Biological males in women's sport

Maxpfizer

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Most normal people don’t know what’s going on here. The sports thing, if followed to its logical conclusion, would end elite sports for biological females. Be interesting to see how this pans out.

It can’t be that every country in the world will have transgender rights come the next Olympics but some will have biological males running in female competitions. How does the rest of the world react?

It depends on the stakes, probably.

If there is money and prestige to be made from being, for example, the nation who has the first representative to break women's world records that have stood for several years (several decades for some like the 100m) then some will definitely be looking into it.

Considering the scandals that have always surrounded certain nations regarding doping etc it's clear that they would probably push any rules to the absolute limit and would be willing to break them.

Plus I think nations like Australia, Canada etc would absolutely LOVE to be able to say that they have the first ever trans olympic medalist and world record holder.

There will be a lot of interested parties looking at this already, in my opinion.

The one thing we can say with 100% certainty is that you will see trans-women competing in and winning women's Olympic events within the next couple of decades.

GreeBo

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Somebody mentioned that estrogen hormone therapy is part of M to F transition.

This will be a legal minefield a few yrs down the road.


High levels of estrogen significantly increase the risk of cancer in men.

Someone needs to give cancer the memo on gender switching.

GreeBo

wexie wrote: »

But why would that become an issue if they're women now?

Oh yeah, I forgot....science

You clearly aren't up to speed with the latest developments in gender fluid dynamics!

wexie

GreeBo wrote: »

You clearly aren't up to speed with the latest developments in gender fluid dynamics!

nope, not even going to try to pretend or apologize either.

Someone wants to live their life as a different gender then that's fine, I'll try to be respectful and accommodating towards them.

However I'll be expecting a similar amount of respect in return and part of that will be not having to actually believe they have somehow magically become that gender.

I saw an add the other day in one of the motors thread, was a Toyota MR2 made to look like a Ferrari, did a nice job too all in all.

But underneath it was still an MR2

Maxpfizer

benjamin d wrote: »

Women's sport has come so far in recent years. Speaking as a man, I've only recently started to pay attention to women's soccer with the strides made in promoting the game in the UK and with the Irish women's league coming on in leaps and bounds, including the cup final played with the men's in the Aviva. Women's soccer at a local level is really gaining traction too. The women's GAA championship now has regular televised games. Girls' youth athletics in Ireland is buoyant at the moment. To see all this progress pissed away because of the 'rights' of biological males to come in and breeze through their competitions is insanity.

That's kind of a sad thing about all this. It has probably taken decades of work to get women's sport raised to this level and now it looks set to be hampered by these kind of discussions for the foreseeable future.

The writing is on the wall as far as I can see. Not just surrounding the conversation regarding trans-women competing but even just in the push for the concept of only 2 genders to be completely done away with.

Imagine if the separate men's and women's categories in track and field and the Olympics were merged? You might legitimately never see a person who is biologically female seriously competing on that stage ever again.

In sports like GAA and Soccer the potential to encounter an opposition team with one or more biological males in their line up is going to discourage a lot of young girls from competing. One or two horror injuries, which will inevitably happen, will see to that.

In athletics, what's the point in training for months trying to compete with the best women only to find that the winning positions are all dominated by former men and always will be? Why would anyone bother?

We, as a society, also hold female athletes up as great role models for young women and girls. Jessica Ennis-Hill springs to mind.

We're going to get rid of that and replace it with "Jim Smith was a middling athlete until he became Jane Smith at the age of 21 and started winning medals"?

Zorya

Maxpfizer wrote: »

T

In sports like GAA and Soccer the potential to encounter an opposition team with one or more biological males in their line up is going to discourage a lot of young girls from competing. One or two horror injuries, which will inevitably happen, will see to that.

it's already happened and who cares. MMA trans fighter Fallon Fox years ago left Tamikka Brents with a broken bone in her head and severe concussion.

klaaaz

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

High levels of estrogen significantly increase the risk of cancer in men.

Proof?

PlaneSpeeking

klaaaz wrote: »

Proof?

For one:

https://www.breastcancer.org/research-news/men-w-high-estrogen-could-have-high-risk

klaaaz

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

For one:

https://www.breastcancer.org/research-news/men-w-high-estrogen-could-have-high-risk

It doesn't say what the high levels of estrogen in men are for this rare disease in men which may occur as they are not 100% proven yet.

ceadaoin.

