Transgender athletes

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Curious layman said:

I don't think sport needs a major overhaul, just a few tweaks here and there

What “tweaks” do you recommend?

43 minutes ago, iNow said:

In what way are you suggesting this assertion is relevant? Is it possible for you to answer in a manner that doesn’t rely on preexisting misogynistic assumptions and gender biases?

21 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

Try reading the 100m sprint times that were posted.

 

So no?

[Curious layman]

Just now, iNow said:

What “tweaks” do you recommend?

I don't recommend anything, that's why I posted on this forum, because people like CharonY and Hypervalient are here who are knowledgeable about these things.

I was wondering if there was another way to determine who plays what based on something other than just male or female. Maybe based on muscle mass or testosterone, or something else.

Is the future of sport mixed? will it stay the same?, will it change?

I don't know, just something I thought was interesting. Maybe I should of changed the title to "the future of sport' instead.

[iNow]

It’s not clear what problem you think you’re trying to solve here. Likely unintentionally, you’re comments reek of biased thinking. 

You said look at the 100m sprint times, for example. Okay. And?

So some folks are going to voluntarily and of their own volition occasionally enter races that are statistically harder for them to win. So what? Who cares? They will probably lose, and that’s part of competing.

‘The question is: Why do you think they need you to paternalistically rewrite the rules to prevent those potential losses?

Or what about the other side of that coin? Some athletes will enter races they’re statistically more likely to win. Again, who cares? So long as they’re doing so within the rules of the governing body of that sport and adhering to the same guidelines as the other competitors, then that’s totally fine. 

The fact that you’re even asking these questions or considering a rewrite of the rules proves that you see these transgendered athletes as separate, as different, as needing “special” and “unequal” rules and treatment. They’re just humans, and male/female sports is just an old status quo that’s dying as we continue waking up to the realities of human sexuality amd abilities. 

This transgendered sports topic is just a modern day version of women not being allowed to drive cars or open their own bank accounts. It’s rooted in misunderstanding, regardless of how noble or sincere the desire is to help. 

[swansont]

5 hours ago, VenusPrincess said:

I said insurmountable and systematic. My example shows a systematic difference which is typical in athletics. Your examples are in fact the ones which are specific, anecdotal, and not observed at the highest levels of performance.

Did anybody say we are only investigating " at the highest levels of performance"? How is that not specific? 

2 hours ago, Curious layman said:

 I was wondering if there was another way to determine who plays what based on something other than just male or female. Maybe based on muscle mass or testosterone, or something else.

As was pointed out in the MMA link posted early on, you can substitute skin color in for gender here, and find that these arguments have already been made when people worried about the "future of sports" that were being integrated.

 

[Curious layman]

8 hours ago, iNow said:

It’s not clear what problem you think you’re trying to solve here

I'm not trying to solve any problems. I have been reading about it in the news, some US states were bringing in bans against them competing.

Which got me thinking, will sport need to change, if so how. So I posted here and asked. The answer seems to be no. Which I accept. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/mississippi-bill-transgender-athletes-female-sports-teams-ban/?__twitter_impression=true

https://legiscan.com/MS/text/SB2536/2021

just read this, maybe I've read it wrong but it seems only to apply to male to female transgender athletes.

Regarding your post below. That's a fair comment, You're totally right of course.

Edited March 6, 2021 by Curious layman

[iNow]

9 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

So I posted here and asked. The answer seems to be no. Which I accept. 

Totally fair. I would just ask you to keep in mind that some topics are highly charged. This is clearly one of them. 

Are you familiar with the concept of a 3rd rail... as in, the third rail of politics? It’s a saying that I believe comes from the way subway cars run along 2 rails on the track and then draw power from an electrified 3rd rail. That 3rd rail is an important part of our infrastructure, but it is dangerous. People who touch that rail often get shocked and killed due to their lack of awareness of its power. 

Regardless of your intentions or curious nature, if you’re willing to start touching these rails then you must also be willing to occasional face consequences when doing so. You really can’t/shouldn’t be too surprised when you occasional get electrocuted for inadvertently using loose language, sloppy logic, or not introducing enough caveats or nuance when posting. 

17 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

I'm not trying to solve any problems.

That’s a shame. We should all IMO be trying to make the world better for those still too often classified as subhuman or “less than” others, who are so often marginalized and treated as bogeymen. 

