Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

16263656768296

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,609 ✭✭✭Tonesjones




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,462 ✭✭✭✭astrofool




  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,330 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,609 ✭✭✭Tonesjones


    Tonight Matthew, I'm Going To Be........Grigori Rasputin



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    You have repeatably said this is going to happen and here is this paper that 'proves' it is going to happen and I keep saying well it hasn't happened, then you say "overrepresentation" will happen, than I say less than 20 in nearly 50 years across a range of sports can hardly be called "overrepresentation". Then you say something that can be summarised as "floodgates".

    I keep asking you to define "over-representation" - a ballpark percentage will do - 1 in 1000? 1 in 100,000? I suspect you think 1 total is too much.

    I also keep asking for real life evidence to support these papers you keep insisting are correct. If they are correct surely we would have seen at least 1 trans woman win 1 little major international "women's sport" event? I mean, it's been nearly 50 years. Surely even one name of of one major record broken by a trans woman? Because with out 'proof' that ain't science - that's theoretical bubkiss.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,330 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    That's the point about the numbers not being static. They're increasing from a very very low base and this is why the 20-50 years time you mention is irrelevant. It is also why we're seeing now transwomen competing at the highest level. When it comes to advantage it becomes a numbers game, just like with the casino. The more you play the more the advantage becomes apparent. The more transwomen compete under the current rules the more this advantage will become apparent.

    I would consider an Olympian (who was the oldest weightlifter at the games), an NCAA swimming champion, and top level elite mountain biker to be an over representation. Remember when I asked about the transmen you gave 1 example. Then you add in Veronica Ivy and Natalie van Gogh who both started competing at a high level after transition. Van Gogh turned pro as a cyclist at 38!

    I've gone through why it shouldn't just be winning and records which you're focussed on. The science behind the dangers of transwomen competing in combat sports was realised by Fallon Fox giving that type of injury I mentioned to a competitor. That's not theoretical bubkiss, it actually happened.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,330 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    Another reason the 20-50 year time frame is irrelevant is that the rules changed in 2015. Prior to this to compete in the Olympics gender reassignment surgery was required.

    Post 2015 a declaration of gender and a reduced testosterone level for 1 year was required.

    This is why the studies on testosterone level are so important. The IOC has put so much faith in testosterone reduction that it is their main argument for allowing transwomen to compete in the female category. So while people can ignore this or belittle the science, it is the basis for the IOC's argument.

    Also I'd just like to remind everyone that identify how you want, live how you want, and hook up with anyone you want. As long as no one is getting hurt and everyone's having a good time I'm all for it. Things change when it comes to competing though.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,660 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    nearly 50 years of demonstrable evidence which shows this 'male puberty' advantage has no advantage in the real world of top flight sport.

    what's the age spread (at time of transition) of people who have transitioned over that 50 years? I have no idea, but I'd be surprised if many were in the prime years of their sporting career after they had transitioned, especially for the first 30 to 40 years of that 50



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,836 ✭✭✭plodder


    One of the first was Renee Richards back in the 1970s who when she transitioned and was allowed to compete in women's tennis when out of shape, aged 43, the top woman in the world, Chris Evert really struggled to beat her.

    Richards now believes that had she transitioned in her 20's, she would "wipe everyone off the court" and it would have been wrong for her to compete against women.

    https://nypost.com/2022/06/22/chris-evert-recalls-renee-richards-match-to-discuss-trans-athletes/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,228 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 29,724 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    b) No biological woman could ever possibly be a better athlete than a biological man not even when the 'biological man's' so- called hormonal advantage is largely nullified. Therefore it is unfair for any biological woman to compete against a trans woman as the trans woman will win.

    That is not the argument and either your comprehension of the arguments put forth is worryingly poor or you continue to deliberately misconstrue them.

    No biological woman could ever possibly be a better athlete than a biological man

    Not been claimed and not true

    even when the 'biological man's' so- called hormonal advantage is largely nullified

    It is not "largely nullified" as has been shown in studies that have been linked here if you bothered to look at them. It is roughly halved in some sports but it varies.

