Biological males in women's sport

Candamir

klaaaz wrote: »

That link is behind a paywall. Can you summarise what it says?

The IOC’s transgender guidelines are unscientific and pose a serious risk to the health of both female and transgender athletes
Go to the profile of Dr Antonia Lee
Dr Antonia Lee
Jan 30
Dr Antonia Lee

Gundersen, K. (2016) Muscle memory and a new cellular model for muscle atrophy and hypertrophy. Journal of Experimental Biology, 219, 235–242. “For naive fibres and preceding hypertrophic growth, myonuclei are recruited from satellite cells, temporarily reducing the myonuclear domain volume, leading to a large fibre with many myonuclei. Upon subsequent atrophy the myonuclei are maintained, leading to a small fibre with a high myonuclear density and small myonuclear domains. Such fibres can hypertrophy without recruiting new nuclei and this re-training route seems to be faster than the first training route. The permanently higher number of myonuclei represents the muscle memory. Adapted from Bruusgaard et al (2010)”.
The current International Olympic Committee (IOC) transgender guidelines represent the outcome of the IOC Consensus Meeting on Sex Reassignment and Hyperandrogenism, November 2015.(1)
Briefly, the previous requirement for transgender surgery was removed whilst the length of time during which an athlete had to demonstrate testosterone levels within allowable limits was reduced from two years. In the general guidelines, the IOC states that, “the over-riding sporting objective is and remains the guarantee of fair competition”. As far as the IOC meeting participants (most of whom were male) were concerned, fair competition will now be achieved in the following manner:
1. Those who transition from female to male are eligible to compete in the male category without restriction;
2. Those who transition from male to female are eligible to compete in the female category under the following conditions:
a. The athlete has declared that her gender identity is female. The declaration cannot be changed, for sporting purposes, for a minimum of four years.
b. The athlete must demonstrate that her total testosterone level in serum has been below 10nmol/L for at least 12 months prior to her first competition (with the requirement for any longer period to be based on a confidential, case-by-case evaluation, considering whether or not 12 months is a sufficient length of time to minimise any advantage in women’s competition.
c. The athlete’s total testosterone level in serum must remain below 10nmol/L throughout the period of desired eligibility to compete in the female category.
d. Compliance with these conditions may be monitored by testing. In the event of non-compliance, the athlete’s eligibility for female competition will be suspended for 12 months.
Commenting on these guidelines, consensus meeting member and long-term IOC representative, professor Arne Ljungqvist said, “It has become much more of a social issue than in the past. We had to review and look into this from a new angle. We needed to adapt to the modern legislation around the world. We felt we cannot impose a surgery if that is no longer a legal requirement. Those cases are very few, but we had to answer the question. It is an adaptation to a human rights issue. This is an important matter. It’s a trend of being more flexible and more liberal.” (2)
This statement appears to be at odds with that of Dr Richard Budgett, IOC medical and scientific director. According to Budgett, “This is a scientific consensus paper, not a rule or regulation. It is the advice of the medical and scientific commission and what we consider the best advice.” (2)
Where’s the Science?
As a ‘scientific consensus paper’, what has been published (1) is unique in having no research references whatsoever. Is there a record of the scientific deliberation and debate that resulted in these guidelines? I have two additional questions; 1) precisely where is the science upon which this ‘scientific consensus paper’ was based; and 2) why has some very important science from muscle physiology apparently been completely ignored by the IOC? There must at least be a list of reference works or papers that were consulted that can be made available to other researchers; over and above the IOC’s possible reliance upon the seemingly flawed testosterone research of one of its members (3).
I find it intriguing that in a short commentary in Current Sports Medicine Reports (November 2016), three of the IOC consensus meeting participants argued, “Given the paucity of relevant research and the likely impact of decisions relating to transgender and intersex athletes, there is now an urgent need to determine not only what physical advantages transgender women carry after HRT but also what effect these advantages may have on transgender women competing against cisgender women in a variety of different sports. Properly designed intervention studies are required to investigate the effect of the transition (both MTF and FTM transitions) on trainability and performance” (4).
In other words, exactly a year after Budgett claimed that the IOC had produced a ‘scientific consensus paper’, three of his colleagues were making a strong case for the real situation: one, I would argue, of a complete lack of relevant, robust and independent research on the topic.
Coming to my second question: it is truly remarkable that the consensus meeting appears to have completely ignored the important issue of cellular male muscle memory, described in a previous article (5) and depicted in the schematic diagram at the beginning of this piece. Budgett cannot claim ignorance of myonuclei since his three colleagues include a reference to them in their article, whilst also indicating the likely importance of this interesting aspect of muscle physiology to the subsequent, much-enhanced training response in the transitioning male who takes up sport and subsequently enters women’s events.
Bad Science
Unfortunately, it looks increasingly likely that the IOC appears to have relied upon what can at best only be described as bad science. I’ve written about the methodological flaws in the work of IOC consensus meeting participant, Joanna Harper before (5). Let me be as clear as possible: if you decide to do an observational study, you need to follow the appropriate, recognised and demanding observational study guidelines (6). Failing to do so means that, “any claim coming from an observational study is likely to be wrong” (7). I have nothing against Harper personally; my point is that she is neither an epidemiologist nor a sports scientist and simply doesn’t seem to know how to carry out meaningful health or sports science research.
Let me give an example. Harper and colleagues published a two-page document with just five references regarding the pre- and post-transition data of six athletes from a variety of sports (8). One of them was a cyclist. Harper states, “The cyclist had an 8-minute power meter test performed by CTS in 2011 prior to transition and in 2016 after HRT. In 2011 she had a lactate threshold of 304 watts and in 2016 her lactate threshold is 270 watts. This 11% difference is consistent with the difference between elite male and female cyclists”. Harper then goes on to say, “The data presented offer further support for the recent IOC decision to allow transgender women to compete against cisgender women in the 2016 Olympics after one year of HRT, as well as solidifying the conclusions made in the (earlier) Harper study”.
After a little detective work online, I was able to identify the cyclist since they had given several interviews that quoted the same power data. I’ll preserve their anonymity. Only these power figures seem to exist; there is no other data. Let me explain why this is problematic and why the ‘research’ is useless.