[Phi for All]

10 hours ago, VenusPrincess said:

If I answer your question you'll use the basis for my gender identity to claim that I don't believe any other basis is valid. So I won't answer. Is there any other point to your question than to trap me? I have zero faith in your ability to be intellectually honest so I won't even give you that ammunition.

!

Moderator Note

Then your arguments become preaching, by definition, which is against the rules. This is a science DISCUSSION forum. Since you're unwilling to answer questions posed, don't bring this subject up again. Thread closed.

 

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Since this wasn't the OP's violation, I'm unlocking the thread, and instead giving a warning point for soapboxing to VenusPrincess. My bad.

If you aren't willing to answer questions about your stance, please don't make it part of your arguments. Thread open again.

 

[VenusPrincess]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

Since this wasn't the OP's violation, I'm unlocking the thread, and instead giving a warning point for soapboxing to VenusPrincess. My bad.

If you aren't willing to answer questions about your stance, please don't make it part of your arguments. Thread open again.

 

A warning point for not divulging sensitive personal details about the basis for my gender identity? Would you like to tell us the basis for your gender identity? Idiot.

Ah, took a look at your profile... communications major. What's the matter, you weren't smart enough for physics? I work in a field that requires real aptitude and when communications majors apply I throw their resume in the trash.

[zapatos]

33 minutes ago, VenusPrincess said:

A warning point for not divulging sensitive personal details about the basis for my gender identity? Would you like to tell us the basis for your gender identity? Idiot.

Ah, took a look at your profile... communications major. What's the matter, you weren't smart enough for physics? I work in a field that requires real aptitude and when communications majors apply I throw their resume in the trash.

It was fun while it lasted. Good luck to you.

[Area54]

On 3/6/2021 at 5:29 AM, zapatos said:

If you don't want us to assume you and another have an anti-trans agenda then stop saying things that sound like you do have an agenda.

How the heck you see that in @Curious layman's posts is beyond me. He has simply voiced the opinion that, with the ongoing changes in society regarding our view of gender, sport will be impacted. He is interested in what these impacts might be and how we might most effectively handle them. If you don't want to be viewed as a politically correct evangelist then stop saying things that sound like you won't tolerate honest questions.

[zapatos]

6 minutes ago, Area54 said:

How the heck you see that in @Curious layman's posts is beyond me. He has simply voiced the opinion that, with the ongoing changes in society regarding our view of gender, sport will be impacted. 

He also painted a picture of what will happen if someone who is transgender is allowed to compete in women's sports.

"I support transgender rights, but there are serious issues with former men entering women's sports. Mike Tyson would be an example."

Here's the picture that pops to mind as someone who is going to compete against your daughter:

 

It is  unfair to transgender people to have their very personal and difficult situation presented as such an extreme caricature. It is reminiscent of dog whistle used by people who don't want transgender people to be able to use a particular bathroom by suggesting that perverts will now have a license to peek at your 8 year old daughter as she uses the restroom at school.

The increasing acceptance of transgender athletes means there is legitimately a serious discussion that needs to take place. So let's not begin that serious discussion with a highly insulting caricature of the people who are impacted by this discussion.

[dimreepr]

25 minutes ago, zapatos said:

He also painted a picture of what will happen if someone who is transgender is allowed to compete in women's sports.

"I support transgender rights, but there are serious issues with former men entering women's sports. Mike Tyson would be an example."

Here's the picture that pops to mind as someone who is going to compete against your daughter:

 

It is  unfair to transgender people to have their very personal and difficult situation presented as such an extreme caricature. It is reminiscent of dog whistle used by people who don't want transgender people to be able to use a particular bathroom by suggesting that perverts will now have a license to peek at your 8 year old daughter as she uses the restroom at school.

The increasing acceptance of transgender athletes means there is legitimately a serious discussion that needs to take place. So let's not begin that serious discussion with a highly insulting caricature of the people who are impacted by this discussion.

Frankie Boyle had an interesting take on this, Cinderella was a bueatiful transgender and prince charming knew this, but he didn't care; he loved her anyway and he knew that whom so ever fit the slipper, would be his Cinderella; because it's a fucking massive slipper...

Edited March 7, 2021 by dimreepr

[MigL]

6 hours ago, zapatos said:

The increasing acceptance of transgender athletes means there is legitimately a serious discussion that needs to take place.

But like many other discussions which should take place about some important subjects, this has descended into absurdity, accusations and recriminations, just as quick.
If people aren't allowed to voice their opinions without even the chance to explain their point of view, before the 'pack' jumps down their throat, and accuses them of having 'an agenda', how can we possibly have a serious discussion ?