    Therefore it is unfair for any biological woman to compete against a trans woman as the trans woman will win.

    Also not been claimed.

    Having an unfair advantage =/= will always win. This is an incredibly basic premise that has been explained to you repeatedly yet you continue to pretend it is a different argument.


    Also, elite women indeed do need to be recognised despite the fact that they will not match elite men's performances. Perhaps some kind of separate category they can compete in.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,228 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Lol. No need to give me a lecture about page 3. I'm not the poster on this site who made the claim that that's what a "normal" woman is.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,228 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Yeah yeah. Trans people you are ok until sport then you're dangerous....

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,326 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    That is not the argument and either your comprehension of the arguments put forth is worryingly poor or you continue to deliberately misconstrue them.

    If this were a debate unconnected with trans in sport, you would find zero evidence of lack of comprehension or anything else with Banna. In this particular case it's far more to do with taking an ideological position and filtering it accordingly.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,836 ✭✭✭plodder


    I think there's a growing impatience in sport at least, with that whole style of argument. Doubtless, people will pick holes in what Seb Coe is saying here, but they aren't listening to the silly stuff any more.

    “I’m really over having any more of these discussions with second-rate sociologists who sit there trying to tell me or the science community that there may be some issue. There isn’t; testosterone is the key determinant in performance.”

    He added: “We have two categories in our sport: one is age and one is gender. Age because we think it’s better that Olympic champions don’t run against 14-year-olds in community sports, and gender because if you don’t have a gender separation, no woman would ever win another sporting event.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/athletics/2022/07/21/seb-coe-hits-second-rate-sociologists-sports-gender-eligibility/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    I reckon that by this point the majority of people in this thread have taken an ideological position - I never claimed I don't have one.

    My ideological position is that trans women are women.

    However, I am not so ideologically strait-jacketed that I do not acknowledge there are serious issues to be discussed around the involvement of transwomen in sport.

    A way needs to be found for that to happen where biological women and trans women can compete on a level playing field. Part of that way is not underestimating the abilities of biological women, part of that is ways of 'dampening' any residual effects of male puberty.

    There is a particular impetus for this to be seen to happen at elite level as a lot of money and a hell of a lot of national pride (at an obsessional level with some countries) make it a highly emotive subject. Perfect for exploitation by any one ideologically opposed to trans women living as women.

    I do have a problem with the "transwomen are men and there can never ever ever" stance. I make no bones about that.

    Shouting "no, no, no never ever ever" is not discussion.

    It also ignores that trans women are free to compete as long as they transition prior of puberty. It reminds me of those who screamed "gay men shouldn't be allowed to adopt" when single gay men could already legally adopt - it was gay couples couldn't as a couple. Trans women can compete. Just not all of them at all levels.

    It ignores the complete lack of trans women winning major international events while issuing dire warning of being 'overwhelmed'. This reads to me as the 'flood gates' argument.

    I do have a problem with the no biological woman could ever beat a biological man tangent.

    We are not discussing biological men vs biological women. We are discussing trans gender people. Considering trans people to still be in the category of their biological sex is an ideological stance that does not recognised gender can be changed (and discounts the effects of hormones).

    It is also, as I have said, a stance that strikes me as sexist (another ideology). The stats show that the fastest woman on record is only 0.13 of a second slower that the fastest Irishman on record. The fastest Irishman on record is 0.7 of a second slower than the fastest man on record. Listening to some here one could get the impression the difference between men and women could be counted in hours. It is, in fact, fractions of a second.


    I have been honest in my replies. I have never claimed to have all the answers. I have admitted there are things that need discussion. I have striven to be polite.

    In return I have been on the receiving end of frankly uncalled for personal abuse (not by any poster now posting in this thread), sneered at, told I lack comprehension skills, not good with numbers, told what I 'really think', what my position 'really' is, and I have an 'ideology' as if I am the only one.

    The tactics used against me in this thread are a shadow of the nasty, bullying abuse heaped on trans people every second of every day. Now that is ideologically driven.

