Biological males in women's sport

suicide_circus

seamus wrote: »

Blah blah blah.

Read it again.

You can't prove that this woman won because of physiology. And not because of other factors, like you know, actually training.

A single instance of a trans person winning a relatively niche event does not rationally follow that she won because she was trans.

All the people clambering to use this as proof of an unfair advantage are exposing their own bias in this.

there are four lights

Zorya

seamus wrote: »

Blah blah blah.

Read it again.

You can't prove that this woman won because of physiology. And not because of other factors, like you know, actually training.

A single instance of a trans person winning a relatively niche event does not rationally follow that she won because she was trans.

All the people clambering to use this as proof of an unfair advantage are exposing their own bias in this.

So there can never be a standard of proof, the factors are too variable - it could never be known whether it is training or prepubescent biological development or even if there is performance impairment due to cross sex hormones? But in the meantime, in th absence of years of observation and assesment, lop the trans athletes in with the women and cheer exuberantly when they they win because it's the right-on thing to do?

I think it is very unfair.

Zorya

And also if you take it to its logical conclusion lopping the boys who identify as female into female games should start from early childhood. That would be way before any puberty blockers should be used, if we don't want to be entirely monstrous to children. And cross sex hormones should not start until 16 at least from as far as I can figure out - so we are talking sports among children up to older teenage years. So female children up to puberty (at least) could be seriously disadvantaged in the biological course of events by competing in running, swimming, etc etc against children in boys bodies. The community games would be a right laugh if that sort of thing took off...nonetheless it is the logical conclusion.

jmayo

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Just after reading an article about a transgender cyclist in NZ who won a womens race after competing as a man only 3 weeks ago. In the men's version of the race last year, this person finished 35th with a time that was still 10 seconds faster than the women's winner. Now here they are winning the women's event . How is this fair? Does anyone actually think this should be allowed?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12002309

Here is an article specifically about the difference between the sexes when it comes to cycling. How can 3 weeks change any of this? don't even think 3 years of transition is going to change skeletal structure, lung size or blood volume

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/fitness/cycling-and-gender-how-and-why-male-and-female-cyclists-need-to-train-differently-344365
...

If only Lance Armstrong had thought of this earlier he could still be competing, well in womens events anyway.

seamus

FTA69 wrote: »

Taking one look at that person who won the cycling it's clear that they retain their male physique and with a male physique comes advantages that have been outlined by Wibbs. It's preposterous, and you can be sure that every female competitor in that race will feel cheated but is probably too afraid to say it in case they get denounced by the mob that tends to circle around these issues.

"Based on a photo of this person, I can say with absolute confidence, that despite my lack of qualifications in any areas relevant to this discussion, that she definitely won because she's trans".

Says everything really.

How do we know that men generally outperform women in sport? Data. Oodles of data. Testing, observing, collating.

How do we know that trans women generally outperform non-trans women? Well, we don't. We don't have enough data.

So if a man were to beat a woman in a competition where men generally outperform women, we can make a reasonable observation that his gender made at least some level of difference. Because the data suggests it should.

If a trans woman beats a woman in such a competition, we cannot reasonably claim that her gender made a difference. Because we have insufficient data to make that observation.

If you make that observation, then you are being irrational. You are making claims for which you have no evidence.

Anyone who thinks we do have this data, basically just doesn't recognise transgender or is completely ignorant about what transitioning actually is.

Zorya

seamus wrote: »

"Based on a photo of this person, I can say with absolute confidence, that despite my lack of qualifications in any areas relevant to this discussion, that she definitely won because she's trans".

Says everything really.

How do we know that men generally outperform women in sport? Data. Oodles of data. Testing, observing, collating.

How do we know that trans women generally outperform non-trans women? Well, we don't. We don't have enough data.

So if a man were to beat a woman in a competition where men generally outperform women, we can make a reasonable observation that his gender made at least some level of difference. Because the data suggests it should.

If a trans woman beats a woman in such a competition, we cannot reasonably claim that her gender made a difference. Because we have insufficient data to make that observation.

If you make that observation, then you are being irrational. You are making claims for which you have no evidence.

Anyone who thinks we do have this data, basically just doesn't recognise transgender or is completely ignorant about what transitioning actually is.

If you were head of an international sports body that makes loads of money on the backs of sports and athletics and you could see this coming down the line - as it has been for a good few years - then it would have been a good idea to invest quite a bit of the money made on your sport into excellent, top level, scientific Research, whereby transathletes times and performances etc were monitored and assessed over long periods of time and in variable circumstances so that actual verifiable and repeatable data could have been collected to ascertain the most precise scientific position. Blood hormone tests and bone density tests haphazardly produced in lieu of such rigorous research, lopping in trans athletes with women in high level sports and changing categories to be politically correct in the absence of empirical long term data is negligent, at best.

