:

Not a bad shout, I can see that opening up a whole can of worms in the Paralympic community though. So then you'd bring that back. Then your pretty much back where we started. 

 

Could also have a wider impact in sports like gymnastics where the genders compete on different apparatus. 

 

Not saying it's a bad idea, but like anything it seems in this conversation, it's not all so cut and dry.

You'd still have the Paralympics, we've already seen Oscar Pistorius competing with able bodied athletes. There is precedent and it just allows all people to have access to sport and competition which should be the most important thing. 

[The Doctor]

4 hours ago, Captain... said:

The point is the average male has physical advantages and not just hormonal, and you can't take those away.

not saying you're wrong but can you example some?

 

like we've got research suggesting that bone density is reduced , VO2 max is reduced, muscle strength, area and haemoglobin/haemocrit are reduced, I've already linked to one suggesting grip strength is reduced. Like it's worth noting that these go to intermediate values between cis women and cis men over the course of the study, and further research is definitely needed but the answer does seem to be that actually you can take them away, it just takes time and the question if it were actually motivated by scientific inquiry should be how much time is required 

Edited 26 March 2023 by The Doctor

[Daggers]

 

[Captain...]

51 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

not saying you're wrong but can you example some?

 

like we've got research suggesting that bone density is reduced , VO2 max is reduced, muscle strength, area and haemoglobin/haemocrit are reduced, I've already linked to one suggesting grip strength is reduced. Like it's worth noting that these go to intermediate values between cis women and cis men over the course of the study, and further research is definitely needed but the answer does seem to be that actually you can take them away, it just takes time and the question if it were actually motivated by scientific inquiry should be how much time is required 

That's why I changed what I originally put to taller, because I know that hormone therapy does effect a lot of male advantages, but I've not seen anything that suggests trans women lose height. 

 

Whilst being taller is not always an advantage, it is an example of how being trans does make you physically different to cis women, which makes fair competition difficult.

[The Doctor]

5 minutes ago, Captain... said:

That's why I changed what I originally put to taller, because I know that hormone therapy does effect a lot of male advantages, but I've not seen anything that suggests trans women lose height. 

 

Whilst being taller is not always an advantage, it is an example of how being trans does make you physically different to cis women, which makes fair competition difficult.

yea, I've heard some anecdotal claims but it's probably a fraction of an inch if it does happen as a result of a younger start on HRT causing pelvic tilt etc, but like then the average WNBA player is  5'11" - 6'0", 7-8 inches taller than the average woman. is that an unfair advantage? before we even get into the fact that elite sport is by nature unfair - Michael Phelps has a ridiculous wingspan and lower lactic acid generation, he has a biological advantage over pretty much every other man, where do you draw the lines on advantages?

 

for my twopence, where things like height and weight matter, height and weight classes make more sense than gender ones

[Captain...]

8 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

yea, I've heard some anecdotal claims but it's probably a fraction of an inch if it does happen as a result of a younger start on HRT causing pelvic tilt etc, but like then the average WNBA player is  5'11" - 6'0", 7-8 inches taller than the average woman. is that an unfair advantage? before we even get into the fact that elite sport is by nature unfair - Michael Phelps has a ridiculous wingspan and lower lactic acid generation, he has a biological advantage over pretty much every other man, where do you draw the lines on advantages?

 

for my twopence, where things like height and weight matter, height and weight classes make more sense than gender ones

Yep, I kinda made that point in my earlier post. Someone 1.80m jumping 1.90m is more impressive than someone 2.0m jumping 2.0m but the taller person will win the gold.

 

There is the danger of overcomplicating sport and the treatment of Caster Semenya was particularly unfair when males can use any and all natural advantages at the highest level.

[Parafox]

1 hour ago, Daggers said:

 

 

Probably burning a sheep. Folks in the bar awaiting roast lamb baguettes.

 

She's saying "now you 'ave to work for trois more années.

 

Pourquoi are you sitting 'ere. Get out there and protester".

 

King Charles 'as been  poubelle désactivé.

 

Vive La France."

 

O

Edited 26 March 2023 by Parafox

[yorkie1999]

20 hours ago, Captain... said:

The other option would be an open competition and a (cis)female competition. 

