Men can get pregnant too...

[rogue06]

Actually, that is a conservative hyper-reaction. Assuming hormone replacement therapy has been completed, the difference between trans and cis athletes is negligible, especially compared to members of the Kalenjin tribe* or Michael Phelps**. The fact that the same people who decry trans athletes are silent about greater outliers speaks volumes towards their ulterior motive, which is to justify exclusion of those living a disapproved lifestyle.

*disproportionate representation of champion runners
**variety of beneficial genetic mutations including producing half the lactic acid of your average athlete

These are men who have decided that they are now women and want to compete against women. Many of them were upper-mid level athletes. The type who usually end up in fourth or fifth place and occasionally even third in a competition with a dozen athletes. But now that they identify with being a woman they are winning event after event and shattering all sorts of records.

There is a thread around here somewhere in which numerous examples were posted of where this sort of thing made the news because the real women athletes publicly complained about what they thought was grossly unfair.

But just keep on telling these women how it's just some "conservative hyper-reaction" and maybe throw in the line about there being a conservative war on women.

[seer]

Actually, that is a conservative hyper-reaction. Assuming hormone replacement therapy has been completed, the difference between trans and cis athletes is negligible...

No...

Abstract

The inclusion of elite transwomen athletes in sport is controversial. The recent International Olympic Committee (IOC) (2015) guidelines allow transwomen to compete in the women’s division if (amongst other things) their testosterone is held below 10 nmol/L. This is significantly higher than that of cis-women. Science demonstrates that high testosterone and other male physiology provides a performance advantage in sport suggesting that transwomen retain some of that advantage. To determine whether the advantage is unfair necessitates an ethical analysis of the principles of inclusion and fairness. Particularly important is whether the advantage held by transwomen is a tolerable or intolerable unfairness. We conclude that the advantage to transwomen afforded by the IOC guidelines is an intolerable unfairness. This does not mean transwomen should be excluded from elite sport but that the existing male/female categories in sport should be abandoned in favour of a more nuanced approach satisfying both inclusion and fairness.

https://jme.bmj.com/content/45/6/395

This study concluded that transgender athletes born male have an “intolerable,” or overwhelming, advantage over biological women in athletic competition. The paper stated healthy male test subjects “did not lose significant muscle mass (or power)” when their testosterone levels were suppressed below the International Olympic Committee guidelines for transgender athletes of 10nmol/L.

Further, it found these biological males could retain their muscle mass through training and that because of muscle memory, their mass and strength could be “rebuilt” through training. It also found that giving opposite-sex hormones to transgender people post-puberty did not alter the athletic-enhancing effects of testosterone on the male body.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/08...ne-injections/

[oxmixmudd]

Actually, that is a conservative hyper-reaction. Assuming hormone replacement therapy has been completed, the difference between trans and cis athletes is negligible, especially compared to members of the Kalenjin tribe* or Michael Phelps**. The fact that the same people who decry trans athletes are silent about greater outliers speaks volumes towards their ulterior motive, which is to justify exclusion of those living a disapproved lifestyle.

*disproportionate representation of champion runners
**variety of beneficial genetic mutations including producing half the lactic acid of your average athlete

I told you what the issue is. Womens sports is set up to accommodate the effect of the genetic differences between men and women on performance in athletics. We do not tolerate drug induced enhancement, nor should we tolerate drug induced 'de enhancement'. You compete in your natural state at its peak natural performance and you compete in the category that you are naturally created to be. It has nothing to do with 'disapproval' of a lifestyle. It has to with fairness and the reality of who a given person is naturally and what athletic competition is about.

[demi-conservative]

How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?’
‘Four.’
‘And if the party says that it is not four but five — then how many?’
‘Four.’ The word ended in a gasp of pain.

[Starlight]

The issue with 'transwomen' competing in women's athletics and 'winning' is real, is not just some conservative hyper-reaction.

I agree it is an issue in the sense that those who set sporting guidelines need to make an effort to make it so that there is a fair and level playing field. I am not suggesting that anyone who calls themselves a women ought to be automatically allowed to compete in women's sporting events. I support science-based guidelines for who can compete in order that transwomen are not systematically out-performing women.

