Biological males in women's sport

mzungu · 02-03-2018 11:46am

ceadaoin. wrote: »

According to Wikipedia , nothing legal is required

Fair enough so. The long waiting time and testosterone requirements would most likely weed out anybody doing it for an unfair advantage (although I doubt this would be a regular occurrence).

Malayalam · 02-03-2018 1:16pm

Might it just not be better in the interim until the science is solid (which will take a fair number of years of analysing results) to have a new category at least in elite level sports (or two new categories). Athletes who identify as Female but who have one Y chromosome could compete against each other. Athletes who identify as Male but who have two X chromosomes could have a separate category where they also compete against each other. Then times and achievements, strength and records can still be logged for scientific study. It is not that the trans-athletes should be stigmatised at all, but simply that the athletes who are Female at birth should be protected, especially at elite levels, against the possibility of impossible odds. If it turns out that there is unfair advantage. Which is uncertain at this point. Otherwise birth females will become cheesed off about sport, maybe quit competing, and since sport is an area that has been traditionally male-dominated in the past, this is quite ironic. It also would enable trans athletes who identify as Male but who have two X chromosomes to compete on a more even playing field.

One contradiction in this area is that female to male trans athletes had much less difficulty being accepted into the male arena, for the very reason that it was presumed that they would be biologically less able to pose a threat to the dominance of the birth male athletes. And yet the very opposite is the case with male to female trans athletes - they are considered to not have any particular advantage over birth females - this is contradictory logic.

RDM_83 again · 02-03-2018 3:02pm

Malayalam wrote: »

.

One contradiction in this area is that female to male trans athletes had much less difficulty being accepted into the male arena, for the very reason that it was presumed that they would be biologically less able to pose a threat to the dominance of the birth male athletes. And yet the very opposite is the case with male to female trans athletes - they are considered to not have any particular advantage over birth females - this is contradictory logic.

How is that contradictory logic?To be reductive having male characteristics is a performance enhancer for more activities.

Malayalam · 02-03-2018 3:30pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

How is that contradictory logic?To be reductive having male characteristics is a performance enhancer for more activities.

I see the contradiction. A birth female (now trans FtM) is not considered to be competition in male sports - the rules for competing as trans FTM are less stringent, and have been for many years. So that implies by definition that birth males are at a competitive advantage to birth females. So to imply that birth males who take hormones for one year and identify as female have no particular advantage over birth females...aw feck it, I'm tired, work it out for yourself

ceadaoin. · 02-03-2018 4:07pm

mzungu wrote: »

Fair enough so. The long waiting time and testosterone requirements would most likely weed out anybody doing it for an unfair advantage (although I doubt this would be a regular occurrence).

Even if they aren't doing it simply for an unfair advantage (which is probably going happen occasionally) , it's still not fair to female competitors because they will have that advantage regardless of their intentions. I suspect we will see a lot of trans competitors in the next Olympics so time will tell I guess.

In the case of the NZ weight lifter, the previous top female in that division felt that she had to lose a lot of weight and drop down to the next weight category in order to continue her career. It's pushing out women from sports that they have worked hard for.

ceadaoin. · 02-03-2018 4:10pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

How is that contradictory logic?To be reductive having male characteristics is a performance enhancer for more activities.

Because female to male competitors can compete against men with no restrictions. It's acknowledged that even with supplementing testosterone they will have no advantage over the male athletes. In other words, there are other biological factors at play than testosterone which is a fact that was ignored when it's going to other way.

2 Scoops · 14-10-2018 10:05pm

A transgender Woman winning a cycling event who's been tweeting at news outlets all day for recognition. This person is a professor of psychology.

https://twitter.com/rachelvmckinnon/status/1051495467979173888

ExoPolitic · 14-10-2018 10:08pm

I say we give them their very own olympics...

ceadaoin. · 15-10-2018 5:12pm

I saw this yesterday and remembered this thread. I think this disgraceful tbh. How could anyone look at that photo and not see a male, complete with larger body, bigger muscles, more strength than any female could naturally have. It's unfair.

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/10/15/trans-woman-rachel-mckinnon-cycling-world-championship/

Ray Palmer · 15-10-2018 7:01pm

robyntmorton wrote: »

In this case, it was not 3 weeks and suddenly there’s a man competing in women’s cycling. She was required to meet requirements for testosterone levels over a minimum of 12 months before she could make the switch. This is in line with standard rules for UCI sanctioned events, and there are others who have done this before. Further MtF trans athletes tend to be paranoid about making sure they are within the rules, as a single failed test for testosterone can give a hefty 2 year ban.