FutureGuy

seamus wrote: »

You can't prove that. It's pure opinion.

Idiotic post.

seamus

Zorya wrote: »

So there can never be a standard of proof, the factors are too variable - it could never be known whether it is training or prepubescent biological development or even if there is performance impairment due to cross sex hormones?

Right. As is the same for any athlete. Michael Phelps has a physiology that provides him with an advantage over other competitors, but this is incidental, it's not something that can be tracked and measured as a specific grouping. Same for any individual competitor - each has a unique combination of physical, mental and training experiences that makes them the athlete they are. Some things can be grouped & tracked for trends, such as gender, race, nationality, etc. Other things can't.

Luckily trans peoples' performance can be tracked and measured and should be so tracked and measured. Not even for the purpose of sports statistics but so that we see what the long-term outcomes and trends are for transitioned people.

But until then we're in a grey area.

But in the meantime, in th absence of years of observation and assesment, lop the trans athletes in with the women and cheer exuberantly when they they win because it's the right-on thing to do?

No, because it's the right thing to do. Because there is no evidence-based reasoning for segregating trans athletes.
If trans women start dominating women's sports, then we can press the alarm button and start asking questions.

But that's not happening and there's no sign of impending doom, so this seems like nothing more than a moral panic from the perpetually outraged.

Omackeral

seamus wrote: »

1.How do we know that men generally outperform women in sport?
Data. Oodles of data. Testing, observing, collating.

True.

seamus wrote: »

2.How do we know that trans women generally outperform non-trans women?
Well, we don't. We don't have enough data.

Revert to point 1.

ohnonotgmail

Omackeral wrote: »

True.



Revert to point 1.

what data do we actually have?

FTA69

seamus wrote: »

"Based on a photo of this person, I can say with absolute confidence, that despite my lack of qualifications in any areas relevant to this discussion, that she definitely won because she's trans".

Says everything really.

How do we know that men generally outperform women in sport? Data. Oodles of data. Testing, observing, collating.

How do we know that trans women generally outperform non-trans women? Well, we don't. We don't have enough data.

So if a man were to beat a woman in a competition where men generally outperform women, we can make a reasonable observation that his gender made at least some level of difference. Because the data suggests it should.

If a trans woman beats a woman in such a competition, we cannot reasonably claim that her gender made a difference. Because we have insufficient data to make that observation.

If you make that observation, then you are being irrational. You are making claims for which you have no evidence.

Anyone who thinks we do have this data, basically just doesn't recognise transgender or is completely ignorant about what transitioning actually is.

Transwomen are biologically male and retain a lot of physical male characteristics such as bone density and umpteen other factors. If you’re suggesting that the person who won that cycling rate doesn’t retain Male characteristics then you’re off your head mate.

Is That It?

Sucks for women but great for men. If you're average in the male field you just claim you identify as a woman and go on to dominate the women's field.

ohnonotgmail

FTA69 wrote: »

Transwomen are biologically male and retain a lot of physical male characteristics such as bone density and umpteen other factors. If you’re suggesting that the person who won that cycling rate doesn’t retain Male characteristics then you’re off your head mate.

What hormone treatment has that woman had? what effect does it have on her physiologically?

Is That It?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

What hormone treatment has that woman had? what effect does it have on her physiologically?

He's a man who had surgery and hormone treatment not a woman.

Omackeral

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what data do we actually have?

See the post directly below yours.

FTA69 wrote: »

Transwomen are biologically male and retain a lot of physical male characteristics such as bone density and umpteen other factors. If you’re suggesting that the person who won that cycling rate doesn’t retain Male characteristics then you’re off your head mate.

Wibbs

seamus wrote: »

Blah blah blah.

I bow to the quality of your stunning debating skills.

You can't prove that this woman won because of physiology.

Sod this nonsense for a game of soldiers. *trigger warning* physiologically this is not a woman. If a person wants to transition I say fair enough, off you go. They can present and should be accepted as a woman/man in society. However, physiologically they are more the gender they started out as than not(actual intersex folks can be a grey area). Doubly so in the case of a male to female transition. In a female to male where the individual has blocked female hormones and takes biologically male levels of testosterone which increases bone density, muscle mass and lowers fat, more male bodies are produced. You can grow a skeleton and muscles far easier than you can shrink them. Which brings its own issues in sport. Sporting bodies ban anabolic hormones because of the huge advantage they offer, yet a blind eye is in play for male to female trans athletes?

A single instance of a trans person winning a relatively niche event does not rationally follow that she won because she was trans.

I wouldn't expect everyone reading to know about the sport of cycling, but the winner's jersey is a UCI World Champion's one for cycling. QV the banner above the podium. That's top of the heap. Hardly "niche".