Dr McKinnons latest tweet

"Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, looking at Jesse Owens, and he says, you know, quite openly, I think it's unfair, to have people like Jesse Owens competing, because you might as well have deer or gazelle on your team."

Sound familiar, transphobes? Not a good look

If all else fails, shout down your opponents as Nazis.

Gravelly

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Dr McKinnons latest tweet



If all else fails, shout down your opponents as Nazis.

Hilarious that a privileged, entitled, wealthy, pampered college professor, with every comfort western democracy can provide, who has been indulged in every possible way, compares opposition to his unethical use of outdated rules to beat women in competition, to the nazi attitude to blacks.
What a nasty whining little scumbag he is.

GreeBo

Is this man a lizard?


Is this man cat?


Is this man a woman?


How can you say "yes" to the third one but "no" to the other two?

Danzy

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

For one:

https://www.breastcancer.org/research-news/men-w-high-estrogen-could-have-high-risk

Science is fascism

mzungu

What is worth remembering here is that Rachael McKinnon is - to paraphrase Eamon Dunphy - a good track cyclist, not a great track cyclist. She has been beaten comprehensively in track events during the summer finishing 6th in Pennsylvania, 11th in Canada and runner up in Australia. In one sense, I agree when she says that if she wins there is a problem, but when she loses it never warrants a mention. There will never be full equality in sports, and when it comes to transgender athletes the NCAA have pretty much admitted this. They know that no matter what testosterone guidelines they lay down, neither side will be happy with it. It will either be too much or too little, depending on what side of the divide you are on. The overarching goal was inclusion for transgender athletes and I believe this to be a worthy endeavour. Everybody deserves the right to compete, and creating a separate category for transgender athletes is a non-runner.

On one hand, Rachael McKinnon trained hard to get first on that podium. That takes dedication, lots of early mornings on the bike when you would rather be in bed, or evenings at the gym when you would prefer to be at home, and that's not to mention strict dietary requirements and all that goes with it etc. On the other hand, every other woman competing did the exact same, made the sacrifices and trained to reach an elite level. If Rachael McKinnon was making mince meat out of all her opponents, then there might be something to be said for looking at whether there was an unfair advantage. At this point in time, about all you could say is that having a male body is an advantage against some athletes, but not others.

Where do you draw the line? Can transgender athletes enter sports as long as they come last or second last? Every time there is a transgender winner in some sport, will the same thing repeat itself? That is not a good development for sport, the transgender community or women in general. It makes it all about ideology. The skill and athleticism involved gets forgotten about. I would be willing to bet that not a lot of people have watched the race itself, instead the gender politics is what gets talked about.

The question is, what level do you deem appropriate for transgender athletes to compete at? Rachael McKinnon only became a story when she won. She is by no means the best rider in the 35-45 age category nor is her peak power output that much better than her peers (in cases it is lower), so does she really have an advantage? If so, do the women that beat her have an unfair advantage? If the answer is no then why? Lionel Messi has an advantage over Niall Quinn. Rafael Nadal has an advantage over Gastao Elias etc. Sport is full of athletes that hold advantages or disadvantages over the other.

I should add, I had a lot of sympathy for Rachael McKinnon, however, after reading the Nazi tweet above, it is clear she is trying to shame dissenting voices. Always a bad sign. Furthermore, her comments about differences between men and women being purely sociological, are completely barmy. It is clear she is a pure ideologue. What also troubles me is that other women on the cycling tour are afraid to voice their concerns, this is not right. The reason why they are afraid to voice those concerns is that they are afraid of being labelled a *insert phobia here*. Given the tweet above, you can certainly see where they are coming from. This is not a healthy situation. But women that voice their concerns are entitled to do so, and should be able to do it without having a Twitter mob descend on them.

With that said, there is the bigger issue here of where we draw the line with advantages. It is an imperfect world we live in, and guidelines for sport are always going to be imperfect as a result. Some have natural advantages, and others won't. We will be seeing a lot more transgender athletes in the coming years (all, or most will be M2F) so how we deal with this now has ramifications for the future. There may very well be further cases of unfair advantages to be investigated, but going on track record alone, Rachael McKinnon is most likely not one.

