Biological males in women's sport

Franz Von Peppercorn

"mzungu wrote:

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.

She has the advantage of her male biology. She didn’t even look in that good a shape to me. Not compared to most cyclists. I believe the article says her time was 26 minutes slower than the fastest male.

However her argument is in fact legally correct, if the law says that a person with a penis is a woman and having a penis is inconsequential or as consequential as hair colour then she can surely cycle in these competitions. And a court case against testosterone levels has a good chance of winning as it could be seen as discriminatory against this new and wider legal definition of women. Then the floodgates open.

Her Goebbels comment is misunderstood perhaps too. She says that he Nazis saw black athleticism as a threat to white runners and intended to ban it. She’s saying that biological male transwomen may have biological advantages but any attempt at a ban is similarly discriminatory.

This is where we are if the law redefines what a woman is.

mzungu

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

I get you. However, is the difference between a bantamweight and heavyweight the same as McKinnon and the opponents on the track? Heavyweight would pummel a bantamweight (says me who never watched a boxing match in my life, but go with me anyway) but McKinnon is evenly matched to the point where she does get beaten, and beaten well.

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

Aye. Quite frankly when i heard that stuff about reducing testosterone to be a violation of human rights it was roll eyes all way. McKinnon is a eejit and those comments are idiotic. Thing is though, what interests me about this is not Rachel McKinnon, but rather the precedent that is set from here on in and what it means for what is to come. That's what I am getting at. No matter what happens, there will be more and more trans athletes competing (although relatively speaking there will only be a select few that make the elite) so can some form of consensus be reached regarding the limits that could/should be set?

mzungu

iguana wrote: »

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.

I should have stated that those were not my words, but a paraphrase of the NCAA approach to transgender athletes in their rules and regulations. They rule the roost in North America, and I am quite sure you will find all governing bodies of the Olympics and all that jazz say pretty much the same. Thing is, the NCAA already acknowledge that this will not be fair on everybody, as it is impossible to have an equal playing field.

Regarding separate categories, that is a non runner for governing bodies as under their own rules it counts as discrimination. Besides, it would be a PR nightmare and a headache for them to row back now. As I said above, whether you agree with this or not (and I can see both sides of the argument) it is highly unlikely that things will be changed. The situation as it is cannot continue as it will eventually take away from the sport itself, and nobody wants that.

mzungu

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

Apologies, those were the NCAA's words (or to that effect) and not mine.

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

I won't argue that, because I agree. My angle on it is that McKinnon is another of those people with a major victim complex and therefore quite uninteresting. What this means for sport is really what should concerns us the most. As I was saying above, no matter what, this is how things are. So is there ever a way to make this fairer than it is now?

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

Had I tried running 800m in my school days I wouldn't be alive to type this now!

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

Thing is though, if there was a holdback, where would all the losses come into it? Even though McKinnon has transitioned - and I do accept being previously male brings advantages - by all accounts we are not dealing with a phenom or anything like that.

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

The different categories has been suggested, but it also appears like it would be very hard to implement for the reasons outlined in the post above (PR etc). That said, you raise a valid point about F2M athletes, they will never have a hope in hell of competing in the elite mens events. That is quite unfair when you think about it.

mzungu

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

She has the advantage of her male biology. She didn’t even look in that good a shape to me. Not compared to most cyclists. I believe the article says her time was 26 minutes slower than the fastest male.

However her argument is in fact legally correct, if the law says that a person with a penis is a woman and having a penis is inconsequential or as consequential as hair colour then she can surely cycle in these competitions. And a court case against testosterone levels has a good chance of winning as it could be seen as discriminatory against this new and wider legal definition of women. Then the floodgates open.

Her Goebbels comment is misunderstood perhaps too. She says that he Nazis saw black athleticism as a threat to white runners and intended to ban it. She’s saying that biological male transwomen may have biological advantages but any attempt at a ban is similarly discriminatory.

This is where we are if the law redefines what a woman is.

I would honestly believe (and hope) that this never happens because it would ruin women's sport altogether. A court of law would surely realise that the biological differences between the sexes mean that M2F athletes will always need reduction in testosterone to make it as fair as it possibly can be. There is no discrimination there.

Danzy

mzungu wrote: »

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?

Go negative, go way below the levels of a woman.

How will that affect the impact of being 13 and male.

MonkieSocks

mzungu

Pug160 wrote: »

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.