I’ll assume that the eight-minute test followed a ramped protocol since this is typical in exercise physiology: that is, the cyclist is required to work harder in stages until a maximum power output is reached and further effort from the cyclist does not increase the power output being recorded. Since lactate threshold is mentioned, I’ll also assume that sequential blood lactate measurements were made. The reader is not told which lactate threshold value is being used: there’s more than one. However, lactate threshold is highly individual and in elite sport, good sports scientists create an individualised lactate profile for each athlete. It is important to point out that lactate threshold is highly sensitive to training. In other words, even a short period of training allows an athlete to produce more power for the same lactate concentration. Conversely, as little as two weeks of inactivity can result in less power output at the same lactate value as before.
No heart rate or relative oxygen consumption (ml/kg/min) data have been provided. It is essential to have this in order to make sense of the power output values. In a ramped protocol, to establish that an athlete is working towards a true maximum power output, maximum heart rate needs to be reached. More importantly, if there is no further increase in oxygen consumption or this even falls slightly as the cyclist attempts to put in more effort, it is safe to say that a peak power (and peak oxygen consumption) has been reached and measured. For these power data to be of any value whatsoever, you would want to see the minute-by-minute recordings of power, lactate, heart rate and oxygen cost for the duration of the test.
The tests appear to be five years apart. In the absence of training diary data leading up to each test, the power data become even more meaningless. Furthermore, this cyclist is now five years older. Maximum oxygen consumption (and hence power output) typically falls gradually over the age of 30, especially if there are breaks in training. In other words, how much of the decline in power output over this five-year period is due to ageing? How much is due to time away from training; i.e., what coaches call ‘de-training’? How much is due to transitioning? How much could be regained with training?
In a separate interview, the cyclist says, “If you look at biological men and women cyclists, the difference between elite athletes is 11%. And so I fall in line. I’m compliant and exactly where it (sic) should be”. If you believe that there should be an 11% difference in order for you to compete ‘fairly’ in a women’s event, what’s to stop you working to a pre-determined value in a test? Hypothetically, and without the minute-by-minute data described above, this would be very easy to do.
Whilst not suggesting this is necessarily the case, the cynic might make this simple observation: rather than provide meaningful, longitudinal data, the most basic of tests has been performed to show what the researcher wanted to show. The reporting of these tests omits all the essential, additional physiological data required to indicate that a cyclist, having since transitioned, now has 11% less power than they did at one single point five years ago. Contrary to established physiological testing and reporting procedures (9), observational study guidelines and best practice (6), no details of the test protocols, the cyclist’s training history prior to the first and second tests, or throughout the five-year gap between the tests is given. It’s nonsense. I can see scientific reasons why power output would likely fall in the transitioning athlete; but without good science being performed and accurately reported, what exists is emotionally driven, bias-confirming guesswork.
Another piece published in 2018 on ‘the fluidity of gender’, is — quite incredibly — a survey of 154 people who attended one of three presentations given by Harper and colleagues, with the collated opinions presented as some kind of scientific evidence (10). The methodological flaws and inherent bias in this are again obvious, even to someone who hasn’t studied research methods. This issue is far too important to be treated like a second-rate, transgender marketing company’s ‘eight out of ten cats prefer’, high-street opinion poll.
Health of the Athlete
In 2015, Budgett argued that the IOC’s priority “is protecting the health of the athlete” (11). I find Budgett’s words disingenuous in relation to this matter. Having argued that the ‘scientific consensus paper’ upon which these current IOC guidelines are based is nothing of the sort, that important science would appear to have been conveniently ignored, and that the flakiest of pre- and post-transition data seem to have been used to make a ‘no-advantage’ case, let me ask another two questions: 1) just how is the IOC protecting the health of those female athletes who now risk being physically beaten and battered (in contact, collision or combat sports) by male-to-female transitioning individuals within its current recommendations; and 2) how is the IOC protecting the health of any transitioning athlete, when the longer term effects of the required medication appear to be unknown? My specific concern with the first question here relates to big, late transitioning, former male athletes; particularly those competing in events where size, strength and power make all the difference. If I were a lawyer representing a female athlete injured by such a person, I’d definitely want to see the ‘science’ that the IOC relied upon when producing these revised guidelines. As it stands, IOC adviser Harper seems obsessed with collecting vague data on non-elite, male-to-female transitioning athletes competing in endurance events. In other words, people just like themselves. The scientific questions that need answering here are not helped by what appears to be a narrative of self-confirming projection.
Cynical colleagues continue to remind me that I shouldn’t expect anything to change and that the IOC is the most crooked of organisations. Certainly, a quick, internet search reveals countless instances of IOC corruption (12, 13, 14, 15); so, they may be right. I’m also fully aware that 83% of voting IOC members are men (16): perhaps of the highly privileged, virtue-signalling variety. As a consequence, and to use a sporting analogy, they have absolutely ‘no skin in the game’ when it comes to women’s rights. However, I’m simply making the case for good science being needed to inform policy. It’s for everyone’s benefit. Above all and in this matter, the IOC needs to commission a real scientific consensus paper, written by independent scientists (including muscle physiologists like Kristian Gundersen; a world-leading expert on myonuclei and muscle memory) interested in simply doing good science for the benefit of sport and society. Of course, if Ljungqvist is believed rather than Budgett, this was never a scientific issue for the IOC in the first place.
References
1. https://stillmed.olympic.org/Documents/Commissions_PDFfiles/Medical_commission/2015-11_ioc_consensus_meeting_on_sex_reassignment_and_hyperandrogenism-en.pdf
2. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jan/25/ioc-rules-transgender-athletes-can-take-part-in-olympics-without-surgery
3. http://leastthing.blogspot.com/2018/07/a-call-for-bermon-and-garnier-2017-to.html
4. https://journals.lww.com/acsm-csmr/Fulltext/2016/11000/Beyond_Fairness___The_Biology_of_Inclusion_for.6.aspx
5. https://medium.com/@Antonia_Lee/myonuclei-the-male-to-female-sporting-advantage-ae205110d4b2
6. https://strobe-statement.org/index.php?id=strobe-home
7. Young, S.S. and Karr, A. (2011) Deming, data and observational studies. Significance(The Royal Statistical Society). September, pp. 116–120.
8. http://www.sportsci.org/2016/WCPASabstracts/ID-1699.pdf
9. https://www.routledge.com/Sport-and-Exercise-Physiology-Testing-Guidelines-Volume-I---Sport-Testing/Winter-Jones-Davison-Bromley-Mercer-BASES/p/book/9780415361415
10. https://journals.lww.com/acsm-csmr/Abstract/2018/12000/The_Fluidity_of_Gender_and_Implications_for_the.13.aspx
11. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZP_0P6soMY
12. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/sep/07/corruption-olympic-movement-ioc
13. https://sports.yahoo.com/news/why-no-one-wants-to-host-the-2022-olympics-225450509.html?guccounter=1
14. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2019/01/14/japan-olympic-official-takeda-denies-corruption-allegations/38898717/
15. https://www.flotrack.org/articles/5053760-the-iocs-true-ideals-corruption-and-greed
16. http://home.uchicago.edu/arsx/Chicago%20Olympics%20Bid%20Paper%20Baade-Sanderson%20Final%20Version.pdf