She complied with the rules, was allowed to compete within those rules, and this time won.

If a question must be asked, it is whether the rules are correct or need to be tweaked? It is very difficult to do scientific testing on this though, for the simple reason of there being so few transgender elite athletes.

The point is not the testosterone currently in their bodies but the advantage that their initial gender has given to their body. The development of their bodies while male gives them an advantage.

History is full of cultures that did things to children in order for physical differences that were desired for different reasons such as a castreto singer or eunuchs.

Not so common with women due the physical nature of their bodies but there have been and are cases but not society ones as far as I know.

If I took a drug to be taller and larger lung capacity and then stopped before competing but retained those qualities I shouldn't be allowed compete so I think they same applies.

The problem is some countries would drug their athletes at a young age to get such an advantage. It has happened before with Russian athletes needing gender reassignment as a result of all the drugs they were given.

In saying all of that gender is not as binary as people think and people can have a huge imbalance compared to another person of the same gender. Hard to say one is natural and the other is not and give equal rights as they believe there gender is also natural.

I can see the arguments and it is the people hard on either side that make things overblown.

suicide_circus · 15-10-2018 7:14pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

A transgender Woman winning a cycling event who's been tweeting at news outlets all day for recognition. This person is a professor of psychology.

https://twitter.com/rachelvmckinnon/status/1051495467979173888

lol the size of her compared to the womb havers

gw80 · 15-10-2018 8:08pm

Does this mean that transgender women could enter a male sandwich making competition?.

CinemaGuy45 · 15-10-2018 9:06pm

Ajsoprano wrote: »

I’d stay away from this thread. The cards will fly no matter what happens.
I’ve probably already said too much. I’m out of here.

Why do people keep starting these threads I think somebody somewhere is taking bets on how many posters will fall and how many pages it will last.:P

Zorya · 15-10-2018 10:06pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

lol the size of her compared to the womb havers

Come on now, she is a lovely wee lass, the fine legs on her, bless her girly socks.

Jack Moore · 15-10-2018 11:10pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

A transgender Woman winning a cycling event who's been tweeting at news outlets all day for recognition. This person is a professor of psychology.

https://twitter.com/rachelvmckinnon/status/1051495467979173888

I’m conflicted
I went into that twitter and followed it to kati Hopkins page. She is totally against that lady being alloweyd compete so I suppose im for it ? I mean when in doubt ...

Seriously I feel that there should be a in augmented sports division and an augmented division
In the natural you cannot have had any hormone treatments like steroids etc and in the augmented then bobs your lobster

So in the mma sphere we could have a fully juiced up cyborg aagins fallow Fox

Calhoun · 15-10-2018 11:28pm

I just find it funny the state of the self promotion lol, "Look at me","look at me".
Be interesting to see how this one goes, right now because of the politics everyone is all you go girl.

A few years down the line and female sport dominated by transwomen i wonder how tolerant it will be then.

ceadaoin. · 15-10-2018 11:54pm

Calhoun wrote: »

I just find it funny the state of the self promotion lol, "Look at me","look at me".
Be interesting to see how this one goes, right now because of the politics everyone is all you go girl.

A few years down the line and female sport dominated by transwomen i wonder how tolerant it will be then.

She is tweeting like mad trying to get someone to pick up the story and say how great it is. Have a look at the cycling forums on Reddit, most people are not "you go girl" , but stating the truth that it's grossly unfair.

Unfortunately yes, this will destroy women's sport if it continues. I suppose some people will be happy about that though

Noveight · 16-10-2018 12:09am

Remember Bruce Caitlyn Jenner won some Woman of the Year award too?

Fairly laughable and a complete injustice to the exceptional females worldwide.

Danzy · 16-10-2018 12:17am

At 40 years of age with I could strike out for the Women's 84kg deadlift Irish record of 175kgs . With 3 months training I'd blow it out of the water.

I work a physical job so not new to lifting.

I'd be beating trained and highly dedicated athletes, so with years of experience and much younger that's me.

I wouldn't impress any fellow in a powerlifting gym in an average town, at that.

