this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2023
144 points (100.0% liked)
LGBTQ+
6211 readers
45 users here now
All forms of queer news and culture. Nonsectarian and non-exclusionary.
See also this community's sister subs Feminism, Neurodivergence, Disability, and POC
Beehaw currently maintains an LGBTQ+ resource wiki, which is up to date as of July 10, 2023.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
To be clear, the report doesn't claim it's proven that trans women have no advantage in elite sports, but rather that the biomedical evidence is inconclusive and that the methodology of existing studies has been highly flawed.
It does go into some sociological factors which is good, and it draws attention to the fact that these studies are seemingly often conducted from a place of transphobia to begin with.
I suppose it's hard to do science on it as it's such a loaded topic, and the number of trans athletes is relatively small.
Right. I think that's a very important distinction.
To take it a step further, I think it's probably quite intuitive and obvious that if you're born a male, go through puberty as a male, you will have a different body composition than a female. Even with hormone suppressors. They are claiming there is no evidence that this is an advantage.
Well it is, absolutely, depending on the sport. I don't know that it could be proven that bone density, for instance, helps people perform better. But I know that some sports there is an advantage to being taller. And hormone suppressors aren't going to reduce that advantage. So that alone is definitive proof that being born a male and going through puberty as a male is advantageous in certain sports (as male's are taller on average, than females). I don't know how you could argue that isn't true.
Sports is inherently unfair. Biological advantages are the basis for global competition. If the goal is fairness in sports then why is no consideration directed at any other kind of advantage until a trans woman is involved?
Uh... it is. We have considerations taken into account for age, weight, and skill level, at various levels of sports. Yes, obviously there are biological advantages in sports, and that is a big part of the sport. That's precisely why we separate men and women, BECAUSE of those advantages.
So for you to say there is no consideration given to those advantages until trans woman are involved is just flatly wrong. That's the basis of this entire conversation, the fact that we do take that into account already.
So why is the discussion not how we can further categorize people then? You know, to account for the biological advantages?
Its not fair to short women that only tall women can compete in sprinting on an international scale. There's nothing they could ever do to compete on that level. It's not physically possible for them. So why is the Olympics not dividided into height categories? Why not categories based on wingspan in swimming? Why not categories based on muscle to fat ratio in lifting? Why not categories based on leg length in cycling? Why don't we categorize any sport that requires prolonged deep breathing into lung capacity? Why don't we measure any relative advantage causes by these things and measure everyone accordingly?
Look into how the special Olympics is measured such that anyone can compete. Anyone can, and their results take into consideration their relative handicaps and advantages.
Fairness in sports is not the point. Never has been. The point is "perfection of the human body". How strong can can the strongest people possibly get? How fast can the fastest people possibly get? How high can the highest jump ever get?
Why is it currently impossible for 99.99% of cisgender women, no matter how much they train, to compete in a sporting event at an Olympic level? How is the inclusion of trans women fundamentally changing this process in any way?
You do realize trans women are women, right? You're just tlaking about taking women out of women's sports. Castor Semenya, several other black women have been told they are not woman enough to be treated as women. Do you think there's any motivation behind that?
Is sports meant to be exclusionary? If so, who is women's sports for? Upper middle class women from well off families? What about wealth disparity? If we add in wealth disparity the percentage of women who will ever be able to compete is even smaller. So what about poor women?
Why is the category for shooting divided by sex?
Why has there been significant discussion about excluding trans women from beauty competitions? Do you not understand the movement has nothing to do with fairness, and is just a conservative culture war talking point to spread hatred of trans women?
Do you not understand that by perpetuating this culture war talking point, you're just proving conclusively that you do not see trans women as women and that you're hypocritical for focusing solely on any advantage a trans woman has ignoring that every single olympic level athlete at this stage has massive biological advantages that already exclude 99.99% of women from ever competing at that level?
Trans women are women. We take hormones that destroy our muscle mass and cause significant physical impairment to our bodies. I'm not the incredible hulk, I'm not a massive testosterone machine, I have had GRS and I have no blood testosterone at all. I've been this way for nearly a decade. In any competition I would be utterly destroyed by even a teenage girl. Is it necessary to exclude me from participation? Am I not woman enough to compete, like Castor Semenya? Am I not who sports is for? Is sports only for cis boys and girls, is that the message you want to send to trans kids?