Whatever happened to tolerance for others' opinions ?
I've voiced this sentiment previously, if all we want from members is an 'echo', then I, and other members, see no need to participate in opinion based forums, as there is NO DISCUSSION.

[CharonY]

7 hours ago, Area54 said:

How the heck you see that in @Curious layman's posts is beyond me. He has simply voiced the opinion that, with the ongoing changes in society regarding our view of gender, sport will be impacted. He is interested in what these impacts might be and how we might most effectively handle them. If you don't want to be viewed as a politically correct evangelist then stop saying things that sound like you won't tolerate honest questions.

I think there is a delicate balance here that needs to be found. My first reading was similar to yours. However, there is an extensive context of exclusion which I initially did not consider. The big issue is that historically many exclusionary policies have been enacted base on such potential and potentially unfounded concerns. Many of these have deep impacts to this day. Examples include anti-drug  or health policies. For example, it was believed that black folks feel less pain, have thicker skin and are more susceptible to addiction. These has resulted in systematic maltreatment based on these myths which apparently are still persistent among health care providers.

So I think that before any measures are considered, one should actually find strong evidence for the need of action in the first place. After all, sports carry inherent risks as others have pointed out and as far as I can see there are no substantial studies indicating that inclusion of transgender folks significantly increases risk beyond the usual baseline. And I do agree that the invented scenarios are probably not a good basis to start of this discussion. However, I think the resulting discussion made it clear that OP provided the opinion in good faith. While the points about how problematic the starting might be are valid, further discussion of motivation might derail the topic needlessly.

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

But like many other discussions which should take place about some important subjects, this has descended into absurdity, accusations and recriminations, just as quick.
If people aren't allowed to voice their opinions without even the chance to explain their point of view, before the 'pack' jumps down their throat, and accuses them of having 'an agenda', how can we possibly have a serious discussion ?

Whatever happened to tolerance for others' opinions ?
I've voiced this sentiment previously, if all we want from members is an 'echo', then I, and other members, see no need to participate in opinion based forums, as there is NO DISCUSSION.

So let's review what I said to Curious.

"Why are you "concerned"? Is someone in danger? Do you have examples of injuries?

This is just another issue concerning sports, along with equitable pay, the rule regarding turnovers due to fumbles that go out of the end zone, and the use of HGH.

Trying to scare people with scenarios like Mike Tyson killing young ladies in the ring simply feeds into peoples' fears and makes this a more difficult issue than it needs to be.

People also used to be afraid that women would die if they were allowed to compete in the marathon."

I asked him questions. Told him how I viewed the issue. And suggested that  Mike Tyson was a bad example. What was next? When Curious suggested someone could be in danger I discussed how safety concerns could be seen when there were only women or only men competing but that we didn't stop people who were too powerful from competing.

 

"Mike Tyson brutalized many of the fighters he faced. Some literally ran away from him in the ring. 

If we take your scenario of "different categories for different danger levels" then we would need boxing weight classes such as welterweight, cupcake welterweight, and ass-stomping welterweight.

When Ronda Rousey was at her prime no one could fight her without a serious risk to life and limb. She would not have been allowed to fight anyone due to being put into a fighting class occupied only by herself."

And then finally when Curious said "You need to get of your high horse and stop assuming people who are interested in this have an anti trans agenda." I responded with:

 

"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

If you don't want us to assume you and another have an anti-trans agenda then stop saying things that sound like you do have an agenda."

So...

Where did I stop him from voicing his opinion?

Where did I stop him from explaining his point of view?

When did I jump down his throat and accuse him of having an agenda? This is where you come closest to what I said, but as I explained to Area54, starting out a conversation on Transgender's right in sports should not begin with:   "I support transgender rights, but there are serious issues with former men entering women's sports. Mike Tyson would be an example." as it sounds (to me anyway) as if the person has an agenda. 

I'd even go so far as to say that Curious' "get off your high horse" was at least as provocative as my "stop saying things that sound like you do have an agenda.", and his comment was of course said prior to my "agenda" comment.

As I seem to be under focus here I'd be happy to have you parse my comments to Curious and tell me exactly which ones are out of line. I promise I'll take your comments seriously.

Edited March 8, 2021 by zapatos

[MigL]

Sorry if you got the impression I'm singling you out Zap.
I've been part of the 'pack' myself; usually in science forums, in opinion based forums I tend to be the underdog and get ganged-up on.