Chris_Heilong · 16-10-2018 12:36am

Sure there are a minority of people who want to be the opposite sex for what ever reason but it is not possible to do, they can pretend if they want to and get hormone treatment which will mess up their bodies, the rest of us being such great people go along with the emperor's new clothes because PC. However they should accept they are 'other' and a separate sport category for these people should be set up as competing in sport as there chosen sex and not as they biological sex is unfair to everyone.

Oscar Wilde once said "Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live."

ceadaoin. · 16-10-2018 1:05am

Danzy wrote: »

.

I'd be beating trained and highly dedicated athletes, so with years of experience and much younger that's me.
.

Thats it. The other women will have trained extremely hard for most of their lives to get to that level. Funnily enough, she wasnt winning world championships as a man.

NIMAN · 16-10-2018 5:08am

2 Scoops wrote: »

A transgender Woman winning a cycling event who's been tweeting at news outlets all day for recognition. This person is a professor of psychology.

https://twitter.com/rachelvmckinnon/status/1051495467979173888

She's a big 'un.

NIMAN · 16-10-2018 5:11am

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I saw this yesterday and remembered this thread. I think this disgraceful tbh. How could anyone look at that photo and not see a male, complete with larger body, bigger muscles, more strength than any female could naturally have. It's unfair.

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/10/15/trans-woman-rachel-mckinnon-cycling-world-championship/

Most people will agree with you, but fear the social media mob is they dare actually say something.

The new rule is "just accept it and shut up", or else you'll be shouted down as a bigot or a 'phobe of some sort.

ChikiChiki · 16-10-2018 5:12am

Its an unfair advantage for someone who is bilogically a bloke to be competing in womens events. Science says so as fact and even in our overly PC world of 2018 it cannot be denied.

NIMAN · 16-10-2018 5:33am

ChikiChiki wrote: »

Its an unfair advantage for someone who is bilogically a bloke to be competing in womens events. Science says so as fact and even in our overly PC world of 2018 it cannot be denied.

"but she's not a bloke, she identifies as a woman"

Hector Savage · 16-10-2018 8:15am

NIMAN wrote: »

"but she's not a bloke, she identifies as a woman"

And I identify as a Costa Rican tree frog.

FutureGuy · 16-10-2018 9:27am

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

I've seen several stories recently about biological males competing in women's sports and not surprisingly trouncing the competition or even severely injuring their opponents (MMA fighter Fallon fox). Should MTF transgender athletes accept that they should be unable to compete against members of the opposite sex in the name of fairness? I totally get that they want to be and should be treated the same as any other other woman in everyday life but in some situations there are clear advantages. Is there a solution that is fair for everyone?

Shouldn't be allowed. Simple as that. Purely biological.

PlaneSpeeking · 16-10-2018 9:34am

Noveight wrote: »

Remember Bruce Caitlyn Jenner won some Woman of the Year award too?

Fairly laughable and a complete injustice to the exceptional females worldwide.

I'd disagree a little there - she's at least gone the full way and is a woman physically.

That should be the criteria.

Lau2976 · 16-10-2018 9:43am

I'd disagree a little there - she's at least gone the full way and is a woman physically.

That should be the criteria.

Let’s not forget being a good person? This is the person that said the hardest part of being a woman was picking what to wear or the colour of their nail polish.

But yep give them the same award as a girl who was shot going to school. That’s totally a similar struggle.

seamus · 16-10-2018 9:51am

NIMAN wrote: »

Most people will agree with you, but fear the social media mob is they dare actually say something.

The new rule is "just accept it and shut up", or else you'll be shouted down as a bigot or a 'phobe of some sort.

Yes, the social media mob with their really loud tweeting are so terrifying.

At the moment this isn't an issue, so there's no need to lose the head over it. We have plenty of scope to observe and gather data to determine if trans athletes in general have a competitive advantage.

A trans woman winning an event doesn't prove that trans people have an advantage, just that she was better than other competitors.

PlaneSpeeking · 16-10-2018 9:53am

Lau2976 wrote: »

Let’s not forget being a good person? This is the person that said the hardest part of being a woman was picking what to wear or the colour of their nail polish.

But yep give them the same award as a girl who was shot going to school. That’s totally a similar struggle.

I didn't say she was a worthy recipient of the award did I ?

Just that she was qualified to enter over someone who threw on nylons and a frock and did a Mrs Brown.

Personally I'm not a feminist and can't remember the last time I wore nail varnish, I'm not sure I see the point tbh!

Besides the hardest things about being a woman are not having your sporting interests taken seriously and modern day feminists trying to remove our achievements by demanding easier standards for today's women.