I am not particularly interested in sport myself, so may not be aware of the current state of affairs on this, but it is my understanding that currently, at some events, some transpeople have won them, but that this is not particularly common or usual at the present point in time. We are not, if I understand correctly, anything remotely close to a situation where transpeople are winning 80% or above of women's events or even 50% or even 10%. We are not remotely close to a point where we could say in general about women's sports that "this is totally unfair, cis women have no chance against these transpeople who are being allowed to compete against them". Instead, something more like ~0.01% or even ~0.001% of women's events are being won by transpeople... i.e. a negligibly tiny fraction. The Olympics have allowed transgender athletes to compete since 2004. In the last 4 Olympics, during which transgender athletes were eligible to compete, zero did. So the fraction of Olympic medals being currently won in women's sports by transgender athletes is 0.00000%. So it does not appear to be currently a problem, and so I have to conclude conservatives are hyperventaliting and delusional if they think it currently is.

Things might, of course, change in future to levels where there is obviously a serious problem. But as it stands currently it isn't a serious problem. So, I would say that if conservatives misjudge current reality, mistaking a couple of (non-Olympic) events here and there being won by transpeople, for some sort of pervasive and overwhelming destruction of women's ability to compete in sport, then yes, the conservatives are having an unwarranted hyper-reaction. If transwomen were at ~1% of the female population, then we should expect ~1% of women's sporting events to be won by transwomen. So we should expect the occasional headline about a trans person winning a sporting event - they ought to win sporting events in proportion to their prevalence in the population.

It is a clear indication those advocating for these issues do not have level heads and are not looking at reality but rather have moved beyond that. IT is a sort of insanity. And that is what has me against it.

As far as I can tell, it is the conservatives who have moved far beyond reality here, and are having a fear-based hyper-reaction, not any sort of evidence-based reaction.

It may well be that rules about transwomen competing in female sporting events do need to be tightened further than they currently are, but that is matter of looking carefully at the scientific data and tweaking the rules accordingly. It isn't a matter of having a fear-based reaction to transpeople based on a headline that a trans person once won a sporting event.

The bottom line is that a man that has his physical shape adjusted by surgery and who takes female hormones is still biologically male. And there is literally nothing that can be done to change that fact.

That is not really true. As I explained in my earlier post, the factors that make someone biologically male are multiple and complex. It is not an either-or, and it can be changed by hormones and changes to the physical body. Someone who is taking female hormones and has had their body significantly adjusted by surgery, is, in a meaningful scientific sense, not biologically male anymore.

I am guessing you're using a rather naive / reductionist / unscientific view that biological sex is defined purely by whether a person's chromosomes are XY or XX. So it's worth noting in this regard that as current gene-editing tools continue to improve it seems likely to me (as a scientist working in this general field) that within a couple of decades it will be possible to alter a person's chromosomes, making a person who was XY into XX or vice-versa (we already have tools to alter pieces of chromosomes, but altering entire chromosomes at once would be more difficult). Would this change their biological sex in your understanding/view?

The recent International Olympic Committee (IOC) (2015) guidelines allow transwomen to compete in the women’s division if (amongst other things) their testosterone is held below 10 nmol/L. This is significantly higher than that of cis-women.

It is totally possible that current IOC guidelines need to be tightened in this regard. I 100% support careful scientific research being done to determine what those guidelines should be in order that the competition is fair.

However, aren't you essentially trying to claim that no amount of careful consideration and tinkering with the rules could ever get it right? In that sense, aren't you taking the exact opposite view to the medical journal papers you are citing?

[Psychic Missile]

These are men who have decided that they are now women and want to compete against women. Many of them were upper-mid level athletes. The type who usually end up in fourth or fifth place and occasionally even third in a competition with a dozen athletes. But now that they identify with being a woman they are winning event after event and shattering all sorts of records.

There is a thread around here somewhere in which numerous examples were posted of where this sort of thing made the news because the real women athletes publicly complained about what they thought was grossly unfair.

But just keep on telling these women how it's just some "conservative hyper-reaction" and maybe throw in the line about there being a conservative war on women.

That doesn't contradict what I've said. I'm not arguing against the idea that transwomen may win competitions thanks, in some part, to a transitioning process that is not 100%, I'm arguing that genetic benefits account for many times more victories without controversy and this is hypocritical based on ostensible conservative reasoning.

[Psychic Missile]

No...

High testosterone would certainly give anyone an edge in competition, whether someone is trans or cis. When I say that I assume HRT has been completed, I mean that hormone levels are equivalent to ciswomen of the same age. At that point, it would be impossible for one to retain the same muscle mass as one had pre-transition.

[Psychic Missile]

I told you what the issue is. Womens sports is set up to accommodate the effect of the genetic differences between men and women on performance in athletics. We do not tolerate drug induced enhancement, nor should we tolerate drug induced 'de enhancement'. You compete in your natural state at its peak natural performance and you compete in the category that you are naturally created to be. It has nothing to do with 'disapproval' of a lifestyle. It has to with fairness and the reality of who a given person is naturally and what athletic competition is about.