Let's go "gender blind" for a moment. The winner is a few inches taller than the runners up. Broader too, male hip/waist ratio, bigger muscles. Simply more massive. No, not an advantage, at all at all.

Anyone who thinks we do have this data, basically just doesn't recognise transgender or is completely ignorant about what transitioning actually is.

You seem all too happy to display your ideologically biased ignorance on basic gender physiology.

All the people clambering to use this as proof of an unfair advantage are exposing their own bias in this.

And I'm really bloody tired of this nonsense trotted out as a defence. More like an attack and an attempt to shut down any debate on the matter.

ohnonotgmail

Omackeral wrote: »

See the post directly below yours.

that is one persons opinion. It is not data. You know, actual proper data.

seamus

It's a mistake to assume that a trans woman is just a man in a dress.

Fun fact; the first crash test dummies were all based on an average man. It was assumed that the physics which occurred in a crash to this dummy, would just scale up or down for women and children, that safety equipment which was safe for the "average" man would therefore be equally safe for the "average" human.

When someone decided to actually create representative dummies of the latter, they realised their assumptions were completely wrong, and these groups were affected quite differently than intended when using the equipment. It also became clear that the "average" man dummy was woefully inadequate for the male population and larger and smaller male dummies were required to refine the quality of safety equipment.

This is the same thing. Assuming that whatever data has been gathered for male athletes just translates directly over to transwomen, is a mistake. You can't even assume it's "quite good" or "pretty close".

Come back when we have 10 or 20 years worth of data on the physiological effects of transitioning and things might be clearer.

It may be the case that trans competitors will only be permitted on "open" events if they have transitioned before the age of 18. Or we may find that trans competitors in general are fine provided that strict rules are maintained. Or we may find that trans competitors have a natural advantage and should be segregated.

But until we have this information & given the general lack of trans competitors winning competitions, there is nothing to be gained in excluding trans competitors.

Omackeral

Wibbs wrote: »

I bow to the quality of your stunning debating skills.

Sod this nonsense for a game of soldiers. *trigger warning* physiologically this is not a woman. If a person wants to transition I say fair enough, off you go. They can present and should be accepted as a woman/man in society. However, physiologically they are more the gender they started out as than not(actual intersex folks can be a grey area). Doubly so in the case of a male to female transition. In a female to male where the individual has blocked female hormones and takes biologically male levels of testosterone which increases bone density, muscle mass and lowers fat, more male bodies are produced. You can grow a skeleton and muscles far easier than you can shrink them. Which brings its own issues in sport. Sporting bodies ban anabolic hormones because of the huge advantage they offer, yet a blind eye is in play for male to female trans athletes?


I wouldn't expect everyone reading to know about the sport of cycling, but the winner's jersey is a UCI World Champion's one for cycling. QV the banner above the podium. That's top of the heap. Hardly "niche".



Let's go "gender blind" for a moment. The winner is a few inches taller than the runners up. Broader too, male hip/waist ratio, bigger muscles. Simply more massive. No, not an advantage, at all at all.

You seem all too happy to display your ideologically biased ignorance on basic gender physiology.

And I'm really bloody tired of this nonsense trotted out as a defence. More like an attack and an attempt to shut down any debate on the matter.

That whole post hurt my feelings, ergo it's moot.

ohnonotgmail

Wibbs wrote: »

I wouldn't expect everyone reading to know about the sport of cycling, but the winner's jersey is a UCI World Champion's one for cycling. QV the banner above the podium. That's top of the heap. Hardly "niche".

Its an over 35s event so not really top of the heap.

Is That It?

seamus wrote: »

It's a mistake to assume that a trans woman is just a man in a dress.

Lipstick on a pig. This man is not a woman and never will be.

Wibbs

seamus wrote: »

It's a mistake to assume that a trans woman is just a man in a dress.

Fun fact; the first crash test dummies were all based on an average man. It was assumed that the physics which occurred in a crash to this dummy, would just scale up or down for women and children, that safety equipment which was safe for the "average" man would therefore be equally safe for the "average" human.

When someone decided to actually create representative dummies of the latter, they realised their assumptions were completely wrong, and these groups were affected quite differently than intended when using the equipment. It also became clear that the "average" man dummy was woefully inadequate for the male population and larger and smaller male dummies were required to refine the quality of safety equipment.

That you use this example in the defence of your position is irony of the highest order.

PlaneSpeeking

Wibbs wrote: »

I bow to the quality of your stunning debating skills.