OT I know but there you go!

PlaneSpeeking · 16-10-2018 9:55am

seamus wrote: »

Yes, the social media mob with their really loud tweeting are so terrifying.

At the moment this isn't an issue, so there's no need to lose the head over it. We have plenty of scope to observe and gather data to determine if trans athletes in general have a competitive advantage.

A trans woman winning an event doesn't prove that trans people have an advantage, just that she was better than other competitors.

By virtue of having more natural body strength being genetically, chromosomally and physically male.

And don't be snidy about Twitter - yes it's a pathetic medium but good people have been fired/ruined due to a "tweetstorm" or whatever they call it.

ThunbergsAreGo · 16-10-2018 9:56am

They should remove the Gender Division from sport and move towards true equality

seamus · 16-10-2018 9:57am

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

By virtue of having more natural body strength being genetically, chromosomally and physically male.

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

PlaneSpeeking · 16-10-2018 9:58am

naughtb4 wrote: »

They should remove the Gender Division from sport and move towards true equality

Never going to happen - the minute women got "equal" pay for Wimbledon for less work the die was cast.

PlaneSpeeking · 16-10-2018 9:59am

seamus wrote: »

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

Can't prove that men are biologically stronger ? Are you for real ?

Lau2976 · 16-10-2018 10:01am

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I didn't say she was a worthy recipient of the award did I ?

Just that she was qualified to enter over someone who threw on nylons and a frock and did a Mrs Brown.

Personally I'm not a feminist and can't remember the last time I wore nail varnish, I'm not sure I see the point tbh!

Besides the hardest things about being a woman are not having your sporting interests taken seriously and modern day feminists trying to remove our achievements by demanding easier standards for today's women.

OT I know but there you go!

I was simply pointing out that gender wasnt the only criteria

Who’s demanding easier standards for women?

PlaneSpeeking · 16-10-2018 10:04am

Lau2976 wrote: »

I was simply pointing out that gender wasnt the only criteria

Who’s demanding easier standards for women?

https://nypost.com/2015/05/03/woman-to-become-ny-firefighter-despite-failing-crucial-fitness-test/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/03/sas-may-make-entry-tests-easier-for-women-report

And many others - like my own workplace, sadly.

Zorya · 16-10-2018 10:07am

seamus wrote: »

Yes, the social media mob with their really loud tweeting are so terrifying.

At the moment this isn't an issue, so there's no need to lose the head over it. We have plenty of scope to observe and gather data to determine if trans athletes in general have a competitive advantage.

A trans woman winning an event doesn't prove that trans people have an advantage, just that she was better than other competitors.

Top athletes have a short window of opportunity when they are at the peak of their physical fitness to garner awards and victories. This ''plenty of scope'' you speak of may be the equivalent to a few generations of female athletes who may prove yet to have been seriously disadvantaged and thus lose access to education scholarships, earnings, accolades, motivation, and the ability to inspire and nurture future generations of female athletes.
A better way by far to ''observe and gather data'' is to have separate competitions or to separate out results, either by athletes performing in their own genetic gender category but declaring as trans and their timings etc being assessed and recorded, or by trans athletes performing in the gender they identify with but their scores, timings etc being separate for tye purposes of declared results, until such time as sufficient data is accrued to decide if there is advantage or otherwise.
This may take quite a number of years. It has to respond to many variabilities, some of which may be ongoing in terms of any modernisation of cross sex hormones etc.
In the meantime the sporting activities of biological females should not be subject to any PC guinea pig experimentation that may demoralise the athletes and destroy the biological female's competitive fields.

Danzy · 16-10-2018 10:18am

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'd disagree a little there - she's at least gone the full way and is a woman physically.

That should be the criteria.

It means though that women's sports will become dominated by trans women and that biological women will relegated to permanent second.

It is not what she is now. Even with testosterone done brought down to female levels the fact of puberty as a male leaves a life long advantage.

In decades that advantage will still be there.

Just in relation to lung capacity alone, it is enough to make a life long difference.

PlaneSpeeking · 16-10-2018 10:25am

Danzy wrote: »

It means though that women's sports will become dominated by trans women and that biological women will relegated to permanent second.

It is not what she is now. Even with testosterone done brought down to female levels the fact of puberty as a male leaves a life long advantage.

In decades that advantage will still be there.

Just in relation to lung capacity alone, it is enough to make a life long difference.

I'd not argue with you on sports to be honest.

