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

@joeguevara

Since you've read some 'conclusive' studies could you clarify exactly what is meant by the conclusion that 'transwomen don't have an advantage', in respect of the following point :

There are 2 elements to sporting success

1. The innate talent one has for the sport, honed by practising/training for that sport
2. In physical sports, the physical attributes one possess, which aids point 1

Is the conclusive conclusion you speak of referring to point 1 or point 2? Or both? I admit I haven't gone though the studies you've linked to me earlier with a fine tooth comb. Actually, that was just an opinion piece on a report, but not the report.

I can see how the conclusion could be valid for point 1, but not point 2. The devil is in the detail.

In case that's not clear, here's a real world example. Serena Williams may very well be just as talented and skilled as Rodger Federer. She may even be more talented and skilled than Fed. However point 2 would/could swing the difference as to who would win. And who wins in sport is so utterly the point.

It would be quite brave of you to say physical differences between men and woman are irrelevant. If that were the case in sport it would be the case generally in life. All those men pumping iron in the gym, all those muscles, but doesn't give them any advantage physically over anyone at all, even other men.

edit: typo

you've made that point a couple times, how does letting trans women compete with women negatively affect any organisations income?

It’s a very good point. But I will say that I never said anything was conclusive, i said that all of the studies so far are inconclusive as to advantages of transgender people over others but I take your point.

But I don’t fully agree with your point 2. You are suggesting (and correct me if I’m wrong) that strength aids point 1. Firstly as far as I know lean muscle mass is lost to a large degree after 2 years of hormone therapy. Secondly the hormone replacement is an inhibitor of strength and muscle. Transgender women are in no way as strong as they would have been if they didn’t transition but in any case for most sports involved testosterone limits exist so they would not have a fair advantage in sports like weightliftkn, sprinting etc . Also it is clear that strength and muscle is not always an advantage e.g in golf huge muscle bound guys don’t always drive furthest, slight football players can be way better than beasts etc. I will admit height can be an advantage and that won’t change.

but I suppose until there is actual long period studies to determine what so many people just automatically believe it’s not fair just to completely isolate people mainly because they just don’t like transgender people. Again the participation is under 3% and apart from very few outliers transfer women are not running away with anything.

Compete in what? Running, swimming. Grand. Like how many transgender people actually compete in sport. A minuscule amount. But that minuscule amount has caused a backlash of hate and vitriol against a group of people that don’t even compete in it. Twitter is obsessed with it, huge swathes of people are denigrating transgender people, (I do admit that a considerable amount of transgender advocates are equally as toxic), comedians are doing whole specials on them, Graham linehan devoted years of his life and thousands of tweets trolling transgender people, like for what, nothing.

There has literally been no impact in female sports. If people were really worried about the adverse impact in sports they would be discussing doping etc but that is dwarved By the amount of airtime transgender in sport evokes.

To answer your question, if a tiny amount of people want to compete in amateur athletics or swimming where winning is at the end of the day meaningless (and the vast majority of people don’t win anyway) let them off.

If someone is a danger to others in a prison they should be segregated and not be a threat to any person. Being a transgender person does not make them any more of a threat to others than the other criminals there.

Also, what is so abhorrent to you that a transgender person is housed with other women. Do you think that you do the crime you should only have the pleasure to see females.

As for made share toilets..like where? God help us if in the next cubicle is someone that is transgender.

As for changing rooms..where…like do you think transgender women are ogling as you get dressed. Should lesbians be excluded to. What is so wrong?

As for these sports based scholarships..well seeing as participation in sports by transgender is under 3% and the vast majority of those are not elite and not taking every valley high girls bursary. But for the tiny amount that might let’s give out about the whole lot of them because they are wrong,

People are entitled to discuss whatever their fancy is without or without personal interest. But say it as it is, it’s not about sport, it’s just anti transgender.

Her position is staunchly defending women's sport but she argues that somebody needs to address this question properly. You don't need a sub BTW, just clear out your history.

Not at all I think your points have merit and explained clearly. And I do think in some ways it makes sense. Apologies if I over emphasised with the use of abhorrent, that was unintentional but probably a bit heavy handed from me.

I do think using the term biological male to describe a transgender person as unnecessary though. But I see your point.

With regards to personal interest, I’m the last person who should even be involved in this discussion but I like to see both side. My Human rights law was focused on the law of armed conflict and war crimes rather than gender equality so just an observer really.

But hopefully that’s made my side a bit clearer and I’m no way meant to come across as belittling anyone else’s opinion.

Quite alarming on twitter the amount of people who are willing to call Sonia, perhaps our greatest female athlete, transphobic.

Is it easier to say these things on twitter?