paleoperson

If you really need medical scientists in endocrinology to confirm to you that a person who was born a man and has hormone replacement is quite different and has advantages compared to a woman in athletic performance, something has gone very wrong with your thinking process.

klaaaz

Candamir wrote: »

You did Klaaaz. You dumped me and anybody else who has issues allowing trans women compete in female catagories into your transphobic catch all.

No I did not, enlighten me which part was specific to your posts? I have not labelled anyone as transphobic who objected to 'trans women compete in female catagories', the area which I have contested is with those who object with transsexuals competing.

Candamir

klaaaz wrote: »

No I did not, enlighten me which part was specific to your posts? I have not labelled anyone as transphobic who objected to 'trans women compete in female catagories', the area which I have contested is with those who object with transsexuals competing.

I object to transsexual women competing in women's divisions.

That does not make me transphobic.

klaaaz

Candamir wrote: »

The IOC’s transgender guidelines are unscientific and pose a serious risk to the health of both female and transgender athletes
Go to the profile of Dr Antonia Lee
Dr Antonia Lee
Jan 30

Thanks for posting that long read!

So we have a dissenting voice(Dr Lee) on the IOC guidelines enacted in 2016 who seems fixated on a certain unknown cyclist and alleges corruption at the top level. Dr Lee was not involved with the IOC decision, correct?

There is nothing to support the following statement posted by the poster and thanked by as of writing 15 other posters

benjamin d wrote:

See here's a perfect example of trying to conflate radical bigoty with normal, science-based objections to an agenda-driven and extremely damaging bit of social engineering. This is fundamentally not about trans rights, it's about women's rights to compete in and enjoy sports. This right was hard fought and only becoming a mainstream occurrence in the very recent past for many sports.

No matter what you say, or how many times you say it, a MTF transgender person is and always will be biologically a man, and retains residual advantages over women that will never be negated by testosterone monitoring.

Candamir wrote: »

I object to transsexual women competing in women's divisions.

That does not make me transphobic.