Danzy

mzungu wrote: »

What is worth remembering here is that Rachael McKinnon is - to paraphrase Eamon Dunphy - a good track cyclist, not a great track cyclist. She has been beaten comprehensively in track events during the summer finishing 6th in Pennsylvania, 11th in Canada and runner up in Australia. In one sense, I agree when she says that if she wins there is a problem, but when she loses it never warrants a mention. There will never be full equality in sports, and when it comes to transgender athletes the NCAA have pretty much admitted this. They know that no matter what testosterone guidelines they lay down, neither side will be happy with it. It will either be too much or too little, depending on what side of the divide you are on. The overarching goal was inclusion for transgender athletes and I believe this to be a worthy endeavour. Everybody deserves the right to compete, and creating a separate category for transgender athletes is a non-runner.

On one hand, Rachael McKinnon trained hard to get first on that podium. That takes dedication, lots of early mornings on the bike when you would rather be in bed, or evenings at the gym when you would prefer to be at home, and that's not to mention strict dietary requirements and all that goes with it etc. On the other hand, every other woman competing did the exact same, made the sacrifices and trained to reach an elite level. If Rachael McKinnon was making mince meat out of all her opponents, then there might be something to be said for looking at whether there was an unfair advantage. At this point in time, about all you could say is that having a male body is an advantage against some athletes, but not others.

Where do you draw the line? Can transgender athletes enter sports as long as they come last or second last? Every time there is a transgender winner in some sport, will the same thing repeat itself? That is not a good development for sport, the transgender community or women in general. It makes it all about ideology. The skill and athleticism involved gets forgotten about. I would be willing to bet that not a lot of people have watched the race itself, instead the gender politics is what gets talked about.

The question is, what level do you deem appropriate for transgender athletes to compete at? Rachael McKinnon only became a story when she won. She is by no means the best rider in the 35-45 age category nor is her peak power output that much better than her peers (in cases it is lower), so does she really have an advantage? If so, do the women that beat her have an unfair advantage? If the answer is no then why? Lionel Messi has an advantage over Niall Quinn. Rafael Nadal has an advantage over Gastao Elias etc. Sport is full of athletes that hold advantages or disadvantages over the other.

I should add, I had a lot of sympathy for Rachael McKinnon, however, after reading the Nazi tweet above, it is clear she is trying to shame dissenting voices. Always a bad sign. Furthermore, her comments about differences between men and women being purely sociological, are completely barmy. It is clear she is a pure ideologue. What also troubles me is that other women on the cycling tour are afraid to voice their concerns, this is not right. The reason why they are afraid to voice those concerns is that they are afraid of being labelled a *insert phobia here*. Given the tweet above, you can certainly see where they are coming from. This is not a healthy situation. But women that voice their concerns are entitled to do so, and should be able to do it without having a Twitter mob descend on them.

With that said, there is the bigger issue here of where we draw the line with advantages. It is an imperfect world we live in, and guidelines for sport are always going to be imperfect as a result. Some have natural advantages, and others won't. We will be seeing a lot more transgender athletes in the coming years (all, or most will be M2F) so how we deal with this now has ramifications for the future. There may very well be further cases of unfair advantages to be investigated, but going on track record alone, Rachael McKinnon is most likely not one.

The choice is to either do something or accept that most World Records, many top tier medals, Olympic gold, etc, will be off limits for biological women.

It is that simple.

2 Scoops

mzungu wrote: »

There may very well be further cases of unfair advantages to be investigated, but going on track record alone, Rachael McKinnon is most likely not one.

This is totally backward thinking imo. Just because McKinnon doesn't excel to the absolute extreme it means he doesn't have a fair advantage? It's all about the mean, not the absolute extremities. Put 50 McKinnon's in one of those races and the Women who came 2nd and 3rd will be no where near that podium.

And even then McKinnon beat legitimate female athletes and broke track records in the process. I think a person of that size competing against Women is unfair, don't you?

mzungu

Danzy wrote: »

The choice is to either do something or accept that most World Records, many top tier medals, Olympic gold, etc, will be off limits for biological women.

It is that simple.