Sod this nonsense for a game of soldiers. *trigger warning* physiologically this is not a woman. If a person wants to transition I say fair enough, off you go. They can present and should be accepted as a woman/man in society. However, physiologically they are more the gender they started out as than not(actual intersex folks can be a grey area). Doubly so in the case of a male to female transition. In a female to male where the individual has blocked female hormones and takes biologically male levels of testosterone which increases bone density, muscle mass and lowers fat, more male bodies are produced. You can grow a skeleton and muscles far easier than you can shrink them. Which brings its own issues in sport. Sporting bodies ban anabolic hormones because of the huge advantage they offer, yet a blind eye is in play for male to female trans athletes?


I wouldn't expect everyone reading to know about the sport of cycling, but the winner's jersey is a UCI World Champion's one for cycling. QV the banner above the podium. That's top of the heap. Hardly "niche".



Let's go "gender blind" for a moment. The winner is a few inches taller than the runners up. Broader too, male hip/waist ratio, bigger muscles. Simply more massive. No, not an advantage, at all at all.

You seem all too happy to display your ideologically biased ignorance on basic gender physiology.

And I'm really bloody tired of this nonsense trotted out as a defence. More like an attack and an attempt to shut down any debate on the matter.

Btw - if the person in question wishes me to address her as "she, her, etc" then absolutely fine.

I will call her a woman to her face should she ask. I will acknowledge she has the right to "identify" as whatever gender she wishes.

That's a social thing.

But effectively cheating at an event where you are using an unfair advantage to win is just not acceptable.

It's basically doping but with natural substances, not steroids. And ergo wrong.

Cuddlesworth

Omackeral wrote: »

True.
Revert to point 1.

Largely as a result of their vastly reduced testosterone levels, transgender women lose strength, speed, and virtually every other component of athletic ability


It should be noted that these results are only valid for distance running. Transgender women are taller and larger, on average, than 46,XX women (Gooren and Bunck, 2004, 425-429), and these differences probably would result in performance advantages in events in which height and strength are obvious precursors to success - events such as the shot put and the high jump. Conversely, transgender women will probably have a notable disadvantage in sports such as gymnastics, where greater size is an impediment to optimal performance

Do you look at that picture, or the trans weightlifting in Aus and see a person the same size as the rest or not? Is being taller a defining factor in a persons athletic competitiveness?

Omackeral

seamus wrote: »

It's a mistake to assume that a trans woman is just a man in a dress.

It's a mistake to ignore that a transwoman doesn't retain male physical characteristics.

seamus wrote: »

Fun fact; the first crash test dummies were all....
This is the same thing.

Except it's not. We're not talking about inanimate objects here.

seamus wrote: »

Come back when we have 10 or 20 years worth of data on the physiological effects of transitioning and things might be clearer.

But until we have this information & given the general lack of trans competitors winning competitions, there is nothing to be gained in excluding trans competitors.

Cool, we'll just let a full generation of hard working girls get obliterated possibly unfairly but sure it's only two decades.

Zorya

seamus wrote: »

Come back when we have 10 or 20 years worth of data on the physiological effects of transitioning and things might be clearer.

.

20 or 30 years is a long time for women to be competing against transwomen if it is proven in several decades to be disadvantageous to them. It's potentially a form of extreme gender bias that would put past racial and gender biases to some shame. Do you think that possibility is worth the risk?

Omackeral

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that is one persons opinion. It is not data. You know, actual proper data.

Opinion? You gonna level that at me? All it takes is an opinion that you now identify as a girl and you can be one. So that's not exactly the greatest retort.

wexie

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Btw - if the person in question wishes me to address her as "she, her, etc" then absolutely fine.

I will call her a woman to her face should she ask. I will acknowledge she has the right to "identify" as whatever gender she wishes.

I think there's a world of difference between accepting that someone wants to live as a woman, would like to be treated as a woman, addressed as a woman......aaaaand actually believing they are a woman.

PlaneSpeeking

Omackeral wrote: »

It's a mistake to ignore that a transwoman doesn't retain male physical characteristics.



Except it's not. We're not talking about inanimate objects here.



Cool, we'll just let a full generation of hard working girls get obliterated possibly unfairly but sure it's only two decades.

Plus the very second you TRY to obtain statistics such as these you'll be shouted down, career sacrificed on the altar of political correctness and nothing will ever be done.

Most men are physically stronger than me - makes no oods, I'm not competing against them in a physical battle.

However, physiologically male competitors are routinely beating female competitors due to that dirty word we can't say any more (psst... nature).

ArrBee

seamus wrote: »

Blah blah blah.

Read it again.

You can't prove that this woman won because of physiology. And not because of other factors, like you know, actually training.

A single instance of a trans person winning a relatively niche event does not rationally follow that she won because she was trans.

All the people clambering to use this as proof of an unfair advantage are exposing their own bias in this.

Yeah, I know what your say.
It's ridiculous to suggest that Lance Armstrong won because he was doping.
I reckon he didn't even turn on his drug fuelled turbo boosters. He was cycle only within the confines of natural ability and training the whole time!