Transgender man wins women's 100 yd and 400 yd freestyle races.

Podge_irl · 19-07-2022 10:46AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119357816#Comment_119357816

It is the benchmark in many sports yes, but there is no universal test.

Saying those who meet the criteria to compete should be allowed compete is tautological pointlessness. The question is what the rules should be, not whether they should be applied.

You have repeatedly stated that in non-elite sports there should be no restriction, and in elite sports transwomen should have had to have hormone treatment. I am merely pointing out that that is not a consensus view (as we can see from Overheal's view that there should be no segregation full stop).

19-07-2022 10:51AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119357816#Comment_119357816

If biological females are legitimately failing testosterone tests (in the sense that they're not taking testosterone supplements) and have naturally elevated testosterone, then there's a question to be asked about why they are not being included. If it's natural, then I'm unsure why they would be rejected. Of course, if someone has a kind of tumour that artificially elevates their testosterone (giving an added advantage), then they may be rejected to compete because of that.

But no matter what way we resolve the legitimate questions above, biological males on testosterone are still biological males - and so should not compete with women, no matter how women's testosterone issues are resolved.

They are mutually exclusive questions that you are disingenuously trying to combine as one issue.

Bannasidhe · 19-07-2022 10:52AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119357788#Comment_119357788

Yah - I'm saying Viking shield maidens took puberty blockers and that's how come they could beat monks at ice hockey/ 🙄

Don't be a fool Astro.

How can sport be 'fair' when you have people like Phelps and his lactic acid advantage? No one seems to want to address that.

Reality is a tiny percentage of the population are born with certain physical 'advantages' that makes their body ideal for competing in a certain sport. Even fewer of them have the mental abilities to use those physical advantages to full capacity. Less again have access to the training facilities, medical support, financial backing to be able to compete. What 'fairness'? Fairness in sport is an illusion. Every single person who competes at elite level is there because they were in a position to exploit a whole heap of advantages.

However, inclusion - meaning those who fit the criteria are not barred for ideological reason - is possible. If biological women are expected to conform to certain hormone levels (and they are), than any trans woman who also conforms to those hormone levels should be allowed to compete.

Bannasidhe · 19-07-2022 10:57AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119357846#Comment_119357846

I never claimed there is a consensus - not do I speak for any other poster (as no other poster speaks for me).

I am stating my position based on the current situation. If the powers that be insist that conforming a certain hormone level is how an elite female athlete's gender is verified than unless that is equally applied to trans women their exclusion is ideological.

Discuss Overheal's view with them.

manonboard · 19-07-2022 11:01AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119357879#Comment_119357879

May i ask why you think something like a tumor (a natural growth of cells that is unusual, and SOMETIMES problematic) should be ground for rejection?

I can understand artificial hormones etc as a cause of rejection, but a natural difference in a body of any type? That seems really odd to me. The type of people who have natural advantages are often at elite level of play. eg: I'm a climber with a +5 ape index (length of arms to body height ratio), some top at athletes have a +10 ape index and extra long torso length. These are way out side the realm of averages and standard. Why would a tumor be any different than extra long arms/legs?

Bannasidhe · 19-07-2022 11:02AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119357879#Comment_119357879

I am being disingenuous says the poster who states "biological males on testosterone are still biological males" - well yes, they are. Who is disputing that utterly irrelevant statement?

They are also not who are being discussed. We are discussing people who, far from being on testosterone are literally having their testosterone reduced.

19-07-2022 11:03AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119357942#Comment_119357942

I meant to say "testosterone blockers". Maybe my coffee wasn't strong enough this morning.

Insert "blockers" after that word and the rest of my post remains 100% accurate.

Bannasidhe · 19-07-2022 11:08AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119357954#Comment_119357954

Standing by your desire to bar a biological woman who has the 'wrong' kind of tumour are you?

.... hmmmmm.... so much for 'fairness' and 'protecting biological women'. ...

19-07-2022 11:10AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119357977#Comment_119357977

It's a complicated question.

If an athlete has developed a tumour that increases testosterone production, and it elevates their performance more than they otherwise would have performed, there's a very powerful argument that she (or he) should not be allowed to compete.

I'm not qualified to answer that question but, on the face of it, it seems to be a perfectly legitimate argument.