Thing is though, there are not that many transgender people, and there are even less transgender athletes. It will never get to that stage. For all we know there may be barely any winners.

mzungu

2 Scoops wrote: »

This is totally backward thinking imo. Just because McKinnon doesn't excel to the absolute extreme it means he doesn't have a fair advantage? It's all about the mean, not the absolute extremities. Put 50 McKinnon's in one of those races and the Women who came 2nd and 3rd will be no where near that podium.

And even then McKinnon beat legitimate female athletes and broke track records in the process. I think a person of that size competing against Women is unfair, don't you?

You mention size, well that may look like an advantage on the bike, but her peak power output was largely in and around the same for other women in her category (and less in a lot of cases too) so her size did no massive favours there. There will never be 50 McKinnon's in that race, or any other across other sports, as there simply will not be that many transgender athletes. That scenario will never, ever come to pass.

stinkbomb

autumn2018 wrote: »

i don't see any problem here
if women want to win medals there going to have to up their game

to suddenly become bigger, faster and stronger than men? How exactly?

2 Scoops

mzungu wrote: »

You mention size, well that may not give you an advantage on the bike. Her peak power output was largely in and around the same for other women in her category so her size did no favours there. There will never be 50 McKinnon's in that race, or any other, as there simply will not be that many transgender athletes. That scenario will never come to pass.

It doesn't matter if it's 1, 50, or 500. There's a reason why you can't use a motor in a bicycle race. What's fair is fair, those Women who lost were competing vs an unfair advantage, you're stance seems to be "Well as long as it's only a few transgender's here and there it doesn't really matter". It does matter, what's right is right. We shouldn't ignore such issues, if we start doing that logic and reasoning will no longer prevail over the fear of upsetting people.

mzungu

2 Scoops wrote: »

It doesn't matter if it's 1, 50, or 500. There's a reason why you can't use a motor in a bicycle race. What's fair is fair, those Women who lost were competing vs an unfair advantage, you're stance seems to be "Well as long as it's only a few transgender's here and there it doesn't really matter". It does matter, what's right is right. We shouldn't ignore such issues even if it upsets people, if we start doing that logic and reasoning will no longer prevail over the fear of upsetting people.

That is not my stance at all. My point is that the rules are there so they can be inclusive for everybody. Hence they reduce testosterone to lessen muscle mass for M2F transgender athletes etc. Sport is never a level playing field and it never will be. There are unfair advantages everywhere, and given that McKinnon's achievements are more or less in line with women her age, then this is not the best example to use for unfairness.

I don't think we should ignore these issues either, in fact I think it should be out there a hell of a lot more. This should be talked about among scientists, athletes, media commentators, academics etc. Some kind of consensus might be able to be reached that can bring things along a bit further.

This is not going away so it might as well be faced head on.

2 Scoops

mzungu wrote: »

McKinnon's achievements are more or less in line with women her age, then this is not the best example to use for unfairness.

Some kind of consensus might be able to be reached that suits all parties.

That person broke track records. That's not in line with anything.



Second bit, I agree. I would say what I really think is going on here but I'll keep it to myself for now.

Danzy

mzungu wrote: »

Thing is though, there are not that many transgender people, and there are even less transgender athletes. It will never get to the stage. For all we know there may be barely any winners.

The scale of their biological advantage is so big that it may not take that many.

There are 16 year old boys who would win Olympic medals in events like the 3000 metres.

Granted they are good runners but they are still young and against people who live training.

It just takes one or two.

Flo Jo, the fastest woman on record, who was juiced to the hilt, it killed her eventually wouldn't have made top 5000 males in 100 metres.

As an athlete she was a pleasure to watch run, technique and flair and a show person, despite the drugs.

It just shows the scale of the difference.

Wibbs

mzungu wrote: »

With that said, there is the bigger issue here of where we draw the line with advantages.

Within sport natural advantages are usually balanced out regardless of biological gender M. EG No official body would sanction a boxing match between a bantamweight and a super heavyweight. So it seems a pretty clear cut line to me and a line with actual science and decades of good science behind it; ban biological males from women's sports. Crazy logic I know.

Actual intersex folks is a muddier area. They could be genetically "male" but never went through the testosterone spurt of puberty, so on the physiological level are women. Someone born a male, who goes through puberty as a male, then transitions into a female is outside the curve in a big way. In this particular case McKinnon as a man wouldn't get within an asses roar of a masters world track title no matter what training he would go through, yet as a she, they win it.