    And I, personally, will never support such behaviour.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,326 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    It also ignores that trans women are free to compete as long as they transition prior of puberty. It reminds me of those who screamed "gay men shouldn't be allowed to adopt" when single gay men could already legally adopt - it was gay couples couldn't as a couple. Trans women can compete. Just not all of them at all levels.

    Well that's a good example of one of these things is not like the other. Never mind the mineflied on so many levels of transitioning prior to puberty, best left to another thread. Never mind that the reason this is the case is precisely because going through puberty increases or decreases physical advantage along sex lines.

    It ignores the complete lack of trans women winning major international events while issuing dire warning of being 'overwhelmed'. This reads to me as the 'flood gates' argument.

    You have been given examples and more than once of trans women competing in top levels including the Olympics, pro cycling and pro MMA in the women's category and while being "older" women athletes with it, where they were complete also rans when competing as younger biological males in the men's category. But you repeatedly choose to ignore these examples. Put it another way; how many transmen are doing similar? And they can essentially and legally "juice" with artificial male hormone profiles as part of transitioning.

    I do have a problem with the no biological woman could ever beat a biological man tangent.

    I certainly wouldn't make that statement. One example that springs to mind is the rally driver Michele Mouton. An incredible talent behind the wheel and one that was better than most male competitors of her era(the top guys all respected her and rated her amongst them in a very male sport and in an era that was less enlightened overall) and missed out on world championships through pure bad luck. Hell, our own Rosemary Smith was no slouch peddling a racecar racking up a bunch of class wins and won the Tulip rally outright back in the day and a few years ago became the oldest person to drive a Formula One car.

    I would make the statement that if tomorrow we removed all sex based categories in the vast majority of sports all the top spots would go to biological men and biological women would be also rans or at the bottom. Take a sport like tennis that has and has had some incredible biological women athletes. Men and women already compete against each other in mixed doubles, the top players are much more evenly matched in pay and endorsements and both men's and women's tennis is pretty on par in popularity. So it's one of the more "equal" sports out there, if not the most. Do you really think if it was a free for all and all had to play the same number of sets etc we'd see a biological woman even making the quarter finals of Wimbledon?

    We are not discussing biological men vs biological women. We are discussing trans gender people. Considering trans people to still be in the category of their biological sex is an ideological stance that does not recognised gender can be changed (and discounts the effects of hormones).

    Nobody is discounting the effects of hormones. Indeed the nays ranged against you speak of little else and speak from actual hard science as to why they can't be discounted. The fact that you point out that pre pubertal transition allows transwomen to compete illustrates the whys. Why does dope testing look for added enhancements that are based on male profiles and not female ones? No dope tester is looking for somebody man or woman, juicing with oestrogen or progesterone or lower levels of HGH, because they are all disadvantages in sport.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • Posts: 1,824 [Deleted User]


    >We are not discussing biological men vs biological women. We are discussing trans gender people. Considering trans people to still be in the category of their biological sex is an ideological stance that does not recognised gender can be changed (and discounts the effects of hormones).

    When I talk about womens sports I am talking about female sports. To me a woman is an adult female human.

    I don't care about gender as it pertains to sport, it's as irrelevant as sexuality, personality, music taste, etc. These are subjective things inside your mind and have nothing to do with sports. Divisions and entry restrictions in sports are based on objective realities such as sex, weight, age, experience (eg black belt), amateur/professional status etc.

    If a male wants to identify as a woman I have absolutely no problem with that. But it's got nothing to do with sport. They still need to compete in the male category. Whether hormone therapy slows them down or not is totally irrelevant. Saying that a transwoman should enter womens sports because the hormone therapy slows them down is akin to saying a fat man should enter womens sprinting because his beer belly slows him down. Womens sports are for women, not for males who have been slowed for one reason or another.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,837 ✭✭✭Enduro


    Interestingly enough it looks like the RFU are now going to ensure fairness is not just for the elite level, but for far all adult levels. More and more governing bodies are starting to stand up for female' sports, thankfully.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,887 ✭✭✭El Gato De Negocios


    The dominoes are already falling in this ridiculous argument that shouldn't have ever become a thing, society may not be terminally fucked after all.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    0678F225-30A1-48AD-848B-66A7D09E7133.jpeg



    If you are wondering about the male-subsidized part, Burr is referring to the fact the WNBA loses money each year, about $10 million per year, according to Adam Silver, and that amount is covered by the NBA.