Well, your objection has no basis. Practically most sporting organisations have allowed transsexuals to compete for nearly two decades and they have not won Olympic medals or world championships since then. Again, please note that this observation does not include the broader "transgender athletes", tis quite a distinction.

Zorya

Candamir wrote: »

Really? Try harder? When boys high school records are approximating and beating the women’s records in athletics, how can these girls hope to beat these trans athletes unless they are supremely more talented and train much much harder than they do? Hardly fair.

A quote from a piece from the sports editor of the Independant:
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/athletics/caster-semenya-news-gender-martina-navratilova-trans-cas-jonathan-liew-column-a8792861.html%3famp

“But let’s follow this argument all the way through. Let’s say the floodgates do open. Let’s say transgender athletes pour into women’s sport, and let’s say, despite the flimsy and poorly-understood relationship between testosterone and elite performance, they dominate everything they touch. They sweep up Grand Slam tennis titles and cycling world championships. They monopolise the Olympics. They fill our football and cricket and netball teams. Why would that be bad? Really? Imagine the power of a trans child or teenager seeing a trans athlete on the top step of the Olympic podium. In a way, it would be inspiring.

Inspiring for who? For the millions of girls and women (who already tend to opt out of sports early)? Or for the very few trans athletes who already have an advantage, as conceded by the two Connecticut athletes.
Is this really something to strive for??

That article was written this weekend by Jonathon Liew in the Independent. I thought it was a parody piece when I read it. It was a disgraceful, patronising, ill-informed piece of tripe and he is their ''Chief Sports Writer''. He also did the underhand trick of conflating intersex and trans athletes, and basically cheered on female erasure in sports. This was his intro, the tiny-brained fupping idiot...

They’re coming! Over the horizon, they’re coming! They’re coming for your medals and your trophies and your endorsement contracts. They’re coming, with their giant bulging muscles and enormous flapping penises, to ruin everything pure and good. Nothing will ever be the same again. Nothing means anything any more. For the trans people - and let’s call them what they are, men in sports bras - are coming. And all is lost.

''Chill out a bit,'' he said. ''It's only sport.'' Sack him, I say, the absolute gobshyte.

Candamir

klaaaz wrote: »

Thanks for posting that long read!

So we have a dissenting voice(Dr Lee) on the IOC guidelines enacted in 2016 who seems fixated on a certain unknown cyclist and alleges corruption at the top level. Dr Lee was not involved with the IOC decision, correct?

There is nothing to support the following statement posted by the poster and thanked by as of writing 15 other posters

I think you may have been reading a different article to me!
One of Dr Lee's main points is that there is little to no scientific evidence to back up the assertion that there is no advantage, and the evidence that is there to suggest there is an advantage, is ignored!

Regarding the cyclist - said cyclist is one of part of the 'scientific' support that the IOC is using to justify it's stance. Which is why Dr Lee is discusses her. Anybody with iota of scientific education can slearly see the many flaws, not only in using a single case study to 'prove' a point, but the many methodological (if I can even stretch to calling it that) errors in that particular piece of 'research'!

Well, your objection has no basis. Practically most sporting organisations have allowed transsexuals to compete for nearly two decades and they have not won Olympic medals or world championships since then. Again, please note that this observation does not include the broader "transgender athletes", tis quite a distinction.

As alluded to by one of the IOC committee, the decision to allow transgender athletes is as much a social decision as any other reason.
My objection is very much based on science - I know that males who have gone through puberty, even when they are androgen inhibited later, achieve greater height, lung capacity, cardiac output, different biomechanics, and they retain muscle memory. Another (admittedly small) study shows that they retain a muscle advantage even 3 years after medical transition (at which point the follow up stops). I am going to have to see some pretty robust science to change my mind on that, and that science doesn't exist at present.

So go ahead and call me transphobic. I know I am not.

ceadaoin.

klaaaz wrote: »

No I did not, enlighten me which part was specific to your posts? I have not labelled anyone as transphobic who objected to 'trans women compete in female catagories', the area which I have contested is with those who object with transsexuals competing.

As you said earlier, trans people who have undergone surgery have been allowed to compete for years. These people are already a small minority of the trans community. The amount of those who want to compete at elite level in sports must be miniscule. Something like 80% do not have surgery and don't intend to. So that wasn't enough, the requirement for surgery was scrapped. Still that wasn't enough. Now we have people like McKinnon arguing for males to be able to compete without any alterations, surgical or hormonal. In order for female sports to be completely protected then sex segregation must be adhered to. Otherwise, the equality in sports that women fought for and have only had for a short period of time will be gone.

klaaaz

Candamir wrote: »

My objection is very much based on science - I know that males who have gone through puberty, even when they are androgen inhibited later, achieve greater height, lung capacity, cardiac output, different biomechanics, and they retain muscle memory. Another (admittedly small) study shows that they retain a muscle advantage even 3 years after medical transition (at which point the follow up stops). I am going to have to see some pretty robust science to change my mind on that, and that science doesn't exist at present.

So go ahead and call me transphobic. I know I am not.