I know you’ll disagree, but you’re not being forced to agree with or accept anything. It’s just being petty and it comes across as petty to be making up new terms to sneer at people who literally have never done anyone any harm. It’s moronic behaviour at it’s more high profile levels, no different than the anti-theist types and haughty theists coming up with terms to wind each other up.

I don’t use the prefix ‘trans’ in normal conversation when referring to either women or men, so having to constantly use it is in my view unnecessary, I just don’t bother as I really don’t care for the distinction, and that’s all it is - a distinction based upon social conventions. Arguing that it’s based upon biology is pure nonsense, it’s patently obvious “bite-sized science” from twitter, etc, no different than Greta Thunberg declaring we should listen to “the science”, as if that’s actually in any way a useful or credible argument.

Would it be fair to say in your normal everyday life you don’t encounter people who are transgender, and neither do the people you’re talking to? What you’re arguing is that context matters, and I agree, it does - so in the context of this particular conversation, it makes no sense whatsoever to refer to anyone by their physiology - they’re not being referred to in biological terms, because biology refers to the study of life, and I’m absolutely certain the people we’re discussing are a form of life!

It’s similar to the way in which Sonia O’ Sullen was referred to earlier as probably the greatest Irish athlete of all time - arguably in the context of the greatest Irish athletes of all time, she is one of the greatest Irish athletes of all time. The fact that she blamed a poor performance at a crucial point in her career on a grape, makes little sense to anyone who isn’t familiar with just how much their diet is crucial to an athletes performance, but to anyone who is familiar with the effects something so seemingly insignificant can have on an athletes performance, it makes perfect sense.

It’s somewhat ironic that given O’ Sullivan’s expressed opinion on this topic, that she would also lament the idea that the art of racing is being lost in favour of racing against the clock and being able to predict the outcomes. She absolutely has a point in the second instance, not so much the first -

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/other-sports/sonia-o-sullivan-are-we-losing-the-art-of-racing-in-chasing-times-at-all-costs-1.4810304

What she’s doing is similar to what Navratilova is doing when she opined on the future of women’s tennis, neglecting to realise that it’s future depends not on how predictable it becomes, but on maintaining the element of unpredictability which makes the sport an enjoyable spectacle which inspires young people to want to participate in, because the memorable moments in sports are what people remember, not the race times and records or any of the rest of it, they remember who ran a great race -

https://m.independent.ie/sport/szabos-sour-grapes-fail-to-take-gloss-off-golden-girl-26178301.html

And they remember performances which the athletes themselves would rather didn’t overshadow their achievements in sports -

https://www.foxsports.com.au/more-sports/a-giant-chocolate-mess-the-inglorious-inevitability-of-poo-in-professional-sport/news-story/1d93defc1aeeddd70f4f1eb6eb094504

Trust Fox News Australia for it’s absolute comedy gold 😂😂

Because the use of the term ‘biological’ makes no sense in the context in which you’re referring to sex. All sex is biological, whether it’s male or female, and there are people who do reject binary conceptions of sex in favour of a more comprehensive definition of sex. It’s all science.

People can cherry-pick whatever they wish to suit themselves, the problem is when they apply their standards to other people who do not share their standards. It’s why your designation and categorisation of athletes is rejected by athletes who do not share your standards, but instead cherry pick standards which they argue are fair and appropriate and not a violation of their dignity.

Pretending you don’t know exactly what you’re doing in referring to anyone as biological males or biological females is fairly obvious in it’s intent.

So we now need a study to "prove" that men are faster, stronger, etc, etc than women? Is that really where we are at.

Is it ok to start calling people fact-phobic or reality-phobic?

So what though? People say all sorts of things and express all sorts of opinions, it doesn’t mean anything unless there is something to support their beliefs. Your argument is like saying that because some people say something stupid, you’re going to associate anyone who shares characteristics in common with them with that person’s stupid opinions, and treat them accordingly.

That approach is fine on a personal level, but it doesn’t work at the level of determining policies.

I think you entirely missed what I answered. I said replace the Male category with an open category. If we accept your figures and round to the nearest decimal point then approximately 50% of the population would be likely to be competing in this category, as it would include all male athletes (male as defined by either gender or sex), along with anyone else who wishes to compete (of any gender or sex). That to me would be preferable to a third category for trans / intersex athletes for exactly the reasons you have outlined, which I agree with. It would be a fairly empty category. I don't see why that wouldn't work for all the other sports you listed there, but I'm open to hearing if you think there are reasons why it wouldn't.

Jenner seems to be a good person to listen to on this. As a former Olympian and now changed gender.

It wouldn’t work Enduro for the simple reason that it does nothing to resolve the issue of people who are not willing to agree that it’s perfectly reasonable that they should be discriminated against.

It would be like expecting that anyone should agree to being treated as unequal on some arbitrary basis as decided upon by people who wish to exclude them, and claiming that’s a fair compromise.