    Just another reason it seems there shouldn’t be gender divided leagues, it seems like it’s effectively used as a way to put women in a corner, ‘gifted to them by men’



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,330 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    In many sports the elite Senior team, usually male, funds most of the teams below it. This is the case in rugby where the bulk of the income into the sport comes through the International team which helps fund the A teams, provincial teams, underage teams, and Sevens teams, for both the male and females.

    This is a good thing in my opinion.

    As for getting rid of gender divided leagues makes me ask why do you think the female category exists in the first place?

    Post edited by CatFromHue on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,836 ✭✭✭plodder


    I wonder how many players in the WNBA would say the right response to that tirade is to abolish the WNBA 🤔 ?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,044 ✭✭✭Girly Gal


    Not sure where this idea that a biological female will not beat a biological male you keep referring to comes from, but, it's blatantly not true, it happens all the time and not just elite women, but, the average woman can and often do beat average men. In general however elite men will beat elite women in most sports, that's not a controversial viewpoint, it's based on facts, all the overall world and Olympics records in mainstream sports are held by men. There may well be overall world records held by women in some niche sports, but, I'm not aware of them, will gladly be corrected on this.

    Also just to point out that Paul Hessions' 100m Irish record is 10.18 seconds (10.36 is his indoor record). Flo Jo's time of 10.49 ( which is very dubious on a few counts; doping allegations for Flo Jo, plus there's a big question mark over if the record is legal for wind assistance, that's another story) has stood for over 30 years. Shelly Ann Fraser Pryce is generally regarded as the greatest female sprinter of all time, her best time is 10.60, her compatriot Elaine Thompson Herah's fastest time is 10.54, this is the second fastest time after Flo Jo's time. Both are the best female sprinters to emerge since Flo Jo's record, this shows how difficult it will be to break Flo Jo's record, so for it to dip below 10.40 seconds will likely take an extraordinary athlete to come along, an outlier- similar to Bolt in the men's sprints who reduced the 100m mark to below what many thought was possible, his times are still untouchable by the current leading sprinters, he's an outlier within men's sprinting.

    Athletes now and for probably the last decade or more are performing at almost the limit of human capabilities, there is huge investment in equipment ( footwear, clothing, surface technology, etc.) to try to get the last ounce of performance. Elite female athletes have access to all this similar to their male counterparts, the records that stand currently aren't going to improve by huge margins, it'll be small incremental gains. Of course an extraordinary athlete could come along and demolish a world record (like Sydney Mclaughlin just did), but, they'll be the exception not the norm.

    I've said before I think transwomen should be allowed compete within the women's category, however, there should be a certain timescale- say 3 or 4 years- between competing as a male before they can compete as a female, full transition required, hormones and surgery and the decision could be reviewed after 5 to 10 years if it's shown transwomen do have an advantage. I think in Lia Thomas's case she was allowed compete too quickly after competing as male, not her fault, she played by the rules, the rules probably need to be looked at again.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,274 ✭✭✭BruteStock


    What do you mean the average woman often beats the average man? In sport that hardly ever happens. The obvious case is when the US international women's team lost 5-2 to a squad of under 15s.

    Or how about the time when undefeated 37- 0 Lucia Rijker was obliterated the one time she fought a man. Id have no doubt that a random abia level amateur man would knock Katie Taylor out for the 10 count as well. The gender divide in sports exists for a reason



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,044 ✭✭✭Girly Gal


    I'm not talking about elite level, I'm talking about people who play sports as a hobby, take running for example, each year thousands of average people train for the marathon, of those plenty of average female runners finish ahead of average male runners. As I said at elite level elite men will beat elite women.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,836 ✭✭✭plodder


    Not sure where this idea that a biological female will not beat a biological male you keep referring to comes from, but, it's blatantly not true, it happens all the time and not just elite women, but, the average woman can and often do beat average men. In general however elite men will beat elite women in most sports, that's not a controversial viewpoint, it's based on facts, all the overall world and Olympics records in mainstream sports are held by men. There may well be overall world records held by women in some niche sports, but, I'm not aware of them, will gladly be corrected on this.