Can you post sources to backup all that on science? Maybe something from a medical journal who have studied the affects on sport? (similar question to the poster Benjamin D who has not bothered to backup their opinion)

Ceadaoin wrote:

As you said earlier, trans people who have undergone surgery have been allowed to compete for years. These people are already a small minority of the trans community. The amount of those who want to compete at elite level in sports must be miniscule. Something like 80% do not have surgery and don't intend to. So that wasn't enough, the requirement for surgery was scrapped. Still that wasn't enough. Now we have people like McKinnon arguing for males to be able to compete without any alterations, surgical or hormonal. In order for female sports to be completely protected then sex segregation must be adhered to. Otherwise, the equality in sports that women fought for and have only had for a short period of time will be gone.

I agree!

Candamir

klaaaz wrote: »

Can you post sources to backup all that on science? Maybe something from a medical journal who have studied the affects on sport? (similar question to the poster Benjamin D who has not bothered to backup their opinion)

The muscle memory research is included in the linked discussion above.
Gooren L, Bunck M. Transsexuals and competitive sports. Eur J Endocrinol. 2005;151(4):425–429. doi: 10.1530/eje.0.1510425. I think this is the study that I saw quoted re the 3 year muscle mass follow up.
The rest is undisputed scientific fact. Any leaving cert biology text book will confirm it.

I'd also like to see the medical research published in peer reviewed journals that back up your assertion that there is no advantage. You haven't posted any evidence either.

Candamir

klaaaz wrote: »

I agree!

You agree that sex segregation should be adhered to?

klaaaz

Candamir wrote: »

The muscle memory research is included in the linked discussion above.
Gooren L, Bunck M. Transsexuals and competitive sports. Eur J Endocrinol. 2005;151(4):425–429. doi: 10.1530/eje.0.1510425. I think this is the study that I saw quoted re the 3 year muscle mass follow up.
The rest is undisputed scientific fact. Any leaving cert biology text book will confirm it.

I'd also like to see the medical research published in peer reviewed journals that back up your assertion that there is no advantage. You haven't posted any evidence either.

Where is the link for the Bunck study?

What do you think what happens when anti-androgen therapy is applied to the male body? I had a look at anti-androgen therapy for prostate cancer in men which is the same therapy that happens to transitioning MTF transgender people.(extreme loss of testosterone) https://www.cancer.gov/types/prostate/prostate-hormone-therapy-fact-sheet

What are the side effects of hormone therapy for prostate cancer?

Both medical castration and surgical castration greatly reduce the amount of androgens produced by the body. Because androgens are used by many other organs besides the prostate, medical or surgical castration can have a wide range of side effects (3, 19):

Loss of interest in sex (lowered libido)
Erectile dysfunction
Hot flashes
Loss of bone density
Bone fractures
Loss of muscle mass and physical strength
Changes in blood lipids
Insulin resistance
Weight gain
Mood swings
Fatigue
Growth of breast tissue (gynecomastia)
Antiandrogens can cause diarrhea, breast tenderness, nausea, hot flashes, loss of libido, and erectile dysfunction. The antiandrogen flutamide may damage the liver.

Drugs that stop the adrenal glands from making androgens (i.e., the androgen synthesis inhibitors ketoconazole, aminoglutethimide, and abiraterone acetate) can cause diarrhea, itching and rashes, fatigue, erectile dysfunction (with long-term use), and, potentially, liver damage.

This is the same therapy that is applied to transgender athletes before estrogen is applied. Note the loss of bone density, loss of muscle mass and loss of physical strength. When estrogen is applied, those people will not gain any of those attributes again bar the prevention of osteoporosis, they will also gain fat in the normal female form for life. They do not teach anything about transgender medical stuff in leaving cert so you saying so is misleading.

Candamir wrote: »

You agree that sex segregation should be adhered to?

Yes, there is male and female sports.

Candamir

klaaaz wrote: »

Where is the link for the Bunck study?

Seriously? Google is your friend.

What do you think what happens when anti-androgen therapy is applied to the male body? I had a look at anti-androgen therapy for prostate cancer in men which is the same therapy that happens to transitioning MTF transgender people.(extreme loss of testosterone) https://www.cancer.gov/types/prostat...apy-fact-sheet

It's surely not a surprise that hormone therapy for prostate cancer has those effects. Are you trying to imply that elite transgender athletes can be compared to men with prostate cancer?

Do you have a link for the double blind randomised controlled trial comparing these men with similarly matched females in the area of sports performance?
Otherwise I'm not seeing the relevance.

They do not teach anything about transgender medical stuff in leaving cert so you saying so is misleading.

Please explain why what I said is misleading.

Yes, there is male and female sports.

And I agree, sports (in the most part) should be sex segregated. Sex and gender are however, very different things.

El CabaIIo

If you look at running performance from a physiological perspective. It is made up of 3 major components

Aerobic capacity+lactate threshold+running economy= running performance.

Aerobic capacity: The difference between male and female Vo2max is quite large and formed during puberty. Men have almost 40% higher Vo2maxes than women. Larger lungs with higher mitochondrial density means men intake more oxygen and have a higher and more efficient uptake within muscle cells.