I'm not a running buff, so I have no idea how good or bad the UK mens marathon runners were. What I can say is that only seven male US athletes beat her time that year. That is impressive, a nation of over 290 million only seven were up to the task. Therefore I think PR was just a great talent, but she was an outlier. Those kinds of results are not repeated often.

mzungu

Danzy wrote: »

Go negative, go way below the levels of a woman.

How will that affect the impact of being 13 and male.

As it stands I am pretty sure the levels are quite small. There could be adverse health reactions going much lower.

Zorya

mzungu wrote: »

I should have stated that those were not my words, but a paraphrase of the NCAA approach to transgender athletes in their rules and regulations. They rule the roost in North America, and I am quite sure you will find all governing bodies of the Olympics and all that jazz say pretty much the same. Thing is, the NCAA already acknowledge that this will not be fair on everybody, as it is impossible to have an equal playing field.

Regarding separate categories, that is a non runner for governing bodies as under their own rules it counts as discrimination. Besides, it would be a PR nightmare and a headache for them to row back now. As I said above, whether you agree with this or not (and I can see both sides of the argument) it is highly unlikely that things will be changed. The situation as it is cannot continue as it will eventually take away from the sport itself, and nobody wants that.

I can appreciate your points, and you seem to be in step with the reality of the situation - ie there is not likely to be a row back. A row back would require wholesale negation of the ideology that is coming to be accepted as true. I can't actually see how this could be dealt with - I am not with you when you minimise advantage plus as FvP said circumstances now have to logically extend to include self ID non-hormone or surgical treated athletes. It's a big problem - talk about it and you are a transphobic w*nker, do nothing and biological females are erased gradually in sport. Perhaps some clever idea will emerge. Don't know.

Zorya

mzungu wrote: »

As it stands I am pretty sure the levels are quite small. There could be adverse health reactions going much lower.

One of the cruel ironies of the trans stuff is that children are being prescribed puberty blockers at young ages (eg 9 years old) and it is being increasingly understood that these drugs have hugely adverse effects on their bodies - in other words they should not take them, if medics are motivated by the essential doctrine of ''first do no harm''.
Effects include - reduced bone mineralisation (density loss) and growth, increased risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease, certain cancers and diabetes, and as yet unmeasured effects to cognitive and brain development, among others. Serious bone, blood and joint disorders are emerging in children treated in the 90s with GnRH analogues for precocious puberty.
Cross sex hormones further advocated presently for gender affirmation result in the same side effects plus induced menopause, stunted phallus and clitoris, atrophied uterus and vagina, impaired fertility (sterility, in fact) and others I'm sure.

To be completely physically harmless children and adults with gender dysphoria should not be treated chemically at all - it is a bad idea. There should be adequate mechanisms for social transition that enable psychological comfort. In the trans community this point of view is emerging, because they above all will have seen the effects of chemicals on their bodies. This is among the reasons why self ID without any gender affirmation procedures is important to them.
Such an approach would/will inevitably mean the future trans-identifying athletes would be fully as biologically capable as their birth gender permits.

Perhaps one solution would be participation in non-contact sports alongside one's self ID gender, with results and achievements categorised differently. IE McKinnon gets 1st medal in trans category, but the biological female who came 2nd gets 1st medal in female category, even though they raced alongside each other.
This possible solution could not happen in contact sports though.

Franz Von Peppercorn

mzungu wrote: »

I would honestly believe (and hope) that this never happens because it would ruin women's sport altogether. A court of law would surely realise that the biological differences between the sexes mean that M2F athletes will always need reduction in testosterone to make it as fair as it possibly can be. There is no discrimination there.

If the law accepts, like trans activists do, that a woman with a penis is a woman indistinguishable from any other woman then any testosterone law is discriminatory. Until now high testosterone was probably added, to force legal women to reduce could well be problematic legally.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Here’s McKinnon on transgender advantages

Is being trans just another natural physical characteristic that, if — and this is a gigantic “if” — it provides an advantage, should we treat it like just being tall? We do not regulate height. In many sports height provides a massive competitive advantage. I’m six-foot. I’m too short to be an elite volleyball athlete. If you compared a five-foot woman to a 6-foot-4 woman, the tall woman will have such a competitive advantage that the shorter woman won’t be able to compete in volleyball or basketball. But we don’t consider that massive advantage unfair. Is being trans just another way to be a natural person who maybe gets an avenge for it that we should treat like being tall?