I'm going to say this, and you're probably going to get pissed. I'm sure my post will get deleted, but if ya'll can't handle having conversations with people who don't 100% align with your views, than we will never make progress.
You said 'you do realize trans women are women, right'.
Yes. They are. I will treat them like a woman. I will acknowledge them to be a woman. I will use the pronouns they prefer, and think in 99% of scenarios, none of this should be problematic.
But they are not the SAME as all women. Yes, they are a woman. But they have a slightly different experience/body type than all of the other women, and that difference gives them an advantage over other women, that none of the other women get.
You're completely correct that sports is about being the best. It's about seeing what the human body can achieve at it's maximum. And we've broadly separated those sports endeavors into two categories. Male and female (with the exception of some sports that we put additional restraints in, weight classes etc).
We realize that not everybody can be the best athlete in the world. That doesn't mean we have a need to create 10,000 parameters and classes of sport for people to compete in so that everyone has an equal shot at being the best in the world. There are thousands of reasons why a man or a woman won't ever have a chance at being the best in the world. And we are fine with all of them.
The difference is that we are fine with people not being the best woman they can be. We are not fine with people going through a fundamentally different body growth during puberty, that enables them to have an advantage that no other woman could possibly have, as they were not able to go through puberty as a male, as that's not something that women can do.
It sucks for transgender women. I get it. I feel bad for them. I wish there was a better solution. You know what else sucks for transgender women? Being born a gender that they aren't. Having to deal with society's hatred toward them. There are a lot of things that suck for transgender women. But sticking to the parameters we've had in women's sports at a competitive level is not hatred. It's simply desiring to keep the playing field the same as it's always been. Women, who grew up and went through puberty as women, competing in their sport.
I think it's really simple.
If you have an advantage because of something that occurs naturally in you, and you've gone through puberty as a woman, then it's fine.
If you have an advantage because you went through puberty as a gender other than what you're competing as, then it falls outside of the advantages we are willing to accept.
That's all there is to it, really.
Okay, so you admit that sports isn't fair and that fairness isn't the point.
So you just think trans women should be excluded.
Someone who has a genetic mutation that makes their wingspan unnaturally wide has an advantage that no other woman can have. So, no, the only justification possible here is that trans women are not women and so therefore do not deserve to compete as women. And you're okay with saying to young trans boys and girls, that they should give up on sports and athletics, because those things are only for cis boys and girls.
Whats wrong with having many categories of competition to make things fair? Or whats wrong with the methodology of the special Olympics, which uses a combined leader board with calculations for handicap and advantage?
There are actual solutions here, but instead you just want to exclude trans women. Just like Caster Semenya, you don't think trans women are woman enough to be treated as such.
Right. And we've decided the advantages we are ok with accepting are those that women who have gone through puberty as a woman have. And advantages that fall outside of that are things we are not ok with.
Puberty is different for every woman. Every woman has varying levels of testosterone, especially when certain conditions like PCOS and Endometriosis are involved.
Are they allowed to compete? Why would they be allowed to compete if a trans woman isn't? Are you under the impression that all cisgender women have the exact same body in all measures?
I'll ask again, who is sports for then? Cisgender women who never had blood T levels over a certain level? So all other cisgender women who have had blood T levels above that should also be excluded? What about trans women who don't go through testosterone puberty? What about trans women who do, but have very low testosterone?
Youre still left with only one possible view of the situation, that trans women are not women. Trans women are as diverse a group as cisgender women are. Categorically banning trans women makes no sense. You would never even consider that idea if you thought that trans women were women, because its just as ridiculous as telling a cis woman with more T than whatever level you decide that they don't fit the definition of woman you've decided. It's not just ridiculous it is also malicious. You may not be intending to be malicious, but you are perpetuating a talking point that promotes hatred of us. To you this may be just a matter of your opinion, to me its watching as more and more misinformation is spread about me and people like me.
Then do we ban cis women who are tall or have a high bone density from women's sports? Do we allow trans women who don't have these advantages? Why single out trans people? If you judge that certain advantages are too much, why ban all trans people specifically?