Running economy: This is mechanical, neurological and metabolic efficiency. Biological males are more efficient and score much better on running economy. A major factor in this is Q angle. Q angle is the angle between the pelvis and the quads. When females go through puberty, their hips get wider to accomadate child birth and this has a consequence on Q angle as the hips grow wider, the femurs have to internally rotate to compensate and this makes female skelatal alignment less efficient than those who do not go through female puberty.


The truth is that the list could go on and on but no matter what happens or even with testoterone limits down, females who went through female puberty will never be on a level playing with trans or intersex athletes who went through male puberty, the IAAF decision to implement the ruling on testosterone is just a happy medium for them. The reason you probably haven't seen trans athletes dominate the podiums of Olympics since the ruling came down in 2004 is because is down to numbers. A 1:54 biological male 800m runner is still a very rare person when it comes to talent and work ethic. It's equivalent to sub-4:10 for the mile, a time that grade a biological male well into the 99th percentile of athletic ability.

Caster Semenya for instance is a hugely talented athlete whether competing in men's or womens sport and is easily in the top 1% of all athletes on the planet but her ability that might make her a top 1% athlete an open category give her an advantage over the athletes who might be .000001% of the female category. The same can be said with trans athletes who change, if you get an athlete who is in that rarified male air of athletic ability and they go MtF, the advantages bestowed on them from male type puberty mean they will still have an advantage even when competing on testosterone inhibitors at general female levels.

The IAAF ruling on trans athletes isn't perfect, it's more a case of stopping an even bigger number of trans athletes from dominating rather than to stop it altogether, it's a compromise for now. But someday an exceptionally gifted MtF athlete may come along and have restricted levels down to female levels and dominate because of the physical attributes they gained during male puberty and because of missing the implications from female puberty.

It's a numbers game and there is more gifted female athletes out there now than gifted MtF athletes by sheer volume. But a trans athlete will always hold advantages over female competition even when testosterone is limited. The lack of trans athletes winning Olympic golds is more a consequence of how high a level of performance it takes in even biological males to run times similar to female Olympic winning athletes.

Put it this way, last year, only 4 Irish men ran faster than the Womens 10,000m World record. That shows just how much talent and work ethic it requires for even 100% biological males to run faster than the best females.

klaaaz

Candamir wrote: »

Seriously? Google is your friend.

It's your study to back up, bring it to us for all to see?

Candamir wrote: »

It's surely not a surprise that hormone therapy for prostate cancer has those effects. Are you trying to imply that elite transgender athletes can be compared to men with prostate cancer?

Do you have a link for the double blind randomised controlled trial comparing these men with similarly matched females in the area of sports performance?
Otherwise I'm not seeing the relevance.

This just shows an example of the lack of education on the subject. Do you know anything about the medical transition process for transgender people at all ? The first stage of anti-androgen therapy is the same for those prostate cancer patients as it is for MTF transgender people, killing off the testosterone from the testes in the human body.

Candamir wrote: »

Please explain why what I said is misleading.

They do not teach transgender medical transition as part of the leaving cert, why is that hard to understand? It is misleading to say that they do.

ceadaoin.

klaaaz wrote: »

Can you post sources to backup all that on science? Maybe something from a medical journal who have studied the affects on sport? (similar question to the poster Benjamin D who has not bothered to backup their opinion)



I agree!

I know, but what we don't agree on is that it's possible to change sex! Even if a trans athlete sees some reduction in athletic ability after transition, if they are starting from a point so much above any biological female then they still have an advantage. I do think it's clear that Fallon fox , for example, retains enough of her male strength to have this advantage.

I agree there probably just aren't the numbers of transsexuals to pose much of a threat to women's sports. But it's not really about that. It's transgender now, not transsexual. To make a distinction is transphobic. Any male who says they are a woman must be allowed to compete and now there is a push for no testosterone reduction to be required at all. That is absolutely a threat to women's sports.

Candamir

klaaaz wrote: »

It's your study to back up, bring it to us for all to see?

Ok, Im not wasting my time getting into a back and forth with you. Copy the details of the paper I gave you, put it into your search bar, and it should show up.

This just shows an example of the lack of education on the subject. Do you know anything about the medical transition process for transgender people at all ? The first stage of anti-androgen therapy is the same for those prostate cancer patients as it is for MTF transgender people, killing off the testosterone from the testes in the human body.

Explain how what I said shows a lack of education? Your point is mostly irrelevant.

They do not teach transgender medical transition as part of the leaving cert, why is that hard to understand? It is misleading to say that they do.

I didn't say or imply that they do. Where did you get that idea?
I pointed out some of the permanent physical and physiological changes that take place during male puberty. Im sure most of them are mentioned in LC Biology.

klaaaz

Candamir wrote: »

Ok, Im not wasting my time getting into a back and forth with you. Copy the details of the paper I gave you, put it into your search bar, and it should show up.

It's up to you to cite your sources to back up your point, not me.

Candamir wrote:

Explain how what I said shows a lack of education? Your point is mostly irrelevant.

The point is hugely relevant, it's obvious that you do not know what happens when anti-androgen therapy is applied to a male body.

Candamir wrote:

I didn't say or imply that they do. Where did you get that idea?
I pointed out some of the permanent physical and physiological changes that take place during male puberty. Im sure most of them are mentioned in LC Biology.