Never mind that McKinnon has gone on record with the utter bullshit that testosterone makes no difference and it's all "culture" why actual women don't win big in otherwise men's sports and you're dealing with a ridiculous ideology, not a reality. Sadly a reality that the silver and bronze medal winning actual women have had to deal with.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

For one:

https://www.breastcancer.org/research-news/men-w-high-estrogen-could-have-high-risk

Breast cancer is so unbelievably rare in men that even that elevated risk keeps it in the unbelievably rare category. And it would be nearly impossible to prove that higher esotrogen levels caused the cancer, seeing as men who haven’t transitioned get it too. Sure most women aren’t even able to pinpoint what caused theirs except for those of advanced age.

iguana

mzungu wrote: »

That is not my stance at all. My point is that the rules are there so they can be inclusive for everybody.

How the hell can this be inclusive for everyone? What hope in hell do transmen have when competing in a men's category? Pretty much the same hope I'd have. (Ie none.) So this thing about being inclusive is crap right from the start because that's an entire section of society that can never have a chance at competing. Separate categories for transmen and transwomen is the only way that's actually fair to women and transmen.

Wibbs

mzungu wrote: »

That is not my stance at all. My point is that the rules are there so they can be inclusive for everybody.

Yes and no M. As I pointed out there are leagues which try to make things a balanced playing field. Even in age groups we have juniors, adults and masters.

Hence they reduce testosterone to lessen muscle mass for M2F transgender athletes etc.

Which doesn't take away from the bloody obvious advantages of going through puberty as a man. I'm sorry to be obvious here M, but McKinnon looks like a man, regardless of the Trans protestations otherwise.

Sport is never a level playing field and it never will be. There are unfair advantages everywhere, and given that McKinnon's achievements are more or less in line with women her age, then this is not the best example to use for unfairness.

Again like I said as a man McKinnon wouldn;t have a hope, but as a woman they do. That's the point M. Hell, when I was running middle distance as a schoolboy in the 80's(800m, 1500m, The Mile) if I had entered women's events I would have been doing a Sebastian Coe(showing my age ) in them. Hell my times from back then would have had me in the front running of women's middle distance events today. And I was OK, but nowhere near olympic standard. Along with the whole Sean Kelly/Roche thing I also got into cycling and TBH I was only really any use on the hills, but I went out with extremely keen women cyclists, a couple who were considered very talented(and they were) and I walked away from them.

On that score I still retain a brain and muscle memory for cycling(though I was pure crap on track(Crumlin)) and I've watched McKinnon's race and in my opinion McKinnon is holding back compared to the other cyclist. They pretty much walk away from them at the end.

This is not going away so it might as well be faced head on.

By banning biological males from female competition. Indeed I'd go the other way too and ban biological females from male. FtM Trans get testosterone to help build a more male body and that right there is open to abuse. FtM Trans generally tend to look and pass for much more as their internal gender(though usually shorter than average). That alone should tell us the difference that testosterone makes.

mzungu

2 Scoops wrote: »

That person broke track records. That's not in line with anything.



Second bit, I agree. I would say what I really think is going on here but I'll keep it to myself for now.

IIRC A world record was also broken by McKinnon, but that lasted about 10 minutes before somebody else broke it. That new track record will probably be swatted aside sooner or later.

mzungu

Danzy wrote: »

The scale of their biological advantage is so big that it may not take that many.

There are 16 year old boys who would win Olympic medals in events like the 3000 metres.

Granted they are good runners but they are still young and against people who live training.

It just takes one or two.

Flo Jo, the fastest woman on record, who was juiced to the hilt, it killed her eventually wouldn't have made top 5000 males in 100 metres.

As an athlete she was a pleasure to watch run, technique and flair and a show person, despite the drugs.

It just shows the scale of the difference.

I do not doubt for one second the scale of the difference, it is massive. In sport a woman can never compete with a man. That is biology. The question is how far does reducing testosterone get us to as even a playing field as possible and what limits do you think would be acceptable?

Pug160

In regards to running: do things even up a bit the longer the distance gets, or is there a similar gap? That bit of information about Paula Radcliffe I mentioned earlier was probably just an extreme example I'm guessing (she was probably just exceptional and the British male runners of that time were mediocre). There are certainly some really exceptional women in some sports though. No question about that.