A big flaming stink posted:

the fact that trans femme athletes do not finish overwhelmingly at the very top of their sports is enough proof to know that talk about "unfair advantages" is complete bunk.

How are u posted:

2. Where's the problem? Where are all the trans-women pushing women out of women's sports? I certainly haven't seen this become an issue anywhere as far as I'm aware. I've found that I've made headway with some folks using this line of reasoning: Let the trans folks compete as who they are, and we can evaluate five or ten years down the line to see if it has become an issue or not. Heck, if 10 years from now we actually *did* see all the womens teams and leagues full of majority trans-women to the exclusion of women then I'd honestly be sympathetic to some sort of regulation. But that's not something that's happening now, hasn't happened yet, and until and unless it does happen then it's not really a 'problem' that needs to be solved.

mobby_6kl posted:

I've seen transphobes cite this article as proof that trans people shouldn't be allowed in sport https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577.full?ijkey=yjlCzZVZFRDZzHz&keytype=ref

but it actually shows that there's no advantage in performance after just 1-2 years of treatment except for running, which declined and might further decline with time.

Hipster Occultist posted:

It's never been about fairness, it's just a way for CHUDs to poo poo on another group of people while also claiming the moral high ground because they're "protecting women."

How are u posted:

...sorry?

Internaut! posted:

Biological males have no business competing athletically against biological females in any sport where the indisputable physical advantages of males is a factor, for example sprinting versus curling.

That said I don't give a gently caress about women's sports, and as a man this issue doesn't affect me in the slightest, so I'll let the broads fight their own battle on this one.

Terminal autist posted:

Is there any general polls out about the issue? My default assumption is that America is hell country and the average American just being insanely cruel and stupid makes it a losing proposition electorally.

Internaut! posted:

What is there to defend? Males in general are significantly stronger and faster than females which is why women's sports exist in the first place.

Internaut! posted:

I wouldn't presume to gatekeep transness by requiring some sort of medical treatment regime, would you? What do you say to people around the world who are trans but don't have access to such treatment, or can't afford it? Would you merely deny them access to women's sports, or to the ability to identify as trans altogether?

Internaut! posted:

I did nothing of the sort.

quote:

What sort of "consequences" should a person face for being ignorant of trans athletes in sport? That sounds rather like a threat.

quote:

Haven't heard of that one and in the most recent Olympics the men handily beat the women on the same course according to the final results I can see. Regardless I think we can agree in this case "a lot" is actually "very very few" and I'm the first to admit I don't see the need for gender separation in sports like curling for example, but maybe even there males have an advantage.

Internaut! posted:

So low-T males can compete in women's sport without identifying as trans?

No, and the reason being there's more to male advantage in sport than just hormone levels.

Fuligin posted:

This is not an issue that can be boiled down just to 'us vs CHUDs' (god im loving sick of that word). Plenty of people who would have identified as 'very liberal' and now as 'very progressive' are opposed to transgender athletes , because It's Not Fair. Which, yeah, gently caress that obviously

Internaut! posted:

Males in general are significantly stronger and faster than females, there is no debate about this in any serious circle. This does not even address transgender athletics much less make a statement about them.

quote:

Like Jimmy the Greek pointing out that African-Americans were bred for centuries to be big and strong, and this is why the NFL is full of African-Americans descended from slaves, while there's been like 3 Africans ever in the league not descended from African-American slaves? I'm not sure what social blowback people would face for this, but why should they? Unpalatable truths remain truths after all.

quote:

As you can see from my posts I've been exceedingly careful to separate sex from gender except where impossible, such as discussing Olympic biathlon which is split by gender. That's on the IOC.

Vincent Van Goatse posted:

This is absolutely not true for one thing.

As for your other point, ignoring everything else nobody seems to demand special rules and regulations when a cisgendered individual is absolutely dominant in a sport. Nobody with any credibility suggested excluding Tiger Woods or the Williams sisters from competitions because they were too good.

Vincent Van Goatse posted:

I mean I would be perfectly happy to see the NFL slap restrictions on Tom Brady.

Squinty posted:

From what I've read there's no competitive advantage for a transwoman who began HRT before hitting puberty, so I don't see any reason why they should be barred from competition. But testosterone has a huge influence on skeletal growth throughout puberty, which certainly gives an advantage in some sports - things like height in basketball and volleyball, arm length/reach in combat sports, hand/foot size in swimming, etc. And whether or not those are "unfair" advantages seems entirely subjective to me? I don't think there's a simple one-size-fits-all answer for those cases. Personally, I'd lean towards allowing transwomen to compete, and then in 20 years if every center in the WNBA and every middle blocker at the Olympics is transgender, maybe then you reevaluate.

Internaut! posted:

If being born male made so little difference, as is being so passionately argued by some ITT, if you're ranked 5,000 in the world as a man playing a men's sport (e.g. men's weightlifting, men's soccer, men's biathlon or whatever) and you transition to a woman, you should end up roughly ranked 5,000 in the world as a woman. That is FAR from what's happening.

Borscht posted:

Regardless if someone is on on hormone therapy, the fact that they went through a male puberty makes a massive difference in their current physiology. It's why puberty blockers are more effective at repressing male secondary sexual characteristics than hormone therapy. Is there someone in this thread that actually know about this? I'm about 70%.

Borscht posted:

Nah. Couldn't give a poo poo about sports.
I like science though.