Podge_irl · 19-07-2022 11:18AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119357913#Comment_119357913

Some use hormone levels, others do not. I do not know, ultimately, how World Rugby or FINA plan to enforce their rulings, but both have (quite transparently) discussed the issue and decided that hormone levels alone are insufficient. Yes, those on blockers/cross hormones experience a drop in performance but what studies have been done suggest it is at best only about half of the pre-existing advantage after 2 years. Whether the blockers "work" or not is not a binary issue.

Also they don't verify gender, they verify sex.

astrofool · 19-07-2022 11:30AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119357883#Comment_119357883

You need to be clear that you are championing inclusiveness over fairness in that case.

And understand that others are arguing from a position of fairness (and that most sports bodies rule along lines of fairness rather than inclusivity when it becomes an either/or option).

Using the rules for a category as an argument falls flat as they can and will be updated (it was "testosterone needs to be below X for Y time", where X and Y kept on changing, now it has added "must not have gone through male puberty" as a criteria).

Now, if it was found that setting the hormone level for a trans-woman who has gone through male puberty to half the maximum allowed for females with an XY chromosome who haven't gone through a male puberty, levelled the playing field, would that be discrimination still? (the corollary of which would be that females would be allowed to take hormones during puberty for those set of gains, which is understandably not desirable from a health perspective).

Bannasidhe · 19-07-2022 11:33AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119358028#Comment_119358028

That statement would hold water if the test was only, ever, referred to a "biological sex test" - which it isn't.

Why?

Because some sporting organisations do not bar trans women who transitioned before puberty from competing at elite levels - they would fail a "biological sex test".

FINA, in their policy doc here https://resources.fina.org/fina/document/2022/06/19/525de003-51f4-47d3-8d5a-716dac5f77c7/FINA-INCLUSION-POLICY-AND-APPENDICES-FINAL-.pdf clearly state Trans gender women can compete if

"They are androgen sensitive but had male puberty suppressed beginning at Tanner Stage 2 or before age 12, whichever is later, and they have since continuously maintained their testosterone levels in serum (or plasma) below 2.5 nmol/L." (p7)

FINA do not ban Trans Women from competing at elite level, or setting official records, if that trans woman had male puberty blocked before the age of 12 and their testosterone levels meet a certain criteria.

Edit to add World Rugby's policy position:

Transgender women who transitioned pre-puberty and have not experienced the biological effects of testosterone during puberty and adolescence can play women's rugby (subject to confirmation of medical treatment and the timing thereof) https://www.world.rugby/the-game/player-welfare/guidelines/transgender/women

BattleCorp · 19-07-2022 11:35AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119357749#Comment_119357749

Why do you think sport is one of the battle fronts? Answer that for me please.

Bannasidhe · 19-07-2022 11:44AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119358098#Comment_119358098

I am arguing that fairness in elite sport when athletes like Phelps and his 'natural advantage' is feted, while Semenya is punished for her's is already a non- starter.

Do you believe, all factors such as physical advantage, access to training/medical/dietary/financial support etc being considered, that elite sport is fair?

Because honestly, if you do there is no point us two continuing to discuss this as we will never agree on that basic premise.

19-07-2022 11:56AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119358163#Comment_119358163

So your argument is that elite sport is unfair, so let's make it even more unfair by allowing biological males into women's sport?

That's a truly dreadful argument.

plodder · 19-07-2022 11:59AM

How can sport be 'fair' when you have people like Phelps and his lactic acid advantage? No one seems to want to address that.

It seems like the definition of "fair" here is that every natural advantage should be equalised and the result of every event or competition would be essentially random. ie because Michael Phelps has huge shoulders and feet, then he has to swim handicapped with extra weight or something, to slow him down to the same speed as everyone else.

But, that's not what "fair" means at all. It means that you establish a category with certain rules and it's expected that the people with all the natural advantage from their genetics and also how hard they are prepared to train, while within the rules, will rise to the top.

While there are some handicapped sporting events for humans, there aren't many, and that's probably because there would be little interest in them. People want to see who is the best, the fastest, the strongest etc. The most natural category is biological sex, not gender and certainly not skin colour. Sex is the single most important difference between humans when it comes to sport. So, that difference needs to be preserved in top level competition, whatever other innovations are considered.

Bannasidhe · 19-07-2022 12:11PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119358124#Comment_119358124

Because those opposed to trans women living their lives as women believe by screaming about fairness in sport they can make headway.