On testerone she distinguishes between naturally having it and doping it.

When people think of testosterone and athletic performance, they think of doping with exogenous testosterone — testosterone that comes from outside the body. Compare that to endogenous testosterone, which occurs in the body. While chemically they perform roughly the same way, there is ample evidence that shows exogenous testosterone, compared to what you naturally have, produces big performance advantages. That’s why it’s considered doping. There is no evidence that having a higher produced value of endogenous testosterone has any performance advantages at all. The evidence does not bear that out. So that is the second myth: the more testosterone you have, naturally, the better you are. So trans women might be male early on, and that on average such bodies have more endogenous naturally testosterone, therefore they’re stronger because of that. We have evidence that is just not the case.

Backstreet Moyes

Imagine being a female teenager in America training all your life to get a scholarship to College then some fella decides he is girl and takes that place.

This is something feminists should actually be giving out about.

Zorya

Anyway, McKinnon the Glittery Metaphysician does not accept Jen Wagner's apology. It's got to be complete submission or nothing for our Rach.

https://twitter.com/rachelvmckinnon/status/1053079653785759745

Will I Am Not

Zorya wrote: »

Anyway, McKinnon the Glittery Metaphysician does not accept Jen Wagner's apology. It's got to be complete submission or nothing for our Rach.

https://twitter.com/rachelvmckinnon/status/1053079653785759745

What a geebag... or a dickbag even.

ceadaoin.

Nuts102 wrote: »

Imagine being a female teenager in America training all your life to get a scholarship to College then some fella decides he is girl and takes that place.

This is something feminists should actually be giving out about.

Feminists are giving out about it. They're the ones being threatened with rape/beatings/burnings, actually being attacked, labelled as bigots, no platformed etc. Look it up

Richard Hillman

It should be noted that this isn't a proper world championship. It was a regional event for over 35s (where everyone decent retired). Gladly this happened at this event as opposed to a proper world championship event because if it escalated to an Olympic event we would have a holy **** storm

Zorya

Richard Hillman wrote: »

It should be noted that this isn't a proper world championship. It was a regional event for over 35s (where everyone decent retired). Gladly this happened at this event as opposed to a proper world championship event because if it escalated to an Olympic event we would have a holy **** storm

It will happen in Olympic events. Inevitable.

Have Faith, says Rach, We'll get there

https://twitter.com/rachelvmckinnon/status/1053410833869557760

GreeBo

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Here’s McKinnon on transgender advantages

Is being trans just another natural physical characteristic that, if — and this is a gigantic “if” — it provides an advantage, should we treat it like just being tall? We do not regulate height. In many sports height provides a massive competitive advantage. I’m six-foot. I’m too short to be an elite volleyball athlete. If you compared a five-foot woman to a 6-foot-4 woman, the tall woman will have such a competitive advantage that the shorter woman won’t be able to compete in volleyball or basketball. But we don’t consider that massive advantage unfair. Is being trans just another way to be a natural person who maybe gets an avenge for it that we should treat like being tall?

On testerone she distinguishes between naturally having it and doping it.

When people think of testosterone and athletic performance, they think of doping with exogenous testosterone — testosterone that comes from outside the body. Compare that to endogenous testosterone, which occurs in the body. While chemically they perform roughly the same way, there is ample evidence that shows exogenous testosterone, compared to what you naturally have, produces big performance advantages. That’s why it’s considered doping. There is no evidence that having a higher produced value of endogenous testosterone has any performance advantages at all. The evidence does not bear that out. So that is the second myth: the more testosterone you have, naturally, the better you are. So trans women might be male early on, and that on average such bodies have more endogenous naturally testosterone, therefore they’re stronger because of that. We have evidence that is just not the case.

Here's what I don't get.

If McKinnon thinks it's just another trait why doesn't he race men?
Clearly they are entering a category they think they have a better chance of winning in... ergo there is an advantage...ergo what they are doing is unfair.

FTA69

mzungu wrote: »

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.

So what? McKinnon is getting beaten because she is competing against elite women and the only reason she can match those elite athletes is because she has the residual benefits of a male physique.

To give an example, I boxed in the Irish Novices years ago, if I transitioned to a woman and kept my physique I’ve no doubt I could have boxed to a higher level in the women’s. Would I have beaten Katie Taylor? Not in a million years, but the bottom line is that someone with a physique like mine shouldn’t be boxing in the local women’s amateurs.

ingalway

Nuts102 wrote:

This is something feminists should actually be giving out about.