Even though the hill has become a valley, the biological capacity is still the same and - generally speaking - boys are physically stronger than us!

seamus · 16-10-2018 11:20am

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Can't prove that men are biologically stronger ? Are you for real ?

No, you can't prove that this athlete won based on her physiology. All you have is speculation. Aside from photographs you know absolutely nothing about her.

Danzy · 16-10-2018 11:21am

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'd not argue with you on sports to be honest.

Even though the hill has become a valley, the biological capacity is still the same and - generally speaking - boys are physically stronger than us!

The body differences are too immense.

I'm no traditionalist on gender, think if people want to trans, fine.

In sport it gives a massive advantage. There are 17 year old boys, great runners, who would set world records for women athletics. Against women who'll run in the Olympics.

The biological capacity is very different and strength is only one manifestation.

Danzy · 16-10-2018 11:24am

Quote: PlaneSpeeking"
By virtue of having more natural body strength being genetically, chromosomally and physically male."

"seamus;108362652"]You can't prove that. It's pure opinion.[/quote]

The most excellent jesuitical answer I have seen in years.

You'd make Abbott in months.

Wibbs · 16-10-2018 11:27am

seamus wrote: »

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

Jesus, how far down this nonsense rabbit hole do we have to go where the bloody obvious is denied on the altar of the Right On?

This is basic biology backed up by science. Men on average have 40% more upper body strength and 30% more leg strength, higher bone density, faster reflexes and more muscle mass and less fat. Never mind narrower hips which is a huge advantage in track and field events. Take pretty much any sport that requires strength, stamina and coordination and the very top percentile of women athletes will be seriously pressured and usually beaten by mid tier or lower men from the same sport. Consider the Mile record in running. No woman has broken the four minute mile barrier that Roger Bannister broke in the 50s. The women's current record is IIRC four minutes and twelve, the men's three minutes forty odd seconds.

These differences between the sexes kicks off in early puberty and continues diverging throughout puberty. If a biological male takes female hormones and blocks the male hormone in their late teens those differences will be already set. They will be taller, broader, with higher bone density and higher muscle mass. If a biological boy was hit with hormone blockers before puberty - which to me is beyond a horror and I make no apologies for believing that - then there would be a case for it being a level playing field. Otherwise it's beyond daft and makes a mockery of women's sports.

silverharp · 16-10-2018 11:29am

seamus wrote: »

No, you can't prove that this athlete won based on her physiology. All you have is speculation. Aside from photographs you know absolutely nothing about her.

"You're saying that " steroids should be allowed in sports as its only pure speculation that they have an effect. :pac:

16-10-2018 11:37am

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'd disagree a little there - she's at least gone the full way and is a woman physically.

That should be the criteria.

Really? If she has ovaries, maybe. If she has XY chromosome, not.

seamus · 16-10-2018 11:39am

Wibbs wrote: »

Jesus, how far down this nonsense rabbit hole do we have to go where the bloody obvious is denied on the altar of the Right On?

This is basic biology backed up by science. Men on average have 40% more upper body strength and 30% more leg strength, higher bone density, faster reflexes and more muscle mass and less fat. Never mind narrower hips which is a huge advantage in track and field events. Take pretty much any sport that requires strength, stamina and coordination and the very top percentile of women athletes will be seriously pressured and usually beaten by mid tier or lower men from the same sport. Consider the Mile record in running. No woman has broken the four minute mile barrier that Roger Bannister broke in the 50s. The women's current record is IIRC four minutes and twelve, the men's three minutes forty odd seconds.

These differences between the sexes kicks off in early puberty and continues diverging throughout puberty. If a biological male takes female hormones and blocks the male hormone in their late teens those differences will be already set. They will be taller, broader, with higher bone density and higher muscle mass. If a biological boy was hit with hormone blockers before puberty - which to me is beyond a horror and I make no apologies for believing that - then there would be a case for it being a level playing field. Otherwise it's beyond daft and makes a mockery of women's sports.

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.

FTA69 · 16-10-2018 11:52am

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 the same we can't prove that Fallon Fox was flatlining women fighters knocking them completely out in seconds cos she was just really, really good at fighting. No siree bob.

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.

Omackeral · 16-10-2018 11:54am

seamus wrote: »

Blah blah blah.

Head in sand, fingers in ears.

seamus wrote: »

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

Perceived feelings over facts.

Typical really.

Biological males in women's sport

Comments