this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2023
347 points (99.7% liked)
196
16582 readers
1571 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Assuming trans women have an advantage is mysgnostic AND unscientific according to all studies.
Plus. Leave the goddamn fish alone. Wtf people?
Assuming they have advantages in fishing of all things is extra absurd.
I didn't know trans people were so much better at eating cold cheeseburgers from the cooler and falling asleep for three hours while waiting for a bite on the line. /s
The claim in the article is incredibly weak, especially versus the studies. I put this video at that the appropriate timestamp to hear someone go in depth on it, or click any of their sources for the raw science. But fair warning, it's not light reading.
The TL:DR is that Trans Women after 2 years of hormones, show no statistical difference from cis women in any athletic or cardiovascular actives. This is the basis that every major sports league, including the Olympics requires. In fact, the only time where it MIGHT be a factor is trans men having an advantage over cis men, but no one panics about that because assigned female at birth trans men are just assumed to be weak right? The entire premise that your genitals, assigned sex at birth or "male/female bones" overrides your endocrine system is based in bias, not fact.
Yes higher T generally coincides with more strength, but that fact entirely misses the point that trans women don't have much. It is VERY common for trans women to have lower T levels in their system versus cis women for a pretty obvious reason, one group is actively taking medication suppress it. (Or have had surgery to remove testes, where most T production occurs)
To highlight the points you're making, Sport England itself has data on its main page that stipulates that women are less active than men in general and that starts at a young age.
https://www.sportengland.org/research-and-data/research/gender
So, surprise, it's probably not just "genetics" or "testosterone" as people keep claiming that all men are naturally stronger, when the statistics say that women are by and large less active, and that since this starts at a young age, it can have a long-term affect on women's sports abilities.
On top of this, socially, women with lots of muscles are often not viewed as sexually desirable, despite being stronger than a lot of men in their weight class. So it's also justified to consider maybe women don't pursue strength as a virtue in the way a lot of men do, due to social expectations.
As Sport England points out, they're often not being told socially that they can and should be active and involved, and on top of that, they often have negative social consequences for doing so.
Literally a huge part of what Sport England is supposed to do is supposed to be about outreach and inclusivity, to make all Britons more active.
That should include making trans people more active, instead of looking for more reasons to remove them from activities.
So much this. As a woman without testosterone, the only way I'm able to do well in roller derby is my previous experience playing ice hockey from a young age.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
appropriate timestamp
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Sounds like she's more upset that bigots decided to be bigoted, and that to her, the real problem is she doesn't get to be praised by bigots anymore.
Their anecdotes don't mean shit against the voluminous scientific evidence that trans women simply do not have enough of an advantage to justify discrimination.
The only person in the article claiming that there is unfair advantage is the 66-year-old coach who is upset that players from other countries don't celebrate them anymore, and instead of chalking that up to them being bigoted jerks, she chalks it up to "we need to kick out the trans person because bigots aren't nice to us anymore." I'm just gonna go out on a fucking limb and assume her age has something to do with being a totally out of touch fucking nitwit, and why she would defend the bigots instead of telling them to pound fucking sand.
Also, let's not forget that this interview was with The Daily Mail a well known conservative shitrag that pushes conservative politics. This 66 year old fucking fossil chose this as the place to give her concerns. She chose a conservative propaganda shitrag, that's on her and speaks loudly to her shitty politics.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12552627/England-ladies-angling-team-refuse-compete-world-championships-trans-woman.html
That's where this interview was originally from. It's a fucking propaganda shitrag.
You're asking me to read the article, but nothing in the article stipulates as much, except an anecdote from the team coach, which doesn't say Becky can cast 150 meters, but says "Men can."
This is the statement from the body overseeing this sport:
https://anglingtrust.net/2023/06/13/angling-trust-clarifies-transgender-participation-policy-following-england-ladies-shore-team-resignations/
Other articles about the same thing repeatedly say: "The Angling Trust has denied claims that transgender women have a physical advantage in fishing."
So if the Angling Trust is defending her, and they aren't changing the rules unless told to by a larger sports body, who is this sports body that "proved" this, then?
There are literally zero articles that support the idea that a sports overseeing body tested it and found out. I think you're fucking misreading this shit, man. But I suppose that's what you got for taking anything printed in The Daily Fail seriously.
Such as?
All of them, just trust me bro /s
It's simple. If a study doesn't reinforce my view, it doesn't exist.
FoundTheVegan, well said