    Also just to point out that Paul Hessions' 100m Irish record is 10.18 seconds (10.36 is his indoor record). Flo Jo's time of 10.49 ( which is very dubious on a few counts; doping allegations for Flo Jo, plus there's a big question mark over if the record is legal for wind assistance, that's another story) has stood for over 30 years. Shelly Ann Fraser Pryce is generally regarded as the greatest female sprinter of all time, her best time is 10.60, her compatriot Elaine Thompson Herah's fastest time is 10.54, this is the second fastest time after Flo Jo's time. Both are the best female sprinters to emerge since Flo Jo's record, this shows how difficult it will be to break Flo Jo's record, so for it to dip below 10.40 seconds will likely take an extraordinary athlete to come along, an outlier- similar to Bolt in the men's sprints who reduced the 100m mark to below what many thought was possible, his times are still untouchable by the current leading sprinters, he's an outlier within men's sprinting.

    Athletes now and for probably the last decade or more are performing at almost the limit of human capabilities, there is huge investment in equipment ( footwear, clothing, surface technology, etc.) to try to get the last ounce of performance. Elite female athletes have access to all this similar to their male counterparts, the records that stand currently aren't going to improve by huge margins, it'll be small incremental gains. Of course an extraordinary athlete could come along and demolish a world record (like Sydney Mclaughlin just did), but, they'll be the exception not the norm.


    What I find interesting about all this is that from the 1970's when women's sport started to be taken seriously, the performance gap between men and women was reducing, and maybe it seemed natural to speculate that the difference would eventually reduce to zero, but that didn't happen. In the 1990's the performance difference stabilised at 10% for sprint events, reducing slightly for longer distances. Also, the expectation that women would be able to outrun men over long enough distances never materialised. The sporting world moved on but some of these beliefs obviously persisted in academia.

    I've said before I think transwomen should be allowed compete within the women's category, however, there should be a certain timescale- say 3 or 4 years- between competing as a male before they can compete as a female, full transition required, hormones and surgery and the decision could be reviewed after 5 to 10 years if it's shown transwomen do have an advantage. I think in Lia Thomas's case she was allowed compete too quickly after competing as male, not her fault, she played by the rules, the rules probably need to be looked at again.

    I don't get this. What has "full transition" got to do with it? What effect does full transition have on performance. You can't transition the permanent physiological changes brought by puberty like lung capacity or musculoskeletal changes.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,044 ✭✭✭Girly Gal


    Full transition and a time gap of 3/4 years after competing as a male would rule out any idea that someone transitioned simply to compete against women, as far fetched as that idea might sound, some people will do almost anything to gain an advantage, however, I'd very much doubt anyone would go through a full transition. It would also show that transwomen aren't just marching straight into the women's category, but, have to wait their turn to be admitted. As I said this could be reviewed after a certain amount of time has elapsed if proven transwomen have an advantage.

    I don't think there's a perfect answer to this situation and I certainly don't claim to have all or any answers, but, I think some compromise needs to be made; with fairness being the main driver in any decisions.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,578 ✭✭✭J.O. Farmer


    There's a lot of variability in ability of the average competitors in the marathon. Saying that plenty finish ahead of men isn't the same thing as an average woman beating an average man. Plenty of average men will beat average women too.

    You would need to compare the average times for all female competitors with the average time for all male competitors.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,330 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    There's many many inaccuracies in your post but I've no idea how you can make this equivalence.

    "It also ignores that trans women are free to compete as long as they transition prior of puberty. It reminds me of those who screamed "gay men shouldn't be allowed to adopt" when single gay men could already legally adopt - it was gay couples couldn't as a couple. Trans women can compete. Just not all of them at all levels."

    Before puberty the physical differences in boys and girls are small so they can play sports together, as can be seen in mini's rugby.

    Puberty changes the body and changes it in different ways and males gain a physical advantage over females. The transition process does not remove this advantage.

    That's it. That's the argument.



Advertisement