Why just feminists? This affects all women, feminists or not - your sisters, daughters, mother, friends. Don't leave it to only women to fight this man made mess...

Zorya

ingalway wrote: »

Why just feminists? This affects all women, feminists or not - your sisters, daughters, mother, friends. Don't leave it to only women to fight this man made mess...

Yes. And women who are fighting agaisnt it are called TERFs - trans exclusionary radical feminists. One would have thought this was a slur, a subjective term of abuse. But no, Dr. Rachel McKinnon, Assistant Professor at the Dept of Philosophy in the College of Charleston, USA, has submitted recently - and had accepted and published - research papers where the Glittery Metaphysician refers to women who object in any way to trans ideology as TERFS, not as a term that might be up for reasoned discussion but simply as an wholly acceptable (to the Professor) scientific descriptor.

Extract from - https://quillette.com/2018/10/18/trans-activists-campaign-against-terfs-has-become-an-attack-on-science/

Even in disciplines far removed from athletics or the white-gowned world of hospitals and clinics, pressure to toe an extremist line on transgender issues is undermining academic and intellectual freedom. The journal Philosophy and Phenomenological Research (PPR) recently published two articles—one by trans academic Rachel McKinnon (College of Charleston) called “The Epistemology of Propaganda,“ and another by Jason Stanley (Yale), “Replies”—wherein the epithet “TERF” (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) is casually flung about to attack women who oppose a trans-maximalist agenda. The attack on women contained in these articles was so scathing that a group of philosophers were moved to publish a guest post in the philosophy blog Daily Nous entitled “Derogatory Language in Philosophy Journal Risks Increased Hostility and Diminished Discussion,” pointing out that TERF is “at worst a slur and at best derogatory.” (It has also been pointed out that McKinnon’s paper contained at least one flat-out falsehood—the claim that there is no case on record of a transgender woman sexually assaulting a woman in a female-only space.)

One of the dark ironies informing the trans extremists’ case against their opponents is the insistence that people like me—women—must call themselves cis women. For all their fixation on self-identification and self-selected pronouns, these same activists demand the right to apply made-up terms to others. And if you reject those terms? Well, that’s just taken as more proof that you’re a “TERF.”

McKinnons Epistemological Musings (Extract) - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/phpr.12429

KERSPLAT!

GreeBo wrote: »

Here's what I don't get.

If McKinnon thinks it's just another trait why doesn't he race men?
Clearly they are entering a category they think they have a better chance of winning in... ergo there is an advantage...ergo what they are doing is unfair.

I assume they're entering the race they are categorised for. Her identifying as female she would enter a female category.

Not that I agree, or disagree, with it. I'm just pointing out the, I suppose, logic to it.

Zorya

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

I assume they're entering the race they are categorised for. Her identifying as female she would enter a female category.

Not that I agree, or disagree, with it. I'm just pointing out the, I suppose, logic to it.

Once a culture has been brow-beaten into accepting that a male to female transitioned person is identical to a biological female - and our culture is almost completely in step now with that tenet - then it is completely logical, of course.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Zorya wrote: »

Once a culture has been brow-beaten into accepting that a male to female transitioned person is identical to a biological female - and our culture is almost completely in step now with that tenet - then it is completely logical, of course.

Absolutely. This will be the logic.

“Yes transgender women may have advantages but all elite athletes have advantages”.

P_1

Look if she had an advantage she would be winning every single race a la Lance Armstrong in the Tour de France. She isn't. What does that tell us?

KERSPLAT!

Zorya wrote: »

Once a culture has been brow-beaten into accepting that a male to female transitioned person is identical to a biological female - and our culture is almost completely in step now with that tenet - then it is completely logical, of course.

I don't disagree

Franz Von Peppercorn

P_1 wrote: »

Look if she had an advantage she would be winning every single race a la Lance Armstrong in the Tour de France. She isn't. What does that tell us?

She’s personally not that good. In fact she took up cycling a few years ago. Until then her sport was badminton.

gctest50

P_1 wrote: »

Look if she had an advantage she would be winning every single race a la Lance Armstrong in the Tour de France. She isn't. What does that tell us?

A) holding back - like in horse racing

or

is a cr@p athlete anyway and is desperate to have a trophy