 

I don't want to get into the political side of it, but from a pure access and enjoyment of sport and fairness of competition nobody should be denied the opportunity to compete. So anyone can enter the open competition, male, female, trans, disabled, everyone has the same opportunity to compete. We've already seen women compete in darts and golf 

 

Then there is a female category to ensure that women have a competitively accessible sport.

 

This might not be practical for all sports, but the majority should be able operate under an open category.

But if there was an open competition, the males would probably win everything, which is the whole point of not having open catagories in sport.

[Captain...]

26 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

But if there was an open competition, the males would probably win everything, which is the whole point of not having open catagories in sport.

For sure the top prizes will go to the cis men who have spent their whole lives honing their bodies to maximise every natural advantage. But it is not about trans athletes being able to win prizes it is to ensure that everyone has access to enjoy sport and competition and can test themselves against themselves.

 

[yorkie1999]

9 minutes ago, Captain... said:

For sure the top prizes will go to the cis men who have spent their whole lives honing their bodies to maximise every natural advantage. But it is not about trans athletes being able to win prizes it is to ensure that everyone has access to enjoy sport and competition and can test themselves against themselves.

 

But it would end up with sport than doesn't have winners and losers for fear of upsetting the competitors that no chance of winning. Surely a much simpler answer is to have a catagory dedicated to trans athletes, in the same way there is catagories/events for disabled athletes/sportsmen.

[Zear0]

38 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

But it would end up with sport than doesn't have winners and losers for fear of upsetting the competitors that no chance of winning. Surely a much simpler answer is to have a catagory dedicated to trans athletes, in the same way there is catagories/events for disabled athletes/sportsmen.

Uh oh 

[grobyfox1990]

Some good points here, much more complicated than 'born a man so compete in mens sport' which I naively thought was a given. However seems like there's a profitable investment opportunity here. Fund someone's transition from male to female, get them to compete in women's sport, smash the competition, take a share of the earnings.

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, Captain... said:

For sure the top prizes will go to the cis men who have spent their whole lives honing their bodies to maximise every natural advantage. But it is not about trans athletes being able to win prizes it is to ensure that everyone has access to enjoy sport and competition and can test themselves against themselves.

 

In which case people can happily compete in their birth sex category, and everyone can stop talking about it.

[Jon the Hat]

32 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Some good points here, much more complicated than 'born a man so compete in mens sport' which I naively thought was a given. However seems like there's a profitable investment opportunity here. Fund someone's transition from male to female, get them to compete in women's sport, smash the competition, take a share of the earnings.

The only reason it is more complicated that this is that some male athletes seem to think they have a right to complete in womens categories.  Which they don't and shouldn't.

 

Edit, oh and some other men are determined they must and are calling anyone who disagrees transphobic, but somehow especially women who disagree and must absolutely be made to shut up with death threats, rape threats and violence.  Its ok thought, they think they are on the rightsideofhistory.

Edited 27 March 2023 by Jon the Hat

[grobyfox1990]

15 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

The only reason it is more complicated that this is that some male athletes seem to think they have a right to complete in womens categories.  Which they don't and shouldn't.

 

Edit, oh and some other men are determined they must and are calling anyone who disagrees transphobic, but somehow especially women who disagree and must absolutely be made to shut up with death threats, rape threats and violence.  Its ok thought, they think they are on the rightsideofhistory.

Yeh can see how this debate could go really mental really quickly... 

[ClaphamFox]

7 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

The only reason it is more complicated that this is that some male athletes seem to think they have a right to complete in womens categories.  Which they don't and shouldn't.

 

Edit, oh and some other men are determined they must and are calling anyone who disagrees transphobic, but somehow especially women who disagree and must absolutely be made to shut up with death threats, rape threats and violence.  Its ok thought, they think they are on the rightsideofhistory.

The violent tactics of the extremists will ultimately prove counterproductive, though. I don't imagine many women will look at the footage from New Zealand last week or Hyde Park yesterday or all the other events where men show up to assault, threaten and intimidate women and think, "Yep, we really want those blokes in our spaces and in our sports." Nicola Sturgeon has paid a heavy price for not understanding this. Keir Starmer is starting to understand it (Labour will apparently clarify its position soon, but reportedly they've taken note of what happened to Sturgeon and of what they're hearing from many of their own supporters). 

 

I often wonder how ordinary transgender people feel about the thugs that claim to represent them. I imagine many of them find it very frustrating.