They know that people (tbh usually but not exclusively men) will rabble rhubarb rabble about 'biological men' competing against 'biological women' without bothering to inform themselves as they really don't care a fig about women's sports in the first place. This has been admitted in this very thread.

In their minds they see someone the size of Jonah Lomu in a frock tackling someone the size of Natalie Portman. But never consider that in Women's rugby players are often tackled by someone literally double their size, they don't consider it because even if they think 'girls' should be playing a 'man's sport' they never watch it beyond an occasional international on the telly.

Their pearl clutching about toilets is currently spectacularly back-firing on them. Mainly as biological women question what exactly the anti-trans brigade think happens in toilets - apparently men continually masturbate in public toilets, while women are washing period blood soaked clothes in restaurant toilet sinks. I am nearly 60 years old. I menstruated for over 30 years. I have lived in many countries on many continents - I have never seen anyone wash bloody clothes in the sink of a public toilet. I am not alone in this.

They did try to open a new battle front with, of all things, ballet. But the ballet world hit back fast and strong with a pirouette to the B.S being spouted by people who had never stood on pointe in their lives. Photos of biologically female ballerinas holding male ballet dancers over their heads with style, grace, and easy spoke volumes - as did all male productions of Swan Lake.

Wibbs · 19-07-2022 12:11PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119357700#Comment_119357700

I hate to break it to you but it was Overheal who brought up the Game Of Thrones/Vikings TV version of the "medieval". The fact remains and throughout your so called historian's take(which has a current cultural bias of its own) that women were physically weaker on average than men and by quite the margin and remain so.

These clear and obvious differences were recognised throughout history. The Romans had gladiatrix' but they fought other women(usually as a faux combat) or dwarves. They were a titillating sideshow for the crowds armed with sword, shin protectors, in loincloths, minus helmets to show off their fashionable hairdos. In later European late medieval trial by combats over legal matters women sometimes faught against men(usually husband and wife). However the same clear and obvious differences between the sexes were allowed for and the men were made to fight from a pit so only their torsos were above ground, while the women had free movement above ground.

Bringing in women leaders and outlier leaders at that, no matter how many you namecheck, who were very rarely at the pointy end of actual fights in battle is little argument. I doubt Drake, Raliegh et al would have broken much sweat if they had to face Ne Mhaille in mortal combat manu et manu, so to speak. And yep I would argue that on average a male monk was physically stronger than a shield maiden. If shield maidens ever actually existed of course. They're up there with similar "Amazon" type women warriors in various cultures, which seems to be as much a male fetish and fear than reality(and more recently a feminist fetish). Common enough in legend, popular in modern fantasies, usually in plate armour with embossed boobs and showing a lot of leg, but remarkably sparse in hard proof and very much open to interpretation, again down to the inherent cultural biases of researchers over time. I'm quite certain and it is attested in historical records that some of the more robust women took up arms, or were support for warriors on the field and were certainly leaders at various times and a successful ones with it at times, but again we're talking outliers. The fact remains that women were physically weaker on average than men and none of this would have come as a shock to anyone in history with half a brain.

As for your blathering about the definitions of "Asians" I was quite clear in my position that dietary differences between Asian - Chinese, Korean, Japanese if you want specifics - diasporas and their native populations on native diets show increasing height being a side effect of exposure to western diets. There are other factors like base genetics, but throughout history when the food supply goes up and especially the protein intake goes up, increases in height nearly always follow. Overheal's notion that some sort of feminist utopia of parity and equality would cause such fundamental changes in the sexual dimorphism of humans in a few generations, a dimorphism that has evolved over hundreds of thousands of years, is, well, total and utter fantastical bollocks. It would require, among other things, a major change in hormone profiles in women, which in turn would affect reproductive health, so not so good. Levels of testosterone in women don't have to go up by much before we see things like PCOS, lowered fertility, increased hairiness, skin disorders and increased risk of miscarriage. Men are not women and women are not men and there are longstanding fundamental biological, evolutionary and medical reasons for this.

astrofool · 19-07-2022 12:17PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119358163#Comment_119358163

I believe that within elite sport, barring drug takers, that sport is fair, the top athletes generally have access to the best equipment, best coaching staff to achieve the pinnacle of what they can reach.