I don't consider this a 'rights' issue.
Of course the transgendered have the right to participate in sports.

However, if the sport is competitive, we have to find a way of levelling the playing field so that no one has an unfair advantage due to 'artificial' means, such as a surgical/hormonal procedure.
This is already done in some cases, and in others has had considerable discussion by the sport's governing body. 
I'm sure you're aware that testosterone, and specific variants such as HGH and steroids are considered performance nhancing drugs, and are banned in many sports, for the simple reason that they bestow an unfair advantage to the user, and renders the sport uncompetitive.
As I'm sure you know that 'Bladerunner', O Pestorius, had a surgical procedure to replace his lower legs  ( due to a disability ) with composite prosthetic limbs. There was much discussion about it due to the fact that the prosthetics gave him considerable advantages over runners without. Would that have been discriminating against the disabled, or simply an attempt to make the sport competitive?
( all academic now that he's convicted of murder )

A sex change procedure involves both hormonal treatment as well as surgical proceures.
If these treatments/procedures give that person an unfair advantage in that class of that sport, they are making it uncompetitive. That is the argument as I see it.

I suppose Curious' over the top Mike Tyson example would be similar to mine if I had used The Six Million Dollar Man ( 80s fictional TV show ) rather than O Pestorius ( Colonel Steve Austin could run at 60 mi/hr ).

Edited March 8, 2021 by MigL

[CharonY]

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

As I'm sure you know that 'Bladerunner', O Pestorius, had a surgical procedure to replace his lower legs  ( due to a disability ) with composite prosthetic limbs. There was much discussion about it due to the fact that the prosthetics gave him considerable advantages over runners without. Would that have been discriminating against the disabled, or simply an attempt to make the sport competitive?
( all academic now that he's convicted of murder )

I think the answer is pretty much similar, there is no convincing evidence that the prosthetics provided an unfair advantage.

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

suppose Curious' over the top Mike Tyson example would be similar to mine if I had used The Six Million Dollar Man ( 80s fictional TV show ) rather than O Pestorius ( Colonel Steve Austin could run at 60 mi/hr ).

And this suffers from the issue that others already pointed out for the other example, it is fictional. I.e. if much of the concerns and evidence are based on fictional accounts and speculations it is probably fair to say that at this point there is simply no good reason to be non-inclusive. While this may change at some point (say, if prosthetics are clearly providing performance enhancement) it may be time to re-open the discussion.

[iNow]

18 minutes ago, MigL said:

I've been part of the 'pack' myself; usually in science forums, in opinion based forums I tend to be the underdog and get ganged-up on.

It’s interesting that you mention pack behavior and ganging up on folks. It reminds me of how brutal attacks and killings of transgendered people have been rising these last 4 years, and how they’re being targeted more. 

Perhaps it’s against this background that some of us push back harder than might seem appropriate to our friends here at SFN when the topic arises and intentions aren’t crystal clear.

It really is life and death for too many folks and the trend is clearly and consistently going in the wrong direction. 

https://whyy.org/episodes/new-push-to-boost-lgbtq-protections-in-pa/

Quote

Violence against transgender and gender non-conforming people has been on the rise for years. According to the Human Rights Campaign, this is the worst year they’ve seen since they started tracking in 2013, with Black trans women particularly at risk.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/06/25/trump-administration-doubles-down-trans-discrimination#

Quote

The Trump administration is moving ahead with a rule that would write transgender people out of sex discrimination protections in health care. While advocates fight the rule in court, transgender people will continue to face discriminatory treatment and refusals of care. <...> Just after the healthcare regulation was finalized, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development said it would propose a rule permitting single-sex homeless shelters to turn away transgender people. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiewareham/2020/10/02/30-trans-woman-have-now-been-violently-murdered-in-america-in-2020/?sh=4353c2d864a4

Quote

30 transgender or gender non-conforming people have now been fatally shot or killed in violent attacks this year. 2020 is now the most violent year for transgender people in America for five years. <...> Globally in 2019, 331 trans people were murdered, lynched and hanged.

People die all of the time, sure... but not from lynchings and hangings. That’s different in important ways and needs to be treated differently by all of us. 

Edited March 8, 2021 by iNow

[MigL]

Don't pick and choose, CharonY.
What about the effects of Testosterone and othe banned, performance enhancing drugs ?