Your following statement is NOT taught in the Leaving Cert, you mislead us.

Candamir wrote:

The muscle memory research is included in the linked discussion above.
Gooren L, Bunck M. Transsexuals and competitive sports. Eur J Endocrinol. 2005;151(4):425–429. doi: 10.1530/eje.0.1510425. I think this is the study that I saw quoted re the 3 year muscle mass follow up.
The rest is undisputed scientific fact. Any leaving cert biology text book will confirm it.

Candamir

klaaaz wrote: »

It's up to you to cite your sources to back up your point, not me.

Gooren L, Bunck M. Transsexuals and competitive sports. Eur J Endocrinol. 2005;151(4):425–429. doi: 10.1530/eje.0.1510425.

The point is hugely relevant, it's obvious that you do not know what happens when anti-androgen therapy is applied to a male body.

The point is relevant in the realm of hormone treatment for prostate cancer. Im not disputing the effects of anti androgen therapy, but if youre attempting to use medical science to back up your point, you need to do a bit better than comparing men with prostate cancer to elite athletes!

(As an aside, I very much do know what happens)

Your following statement is NOT taught in the Leaving Cert, you mislead us.
Originally Posted by Candamir
The muscle memory research is included in the linked discussion above.
Gooren L, Bunck M. Transsexuals and competitive sports. Eur J Endocrinol. 2005;151(4):425–429. doi: 10.1530/eje.0.1510425. I think this is the study that I saw quoted re the 3 year muscle mass follow up.
The rest is undisputed scientific fact. Any leaving cert biology text book will confirm it.

This is what I said and suggested a basic leaving cert biology book would cover in the main:

"My objection is very much based on science - I know that males who have gone through puberty, even when they are androgen inhibited later, achieve greater height, lung capacity, cardiac output, different biomechanics, and they retain muscle memory"

Please learn to read, critically.

Dante7

Klaaaz is not interested in any evidence or cited scientific review that you provide. They are just sealioning. Demanding that you provide 100% empirical proof for every tiny aspect of your position, while providing no proof to support their assertions. They have no interest in legitimate debate. They are just trying to waste your time. You could line up the top 100 biologists, geneticists, endocrinologists, all agreeing with what you are saying and Klaaaz would just ignore it and deflect. It's like trying to debate a religious fundamentalist, they have no interest in ever changing their mind, regardless of evidence. Just put them on ignore.

Meanwhile, there is a Panorama special on BBC1 at 8:30 tonight about transgender kids. There will be experts giving their scientific view on that subject, but the likes of Klaaaz will just ignore it.

Candamir

Dante7 wrote: »

Klaaaz is not interested in any evidence or cited scientific review that you provide. They are just sealioning. Demanding that you provide 100% empirical proof for every tiny aspect of your position, while providing no proof to support their assertions. They have no interest in legitimate debate. They are just trying to waste your time. You could line up the top 100 biologists, geneticists, endocrinologists, all agreeing with what you are saying and Klaaaz would just ignore it and deflect. It's like trying to debate a religious fundamentalist, they have no interest in ever changing their mind, regardless of evidence. Just put them on ignore.

Meanwhile, there is a Panorama special on BBC1 at 8:30 tonight about transgender kids. There will be experts giving their scientific view on that subject, but the likes of Klaaaz will just ignore it.

Sealioning? I'll have to look that one up
But of course you're right. I think I'll wait for an actual response to any of the points I or others have made before heading down that rabbit hole again.

I'll be sure to catch that program too - thanks for the heads up.

klaaaz

Candamir wrote: »

Gooren L, Bunck M. Transsexuals and competitive sports. Eur J Endocrinol. 2005;151(4):425–429. doi: 10.1530/eje.0.1510425.

Where is your link to such a study, you know a web link?

Candamir wrote: »

The point is relevant in the realm of hormone treatment for prostate cancer. Im not disputing the effects of anti androgen therapy, but if youre attempting to use medical science to back up your point, you need to do a bit better than comparing men with prostate cancer to elite athletes!

(As an aside, I very much do know what happens)

Oh yes, medical science which is highly relevant and absent from this debate from the objectors to transgender people in sport.
Read again, anti-androgen therapy has the same affects in cancer stricken men and MTF transgenders on their first stage of hormone therapy. Why are you disputing this??

Candamir

Imagine life without hyperlinks. Some people would be completely lost it would seem.

klaaaz

Dante7 wrote: »

Klaaaz is not interested in any evidence or cited scientific review that you provide. They are just sealioning. Demanding that you provide 100% empirical proof for every tiny aspect of your position, while providing no proof to support their assertions. They have no interest in legitimate debate. They are just trying to waste your time. You could line up the top 100 biologists, geneticists, endocrinologists, all agreeing with what you are saying and Klaaaz would just ignore it and deflect. It's like trying to debate a religious fundamentalist, they have no interest in ever changing their mind, regardless of evidence. Just put them on ignore.

Meanwhile, there is a Panorama special on BBC1 at 8:30 tonight about transgender kids. There will be experts giving their scientific view on that subject, but the likes of Klaaaz will just ignore it.