Pro sports actually do tolerate drug induced enhancement if it qualifies for therapeutic use exemption, and HRT is medical treatment, so it would be inconsistent policy to disallow it on that measure. Also, a competition that allows for outliers with beneficial genetic mutations is inherently unfair, so the distinction between "natural state" and "unnatural state" is arbitrary. It would approve, for example, a ciswoman with a sexual development disorder that can result in androgen levels higher than transwoman averages, which defeats the purpose of your initial objection.

[Teallaura]

Actually, that is a conservative hyper-reaction. Assuming hormone replacement therapy has been completed, the difference between trans and cis athletes is negligible, especially compared to members of the Kalenjin tribe* or Michael Phelps**. The fact that the same people who decry trans athletes are silent about greater outliers speaks volumes towards their ulterior motive, which is to justify exclusion of those living a disapproved lifestyle.

*disproportionate representation of champion runners
**variety of beneficial genetic mutations including producing half the lactic acid of your average athlete

Hi PM! Haven't seen you in a while.

I grew up in the Seventies and watched women fight to get any funding for their athletics. Now, everything we worked so hard for is being stolen. If you think this is in anyway fair, you're (general) a misogynist.

[Teallaura]

That doesn't contradict what I've said. I'm not arguing against the idea that transwomen may win competitions thanks, in some part, to a transitioning process that is not 100%, I'm arguing that genetic benefits account for many times more victories without controversy and this is hypocritical based on ostensible conservative reasoning.

You do know doping is not allowed - a man entering a woman's event is every bit as underhanded and unfair. If you (personal) support this you are anti-feminist in both the original and current understandings of the term.

[Teallaura]

High testosterone would certainly give anyone an edge in competition, whether someone is trans or cis. When I say that I assume HRT has been completed, I mean that hormone levels are equivalent to ciswomen of the same age. At that point, it would be impossible for one to retain the same muscle mass as one had pre-transition.

Which is why it's banned from athletics. Estrogen treatment never sets the clock back - the man will always retain significant advantages over women. It's a stupid version of doping - and still grossly unfair.

[Terraceth]

Actually, that is a conservative hyper-reaction. Assuming hormone replacement therapy has been completed, the difference between trans and cis athletes is negligible, especially compared to members of the Kalenjin tribe* or Michael Phelps**. The fact that the same people who decry trans athletes are silent about greater outliers speaks volumes towards their ulterior motive, which is to justify exclusion of those living a disapproved lifestyle.

What exclusion? They are hardly excluded from sports. As far as I am aware no one has complained about male-to-female transgenders competing against other men.

[Starlight]

I grew up in the Seventies and watched women fight to get any funding for their athletics. Now, everything we worked so hard for is being stolen.

It simply does not appear to be true that trans athletes are currently winning a disproportionate number of women's events.

In the 4 Olympics that have been held since it became legal for trans athletes to compete at the Olympics, there have been zero openly trans athletes competing. If trans people were to be around 1% of the population, we might reasonably expect that 1% of events should be won by trans people, but they do not seem to be winning anything close to that percentage of events. They are not even competing at all Olympic events, nevermind winning them.

AFAICT, claims that trans people are pushing women out of sport in general, taking all the funding, winning all the competitions etc, seem to be crazy-paranoid conservative propaganda that have no basis in fact.

The most commonly cited instance on the internet of trans people winning sport, appears to be that two trans runners once won some local high-school events. Gee, wow, world-changing... not. Can you even imagine the number of local high-school events in recent times that weren't won by trans athletes? Probably hundreds of thousands of them. About the most that can be concluded is that perhaps that particular competition should asses how level the playing-field is going forward and think about whether it's worth having some medical standards for transitioning like what the Olympics does instead of allowing people to choose which gender they competed in.

[rogue06]

That doesn't contradict what I've said. I'm not arguing against the idea that transwomen may win competitions thanks, in some part, to a transitioning process that is not 100%, I'm arguing that genetic benefits account for many times more victories without controversy and this is hypocritical based on ostensible conservative reasoning.

The fact is that these men don't even have to take the first step in transitioning to compete. All they have to do is declare that they identify with being a woman. In fact, technically speaking, they could at some later date, declare that they no longer feel girlie any more and still keep their medals they won competing as a girl/woman.

[rogue06]

It simply does not appear to be true that trans athletes are currently winning a disproportionate number of women's events.

That is only because they are few in number. But where they compete they sweep the field, winning the first place medals and shattering old records.

But I guess women being cheated like this only matters if it reaches a certain threshold. Just as long as it doesn't become "disproportionate."