I see the value in your post, INow, but don't see what it has to do with this topic.
Are you saying the 'pack' behaviour of some of us on this forum is similar to the behaviour of those who target, and murder, the transgendered ?
Are you saying any of what you posted is any reason NOT to inteelligently and respectfully discuss different classes in certain sports, and how to best apply them fairly to the transgendered ?

How long am I 'allowed' to travel down this path of inquisition before I'm accused of 'havng an agenda' ?

[iNow]

22 minutes ago, MigL said:

I see the value in your post, INow, but don't see what it has to do with this topic.
Are you saying...

I’m saying that this is one of those topics in critical need of nuance, care, and precision and that anyone even remotely hinting at anything other than purely equal treatment be treated with a bit more skepticism and vigilance than usual. 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Sorry if you got the impression I'm singling you out Zap.

I'm often bad at interpreting what is behind people's comments. I should probably quit trying.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

However, if the sport is competitive, we have to find a way of levelling the playing field so that no one has an unfair advantage due to 'artificial' means, such as a surgical/hormonal procedure.

While I feel the topic of transgender people and sports needs a full discussion there are not many proposals I'm ready to get behind, this one included.

If gender reassignment was being done to get an unfair advantage in sports I imagine I would be behind the proposal to ban that. However, if a person gains an advantage simply by following their nature, including surgery/hormones, I'm not sure that is "unfair", and no more 'artificial' than having surgery to fix scoliosis. To me that sounds similar to suggesting that women get an unfair advantage at work because they can get extra time off for having children. Transgender people are not 'invading' a space owned by those who are not transgender, they are instead equal to all others and looking to fit into the spaces that already exist, just like everyone else is.

 

Edited March 8, 2021 by zapatos

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

What about the effects of Testosterone and othe banned, performance enhancing drugs ?

As mentioned above, after reassignment, testosterone level are virtually indistinguishable. Also as already mentioned, there is a paucity on data indicating that there is a problem. If you have access to studies that demonstrate an actual issue, please share them.

All articles I have found point to a very limited number of studies among non-elite athletes showing either no performance difference or only potential differences (i.e. lack of significant muscle loss, but no indication whether that would had any impact on training on the elite athlete level). I.e. all I have seen so far continues to indicate that the theoretical worry is not well funded on facts. And with that lack of evidence I do not think that exclusionary policies are a good idea.

One could make a philosophical argument and let's say some sport is going to be dominated by transgender women, the question that one could then raise is whether that is important. Of course that is a related but also somehow separate discussion but one then would also need to figure out what the pros and cons are.

OP has asked at some point whether sports should be stratified according to some performance parameters and while some sports are (e.g. by weight as mentioned), some are not (e.g. there is no height-based classifier in volleyball). So what then is fairness based on what kind of distinction do we perceive to be beneficial for a sport?

[Prometheus]

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

Also as already mentioned, there is a paucity on data indicating that there is a problem. If you have access to studies that demonstrate an actual issue, please share them.

I came across this review in the Journal of Medical Ethics which suggests there is enough evidence that tranwomen athletes have an unfair advantage under current IOC guidleines to warrant discussion and further research in the area. This later review in Sports Medicine came to the same conclusion. 

[CharonY]

4 hours ago, Prometheus said:

I came across this review in the Journal of Medical Ethics which suggests there is enough evidence that tranwomen athletes have an unfair advantage under current IOC guidleines to warrant discussion and further research in the area. This later review in Sports Medicine came to the same conclusion. 

Thank you Prometheus, I am aware of at least the review from the Lundberg group (the paper I mentioned with regard to muscle loss was from their group). From what I remember the authors discusses elite athlete mainly in the context between men and women (not transgender) and the actual discussion of transgender performance is based on their (and others) work showing that testosterone suppression only resulted in limited performance reduction. However this was on the non-elite level (i.e. they extrapolate from their first part where they highlight differences between female and male elite athletes) and is mostly based on measures such as grip strength, rather than sports performance. I.e. in many ways it is talking about the potential advantages of transgender women in sports.

And that is where my thinking goes to mostly. So far the discussion talks about unfair advantages of transgender women and how they could dominate the field making it impossible for non-transgender women to compete. I have found bachelor theses calculating high likelihood for transgender women getting all top spots. 

I have to admit that I am not particularly interested in sports, but from what I can tell these scenarios are not happening and as mentioned above and as long as there is little evidence of exclusion of non-transgender women I feel that is no strong indicator for a need to be exclude transgender athletes. 

The assay seems to discuss ethical aspects and perhaps addresses what OP has in mind. I will need to track the full text down and read it in order to follow their argument, though.