Is the barrier for entry into elite sport the same for everyone, i.e. is hard work alone enough to get there, no, people have physical and economic advantages and disadvantages, high lactose tolerance is an advantage, as is twitchy muscle fibres, as is height etc. depending on the sport, but then so is having access to money and being able to spend time training instead of working.

Now, if we're going with inclusivity above all else, then for a woman to compete at elite levels, they would now need to go through male puberty to have an even playing field with their potential competitors. Would that be inclusive? Probably, everyone could participate based on the same opportunity available (outside of physical advantages and money). Is that a desirable state? Probably not, which means from a fairness aspect, it's unreasonable to ask young females to take hormones during puberty to gain those advantages.

So I ask you again, is your goal inclusiveness or fairness? Understanding that one compromises the other (whichever way you define them).

For me it's:

Fairness
Inclusiveness

State your order.

Podge_irl · 19-07-2022 12:25PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119358118#Comment_119358118

They have indeed made exceptions for this though I do not believe they have ever been tested.

Nonetheless widely ignores the point. These sporting bodies have analysed the data available, including studies on the reduction muscle mass, strength etc following hormone treatment and have come to the conclusion that the advantage gained from male puberty is irreconcilable with fair entry to female sport. WR in particular have been incredibly transparent about this and published everything that was discussed during a multi-day workshop on the matter.

Podge_irl · 19-07-2022 12:31PM

They know that people (tbh usually but not exclusively men) will rabble rhubarb rabble about 'biological men' competing against 'biological women' without bothering to inform themselves as they really don't care a fig about women's sports in the first place. This has been admitted in this very thread.

It is actually more or less the majority viewpoint (not that that automatically makes it correct of course).

https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/media/giljcopo/britons-and-gender-identity-navigating-common-ground-and-division-june-2022.pdf

Admittedly this is the UK, but while you are correct that for the most part people think trans people should be able to live their lives as they desire there are exceptions and sports is one of those. Do some use this as a wedge issue to disparage trans people in general? Sure. Do some people refuse to countenance any kind of nuance on this topic and refuse to acknowledge there may be exceptions? Clearly.

CatFromHue · 19-07-2022 12:50PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119357477#Comment_119357477

The reason I posted about the male performance was to show that males do indeed have a physical advantage when it comes to sport. This advantage is not removed during the transition process.

"Key Points

Given that biological males experience a substantial performance advantage over females in most sports, there is currently a debate whether inclusion of transgender women in the female category of sports would compromise the objective of fair and safe competition.Here, we report that current evidence shows the biological advantage, most notably in terms of muscle mass and strength, conferred by male puberty and thus enjoyed by most transgender women is only minimally reduced when testosterone is suppressed as per current sporting guidelines for transgender athletes."

This paper can be read below

Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage | SpringerLink

"Conclusion: In transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy."

This paper can be read below

How does hormone transition in transgender women change body composition, muscle strength and haemoglobin? Systematic review with a focus on the implications for sport participation - PubMed (nih.gov)

CatFromHue · 19-07-2022 01:00PM

Also on Michael Phelps. Who does he have a physical advantage over? I'm guessing me and you. He doesn't have one over elite male swimmers.

He does have one over elite female swimmers

Bannasidhe · 19-07-2022 01:08PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119358347#Comment_119358347

But you are basing that conclusion on the elite athletes who have successfully managed to use all their advantages to get there.

You do not see the ones who didn't. The poor kids who never got access to coaching. The one's who were born to swim but never encountered a swimming pool. The ideal basketball players born in a country where the sport isn't played. How many world class long distance runners do you suppose starved in famines in Ethiopia and Somalia? How many women have been banned from ever participating due to religious dogma?

Are you telling me all of that is fair? Or that only the one's who make it to the top of the heap matter?

Those who were abused by authority figures as children and quit the sport (huge scandals in Irish swimming to name but one).

Those gay men who still have to choose between being out or being a professional sportsman?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/former-irish-swimming-coach-admits-sexual-abuse-of-girls-1.129869

Are you telling me all of that is fair? Or that only the one's who make it to the top of the heap matter?

Next you will tell me that 'acting' is a fair industry based on who won Oscars.

Given I reject your premise, again and again, the sport is inherently fair I don't know why you think continually asking me the same question will get a different answer.