Dante7 spouting nonsense like a typical driveby as usual. The BBC1 documentary has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Still waiting for the scientific backup from "the top 100 biologists, geneticists, endocrinologists" to detail what this poster said along with their thankers who are largely silent

Benjamin D wrote:

See here's a perfect example of trying to conflate radical bigoty with normal, science-based objections to an agenda-driven and extremely damaging bit of social engineering. This is fundamentally not about trans rights, it's about women's rights to compete in and enjoy sports. This right was hard fought and only becoming a mainstream occurrence in the very recent past for many sports.

No matter what you say, or how many times you say it, a MTF transgender person is and always will be biologically a man, and retains residual advantages over women that will never be negated by testosterone monitoring.

StinkyMunkey

It's simply unfair for a male to compete in female sports. I've zero issue with people who are transgender, I'm indifferent to what people want to identify themselves as.

Regardless of what that time between your ears is telling you, if your born a male you will die a male biologically speaking. If you compete in woman's sports as a transgender, you are still a male competing in a woman's sport and no amount of transitioning is going to change the fact you are a biological male.

When transgender females start winning in male sports get back to me, until the gtfo.

Wibbs

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

When transgender females start winning in male sports get back to me, until the gtfo.

Actually that could happen just as easily. Testosterone is a very strong hormone and can cause some large physical changes. If you look at female to male trans folks they tend to look very masculine. In many ways it's easier to turn a post puberty female body into an adult male body than the other way around.

El CabaIIo

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually that could happen just as easily. Testosterone is a very strong hormone and can cause some large physical changes. If you look at female to male trans folks they tend to look very masculine. In many ways it's easier to turn a post puberty female body into an adult male body than the other way around.

I agree with you on the last point but we will never see a FtM athlete dominate the mens division or get close. A good example of this is probably jarmila kratochvílová who is the women's 800m World record holder. Here's a pic of her



Jarmila was a product of Eastern bloc state sponsored doping program in the 80's and was loaded with anabolic steroids and testosterone in huge dosages, her diary with all info on dosages and training is out there for anyone who is interested. Jarmila was literally one ofthe fastest and most talented female athlete(she was a one in a couple hundred million level in female performance and talent) in the whole of the World before they started her on the doping program and she gained very masculine features and her performances were off the charts when on the juice(that 800 record is the most stupid record in the books).

But she still only ran 1:53 when the mens record was 1:41 for 800m. Women get much more benefit from testosterone than men but the gap will never be closed no matter how much they take because these hormones are at their most powerful in a persons teens and as the old saying goes "you can't put in what nature left out". In the same was you cannot change a male into a natural born biological female, you can't change a female into a natural born biological male.

Physical features may change more but the absolute biology is still distant even when manipulated. I don't think there will ever be a time where it's possible to change nature to that degree, techology might advance it closer but never to absolute terms I think.

StinkyMunkey

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually that could happen just as easily. Testosterone is a very strong hormone and can cause some large physical changes. If you look at female to male trans folks they tend to look very masculine. In many ways it's easier to turn a post puberty female body into an adult male body than the other way around.

I won't disagree that testosterone is a factor, it plays a big part. But that doesn't change the fact you are a biological male competing against females.

And biologically males are stronger than females.

I'm not bashing trans people, I'm simply stating that it's unfair that males are competing against females. Why should an individuals compulsion to identify as a female punish female athletes? From what I've seen personally, trans males competing in female events either place very highly or win.

You can surgically alter your body/appearance and try and alter your bodies chemistry but that doesn't change the fact you are a biological male competing against females.

Female athletes should not be punished because of how an individual identifies themselves when born a male.

Ultros

https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/25/transgender-high-school-track/

"Two biologically male high school students are dominating the 55-meter dash in girls’ track and field in Connecticut, but they don’t rank among the state’s top 100 male competitors for the same race, records show.

Transgender high school juniors Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood’s personal records for the 55-meter dash place high in female competition, but their times aren’t as notable in boys’ competition.

Miller and Yearwood’s personal records for the 55-meter dash clock in at 6.91 seconds and 7.01 seconds, respectively, ranking them first and second in the state’s female competition, and third and seventh nationally.

Miller and Yearwood rank 120th and 195th, respectively, against their male competitors for the state’s 55-meter dash, DyeStat records show."

Danzy

Ultros wrote: »

https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/25/transgender-high-school-track/

"Two biologically male high school students are dominating the 55-meter dash in girls’ track and field in Connecticut, but they don’t rank among the state’s top 100 male competitors for the same race, records show.

Transgender high school juniors Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood’s personal records for the 55-meter dash place high in female competition, but their times aren’t as notable in boys’ competition.

Miller and Yearwood’s personal records for the 55-meter dash clock in at 6.91 seconds and 7.01 seconds, respectively, ranking them first and second in the state’s female competition, and third and seventh nationally.

Miller and Yearwood rank 120th and 195th, respectively, against their male competitors for the state’s 55-meter dash, DyeStat records show."

Those 2 lads are not far off women's record times for that event.

Given the age and times being going for the Olympics in 2024 and 2028 with medal prospects is a reasonable goal.

Terry will be running at a national level in a year at this rate.

Make a million.