Just look at what was suggested by one group as a compromise for transgender athletes in swimming -

• Given Lia Thomas has apparently met the testosterone threshold as established by the 12 year old NCAA policy and has qualified to compete, we propose that she swim as an exhibition participant at the upcoming 2022 NCAA Women’s Swimming and Diving Championships. This would afford Lia the opportunity to experience competition at the highest level collegiately as a member of the U Penn women’s team, while also allowing the three women who were displaced by her qualification in three events to compete.

https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/texas-womens-alums-write-letter-on-lia-thomas-participation-in-ncaa-championships/

Does that sound like fair treatment if you were in the position where you were being discriminated against? I think anyone would reasonably object to that sort of expectation.

I’m neither completely blind nor blinkered, yet at least 😂

But your just declaring an opinion nonsense and based upon my own built in biases adds nothing to the discussion. The approach requires removing biases, which support discrimination.

Nobody is suggesting that all discriminatory criteria are removed, and it’s unfair to imply anyone doesn’t understand why the criteria which they have no issue with exist - they recognise that there are legitimate reasons for criteria such as age and ability and nationality and so on, as demonstrated recently when Russian athletes were permitted to participate in the Olympics on the basis that they would represent the Russian Olympic Committee, and not the Russian nation. It would have been disproportionately unfair to the individual athletes to hold them all responsible and punishable accordingly for other people’s actions.

I’m also aware that there ARE far more resources being put into women’s sports than there are put into sex texting; my point is that whatever resources are put into sex testing, should instead be put into women’s sports, because in the time since women have participated in sports and been subject to sex testing, the justification for sex testing has been shown to be supporting unfounded claims as opposed to the amount of athletes it has determined are guilty of cheating.

It’s not a question of whether I like anything or not, your data is useless. It doesn’t matter that you imagine your data supports your opinions, no bias on your part of course 🙄

The data you’re using does not consider the effects of criteria outside the scope of your data. It’s just bad data being used to provide insufficient scientific evidence of an advantage that transgender athletes have over athletes who are not transgender, on the basis of assumptions made about the influence of a single criteria (testosterone) on athletic performance.

The data and what is purported to be scientific evidence has been roundly criticised for a number of reasons by numerous scientists, the evidence simply doesn’t support the claims it hypothesises, but the people who claim that it does, will carry on using it regardless in support of their already held beliefs… but no bias on their part of course 🤔

Their data is useless? Is that because it goes against pretty much everything that you have been saying in this thread?

Data doesn't have bias when it comes to what we are talking about. As Enduro said, there is no bias involved when you see biological males have a performance advantage over biological females, that is just flat out fact across the board.

You are looking at testosterone as a binary reason, and skipping over the impact it has during puberty in males and what that does to their bodies. It bakes in advantages in bones, muscles and organ capacity. Taking test blockers won't change your heart or lung size, that stays the same.

You are looking at testosterone as a binary reason, and skipping over the impact it has during puberty in males and what that does to their bodies. It bakes in advantages in bones, muscles and organ capacity. Taking test blockers won't change your heart or lung size, that stays the same.

I’m not looking at testosterone as a binary reason at all when I’m arguing that athletic performance is not nearly so simple as to be determined by a single factor which it is claimed has a greater influence on all other factors, and that rationale being used to maintain a system which existed before the means to measure the impact of testosterone existed! 😳

In consideration of the advantages though and fairness and all the rest of it, and in the interests of full disclosure this question is predicated upon my knowing the outcome of an athlete competing at international level in sports competitions who has been a lung transplant recipient to address an underlying medical condition which meant their formerly reduced lung capacity has increased considerably -

Would you argue in the same fashion that they now possess a trait which gives them a disproportionate advantage in competition and they should be excluded from participating on that basis? I don’t want you to actually answer that question as it won’t change the outcome, but what I’m pointing to is the fact that there is a difference in determining policies which have the effect of exclusion of a whole group of people on the basis of an individual trait, vs exclusion of an individual athlete on the basis that the legitimate aim is to maintain fair competition.

You are comparing apples to oranges there, my friend. There is a world of difference (as you probably already know) between taking test blockers and someone who has received a lung transplant. Not just with the invasive nature of the transplant itself, but the nature of it over all is absolutely nothing like taking test blockers or in the same realm as someone who identifies as the opposite gender.

Athletic performance (or differences between males and females) is wider than testosterone, however the impact of test in a male body through puberty is incredible. It has been listed but you have a variety of baked in differences, bones, organs, you name it (and you know it I am sure).

As it has been pointed out to you, if you want "fair" competition then let males and females compete at the same sport or game and see the differences. You can see the differences in athletics, weightlifting, soccer, boxing, MMA, tennis. You will argue that there is some advantage to males in these sports due to some sort of agenda, whereas the actual reason is just that males and females perform at different levels due to their physicality.