Koos Group posted:

mastershakeman posted:

We've effectively always had this with the judged women's sports like ice skating and gymnastics. Look at the Liukin vs Shawn Johnson rivalry, where the announcers and judges oohed and aahed over Liukin's "elegance". It's part of the whining about difficulty scores giving people like Biles too much of an edge because she's stronger and can do more spins
I don't know as much about ice skating but my understanding is the silver medalist Russian who threw a tantrum was largely correct about having the better performance and got judged against for not meeting the standards of feminine excellence with respect to unquantifiable dancing and grace and whatnot

PT6A posted:

I also really resent the implication that you must be trans to give a poo poo about the rights and fundamental human dignity of trans people.

Aginor posted:

She is built like a male swimmer.

quote:

She needs time to go through her transition and then once that's done she should be allowed to compete as much as she wants.

Dr. Stab posted:

Trans men have been the primary target of transphobic rhetoric and legislation in the last few years. The social contagion narrative that has been very effective is focused on trans men. Transphobes also talk a bunch about "ruining fertile wombs and breasts," and get really mad about "people who have periods" phrasing. In the transphobic worldview, trans women tend to be the perverts seducing kids, and trans men are the victims. The people passing these healthcare bans are thinking "Our daughters are being corrupted!"

The invisibility is a part of the attack. They deny the agency of trans men, so the best they get is pity instead of hatred. But the damage is still done to them.

Also, it wasn't that long ago in history that a woman could get arrested for wearing pants. Being allowed to wear "men's" clothes was the result of massive effort to break down barriers. And, I think in recent years, there's been more of a push to remove the stigma on male femininity. It's just lagging behind because there wasn't as much of a need for a movement of male social liberation to drive those changes.

Victar posted:

https://womenssportspolicy.org/

A quote from their website is, "Girls’/Women’s Competitive Sport Needs Safeguards and Trans Girls/Women Need to be Included with Appropriate Conditions."

I don't know enough about this group to endorse them, but I do think their perspective is worth investigating.

quote:

Our Mission

Our mission is to affirm the legal permissibility of separate girls’ and women’s competitive sport teams while including all trans girls and trans women under the girls’ and women’s sports umbrella. We reject both the effort to exclude trans girls and trans women from girls’ and women’s sport and the effort to disadvantage females by forcing them to compete against some trans athletes with male sex-linked physical advantages. There is a middle way.

quote:

Transgender athletes are rare. Aren’t there so few trans girls and women that we should just make an exception and let them in based on their gender identity?

Just one or two trans girls who are decent athletes will displace a lot of females.

For example, in Connecticut, just two trans girls in one sport over three and a half years deprived female student-athletes of at least 235 opportunities in high level competition.

Just Chamber posted:

While people who went through male puberty will of course have the strength advantages etc over those who went through female puberty what I'm curious about is has there been studies that show that HRT completely eradicates the advantageous male biology like higher bone density to the point a trans woman is on an equal playing field than a cis woman?

mobby_6kl posted:

I've seen transphobes cite this article as proof that trans people shouldn't be allowed in sport https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577.full?ijkey=yjlCzZVZFRDZzHz&keytype=ref

but it actually shows that there's no advantage in performance after just 1-2 years of treatment except for running, which declined and might further decline with time.

Internaut! posted:

Koos Group posted:

I would not like to foster that, which is why if someone refuses to provide evidence when challenged with counter-evidence, they'll be probed for bad faith. I've also thought about instituting a rule where controversial statements of fact need to be backed up in the same post in threads where it's called for, but that does preclude discussion that comes from refuting common unsupported statements. So there is some trade-off. The rule would also apply to everyone equally, of course.

Koos Group posted:

Well, if the response is this strong I don't have a choice but to reexamine the policy, since I'm a believer in listening to community feedback. And discouraging people from posting in D&D because of who they are, or having tiresome arguments that are played out as you say the examples would be, are the opposite of what I want.

moonmazed posted:

this malicious compliance modding bit is getting unbelievably old

Fritz the Horse posted:

I don't think the OP's intention was ever for this to be an actual debate thread. As pointed out, there is really only one answer and by setting it up as a yes/no debate we invite bigots to poo poo up the thread. Having it just be a discussion thread would still allow and encourage people engaging in good faith who want to learn about issues--LionArcher would be a good example.

Jaxyon posted:

My hope was that this thread would involve people making misguided but at least vaguely logical arguments against, and then getting disproven with the science.

Booourns posted:

Instead of doing any of this just permaban the transphobes please

Victar posted:

When I browsed Caster Semenya's Wikipedia entry, I learned that is that she is an intersex woman. She was born without a womb, and instead of ovaries, she has internal testes that naturally give her much more testosterone that other women have. She tried to take testosterone suppressants in accordance with the Olympic guidelines, and couldn't stay on them because they made her feel really sick.

She is unquestionably a woman; she was assigned female at birth, has lived her whole life as a woman, and identifies as a woman (a quote from her is "I am a woman and I am fast.") The Olympic guidelines are unfair to her, especially since other people who naturally have exceptional physical gifts get a pass, notably Phelps. The guidelines probably were made expressly to target her, with the side effect of setting an arbitrary requirement for trans women to compete.

I have no idea what better Olympic guidelines would be, though. I'm not an expert in any of this stuff.

Gentleman Baller posted:

So the argument isn't exactly that high testosterone itself should be banned, but that it appears that specifically in the events that Caster Semenya excelled at (plus the ones she could easily train to excel at), there seems to be a 1700 fold overrepresentation of people with XY DSD at the podium. A reduction in hormone levels would presumably bring that down.