This is it, exactly.
Every time I've gone and looked into it, the research seems to indicate that trans women who've been on HRT for a year or two do retain some advantages due to testosterone-fueled puberty, but those advantages they may retain are well within the bounds of what's expected between cis women. In other words, sure, maybe a trans woman is taller than she'd be had she not gone through T-puberty, but there are cis women who are also tall, and we're not banning them on that basis. The same goes for any other advantages they (trans women) retain.
We are banning them specifically because they gained that advantage by going through puberty as a gender they aren't competing as. And none of those other women competitors had the ability to do that.
That is the difference. And I think that's a fine reason to ban someone from competing (AT A HIGH LEVEL, NOT CHILDREN'S SPORTS).
And I'm saying that's a bogus reason to ban trans women from women's sports. If their advantage is no greater than that of the advantages between cis women, then including medically transitioned trans women in women's sports does not un-level the playing field.
ETA: The way that we control for the testosterone-fueled changes a trans woman's body undergoes in puberty is by requiring them to be on HRT (including T suppressors) for a long enough amount of time that those advantages become negligible and they can fairly compete with other athletes, not by outright banning them. It's ridiculous and more than a little offensive to act like outright banning trans women from high level competition is the right thing to do.
Emphasis on medically transitioned.
Some people seem to think that lgbt activists want to make it so that any male athlete could just put on a wig, say "I'm trans now", steal medals from women and then detransition the next day. (As depicted in that Futurama episode.)
Letting trans people who have medically transitioned for several years compete is a very different beast from letting anyone who claims to be trans compete.
Absolutely. It's still a bit arbitrary, but at least there's data and established history to back this up as a viable way for trans women to compete. It's how we've been doing things in most major sports already, if they have any policy for trans athletes at all. It's worked out fine, I have yet to see any example of a trans athlete that is blowing her competition out of the water, so to speak. All of their examples are heavily cherry picked and misrepresented to look poorly on the trans community, but at closer inspection are anything but that.
That said, there are still some problems. For one, focusing on T-levels ends up with people like Caster Semenya, a cis-woman with a condition that means she produces a bunch of testosterone, being barred from competing.
Should I be banned from women's sports? I mean I've been through a male puberty which according to your criteria would seem to make it an immediate no, but I'm also 5'6 and for various reasons likely have a lower than average bone density. Would I be competing with an 'unfair advantage'?
@blackhole @ada @melmi
This just reinforces the idea that we should improve the education and support for trans kids at all levels, specially school and early stages, and allow hormone suppressors before they do any irreversible damage on trans kids and teenagers.
If they are able to make an earlier decision, their lives will be closer to what they need.
In what world is it a good idea to give hormone suppressors to literal children? It's not a decision any child is capable of making.
Edit: Alright, you guys do have a point in that it's reversible and safe. My bad.
It's a good idea in a world where that child is aware of their gender identity (which many people develop far earlier than when puberty starts) and about to start going through irreversible changes. The betrayal of their body is a big part of why trans children have such high rates of suicide.
In any case though, if you're worried about them being too young, why would you be making a stink about a medicine than exists to delay permanent changes in their body? We give it to cis children safely in the case of precocious puberty, it can be stopped and puberty will resume, and it stops a huge source of emotional pain for them.
Just because you don't need it doesn't mean that gender affirming care isn't still healthcare.
this is just diet transphobia. it is very well established that these are safe and reversible, and as the other commenter notes there are a plethora of extremely good reasons to start early here (in part because they're safe and reversible, but the changes associated with growing up either aren't or are much more involved to reverse once you've gone through them)
Very awesome to see that you were open enough to learn and incorporate the new information! It's a rare thing these days
Edit: This is from after they edited their comment, not in regards to the original content.
@StickBugged @ada @melmi @blackhole
You know that's something that happens even to cis children sometimes, right?
Puberty blockers carry a raft of serious health risks. It's hardly clear that children should be taking them at all.
I wish English had a more obvious way to distinguish "no evidence X is" and "evidence X is not." This type of confusion seems to come up a lot, especially about scientific reports where the language is very precise.