For sport to begin to be 'fair' every child would need access to the same nutrition, facilities, sponsorship from the beginning - and even then those born with the necessary physical and mental abilities will have an advantage.

No amount of training would ever have made me a basketball player, I suck at basketball, but if I was 30 years younger I would be in with a good chance of getting one of the upcoming pro rugby contracts for women. Is is fair I was born with the abilities but decades too early? Not really, it was pure sexism. But at least I got to play. Within the confines of the time I got to the top. Women before me were denied that. How many people have been denied the chance to even try the sport their body was made for by circumstances beyond their control?

Ability to participate in sport is fair me hole.

Bannasidhe · 19-07-2022 01:21PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119358418#Comment_119358418

Speaking of nuance and context.

You say majority view and then use the UK as an example. The same UK where candidates to become the next PM are using who is the biggest GCer to argue their case.

Meanwhile in Ireland - the Taoiseach - and leader of a socially conservative party - publicly warns about the dangers of importing Anti-Trans rhetoric from the UK. Most of the Irish political parties support Trans Rights as a matter of policy.

We are not like the UK. Some are trying to make us that way however.

In 7 years of self ID not one of the 'issues' that cause so much pearl clutching has come to pass.

For all the general public know there are trans women playing for every Irish province in Rugby.

There could be Trans women who transitioned before puberty currently being coached in swimming to represent Ireland at Olympic level. 13/14/15 years old now - fast as dolphins. Getting access to all they need to succeed.

Should they win will we say "nawh - 'he' only won because he is 'biologically male'. Doesn't count".?

Will we agree with all those in countries where transphobia is prevalent that Ireland 'cheated' - even tho the rules permit it?

Dunno about you, but If I wanted to live in that kind of country I could move to England.

BattleCorp · 19-07-2022 01:25PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119358312#Comment_119358312

I coached womens soccer for about 10 years so I'm not one of those who isn't into women's sports or doesn't give a fig about women's sports. I'm only interested in the sports angle here so I'm going to ignore your paragraphs about ballet and toilets that are there just to distract from sports angle.

The reason that sport is a battlefront is because that's one of the areas where biological differences between men and women affect the outcome the most. And deny as much as you want, but the differences between biological women and biological men are very significant when it comes to sports. You want evidence, here you go. https://law.duke.edu/sports/sex-sport/comparative-athletic-performance/#:~:text=If%20you%20know%20sport%2C%20you,elite%20males%20and%20elite%20females.

And a biological male identifying as a female does not change that biological difference.

Rugby is a tough game, and men can come up against men almost twice their size, just the same as women can. That's not really the score you think it is. But figure this, if women were playing against men, they'd come up against people almost twice their size a lot more often than if they were playing against women.

19-07-2022 01:26PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119358718#Comment_119358718

It's becoming abundantly clear that, having had all your positions discredited with science-based evidence, you're now resorting to arguments that appeal to emotion - and a scattergun approach at that.

It's a seductive logical fallacy for sure, so I don't blame you for resorting to it.

astrofool · 19-07-2022 01:27PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119358622#Comment_119358622

Nope, acting is entirely subjective (though you could argue why they kept the male/female categories at all after moving away from actress).

Sport isn't subjective, there is winners and losers and criteria for winning.

All sport rules are based upon fairness, they don't always achieve that, but it is their aim and they are always evolving.

You want the rules changed to prioritise inclusiveness (well at least implying it, you don't want to come out and say it, which is fine).

Quantum Erasure · 19-07-2022 01:27PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119357477#Comment_119357477

Either hormone blockers work or they do not.

It's not a binary 'either or', ...

Bannasidhe · 19-07-2022 01:30PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119358519#Comment_119358519

We can play quote papers at each other all day.

Here is a paper that literally looks at all the various papers, studies, etc and - based on those - makes the following conclusion

"Currently, there is no direct or consistent research suggesting transgender female individuals (or male individuals) have an athletic advantage at any stage of their transition (e.g. cross-sex hormones, gender-confirming surgery) and, therefore, competitive sport policies that place restrictions on transgender people need to be considered and potentially revised."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5357259/

You, meanwhile, have consistently failed to provide a list of trans women who are dominating women's sport. Or even won major international. tournaments. Because there aren't any.

All you have is that paper you keep waving with no facts to prove this alleged advantage exists in the real world.

Transgender man wins women's 100 yd and 400 yd freestyle races.

Comments