Transgender athletes

[TheVat]

Women do seem to have an endurance advantage - thanks,  Charon,  for the ultra running link.  Curious as to where the advantage might come from,  I came across this.... 

 

Quote

In general, women have a greater distribution of slow twitch muscle fibres, said Dr Nicholas Tiller, a senior lecturer in applied physiology at Sheffield Hallam University. These muscle fibres are more resistant to fatigue and more suited to endurance.

He said that men still tended to have bigger muscles and greater maximal capacities like strength and aerobic power, which is why women generally can't compete with men over shorter distances like a marathon.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-49284389

I may be too easily amused, but I smiled at the phrase "shorter distances like a marathon...."  

 

Edited July 9, 2021 by TheVat
sheer verbosity

[MigL]

What I get out of this, is that the winners of these competitions suppport JC's premise, while everyone else ( mostly losers of the competitions ) support CharonY's premise.

Last I checked, the point of a competition is to win, not simply be allowed to compete.

[swansont]

And yet the number of people competing far exceeds the number who win. e.g. there's a large number of people going to the Olympics who have no realistic chance of winning, yet they go, just to be in the competition and do their best.

Plus, they give out silver and bronze medals, too. Not just gold to the winners.

And lastly, if you aren't even allowed to compete, you have zero chance of winning.

[MigL]

10 hours ago, CharonY said:

Let's say for example there are cis-gendered women with high testosterone levels and which have some increases in muscle mass among their peers and a transgender woman who, due to early transition has similar levels and performance. Who gets to perform in which group?

 

I'm glad you recognize and agree that there is a problem, and a 'simplistic' solution like falling within a testosterone level range just won't cut it anymore.

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

there's a large number of people going to the Olympics who have no realistic chance of winning, yet they go, just to be in the competition and do their best.

To get to Olympic level, and be selected for your country's team, you need to have won a large number of competitions.
They don't just let in people off the street.

[iNow]

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

They don't just let in people off the street.

Nor do they let in the very most elite trans humans who wish to compete and who clearly meet all qualification thresholds other than gender 

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, MigL said:

Last I checked, the point of a competition is to win, not simply be allowed to compete.

The point of a competition is to compete, we all want to win; but few of us (by few I mean, almost no-one) do. 

England's soccer team is in a final; who, in England, would give up an advantage, that happens to be female?

[CharonY]

5 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

This doesn't seem to be true at elite levels.

The world record is not a great indicator as it highlights a highly trained and able individual. So beside biological factors which may or may not be sex-based, there are also extremely high levels of training and selection. If you look at various ultramarathon races you do see women ending up in the top 5-10, which is quite interesting, if you also consider that only between 14-23% of ultramarathon runners are women. I.e. there is a smaller pool to identify and train talent than for men. Looking at larger numbers it then shows that the sex-based differences diminish.

36 minutes ago, MigL said:

I'm glad you recognize and agree that there is a problem, and a 'simplistic' solution like falling within a testosterone level range just won't cut it anymore.

Which is why I posted the suggestion for an open competition and suggested performance-based leagues in the first place. But mind you, I am not yet convinced that there is an universal issue. I started off with that thought, mostly based on articles in the news I read, which shines through in my couple of first posts, but then I read a few academic papers and my thoughts are a bit more nuanced.

[swansont]

46 minutes ago, MigL said:

 

To get to Olympic level, and be selected for your country's team, you need to have won a large number of competitions.
They don't just let in people off the street.

But what if you look at the next level down, and so on and so on. Always more losers than winners, and you start with "people off the street"

You can't win if you aren't allowed to compete.

 

[MigL]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

England's soccer team is in a final;

England is my second favorite national team; I have a flag for my vehicle, and a jersey, both of which I can't use as they happen to be playing my 1st favorite team on Sunday.
I would love for them to end their dry streak, if Italy wasn't involved.

Obviously winning is much more desirable ( to a whole country ) than simply competing, and doing your best.

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

The world record is not a great indicator as it highlights a highly trained and able individual. So beside biological factors which may or may not be sex-based, there are also extremely high levels of training and selection. If you look at various ultramarathon races you do see women ending up in the top 5-10, which is quite interesting, if you also consider that only between 14-23% of ultramarathon runners are women. I.e. there is a smaller pool to identify and train talent than for men. Looking at larger numbers it then shows that the sex-based differences diminish.

Which is why I posted the suggestion for an open competition and suggested performance-based leagues in the first place. But mind you, I am not yet convinced that there is an universal issue. I started off with that thought, mostly based on articles in the news I read, which shines through in my couple of first posts, but then I read a few academic papers and my thoughts are a bit more nuanced.

I think there is some truth to what you are saying but I think it mostly due to the fact that, on average, female athletes are lighter than men. This may diminish male advantage as you point out, but if you look at elite level records it's fairly obvious that males still maintain a significant advantage.

In any case your link really didn't support your/their conclusion, other than assure us they had taken in a lot of data. It may be that women do have a physiological advantage, but it certainly hasn't been proven, and the link doesn't give the evidence to support it.

But even if World Records are only indicative of highly trained athletes at elite levels as you suggest...those are the level of performances that should be considered for setting rules for the highest levels of competition. For recreational athletes the competitive subset of the rules are less critical.

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think there is some truth to what you are saying but I think it mostly due to the fact that, on average, female athletes are lighter than men. This may diminish male advantage as you point out, but if you look at elite level records it's fairly obvious that males still maintain a significant advantage.

In any case your link really didn't support your/their conclusion, other than assure us they had taken in a lot of data. It may be that women do have a physiological advantage, but it certainly hasn't been proven, and the link doesn't give the evidence to support it.

To the first part, I do not think that any of us without deep reading into the biology of long-distance running can really make but the most superficial assumption on what traits are really critical for ultramarathons and how that relates to gender differences.

To the second part, having a lot of data is exactly the point. If your hypothesis is that men have categoric advantages over women in the performance of anything, we want to get large data sets and look how the distribution is. For example if the top 0.01% is all men but we see large overlap in the rest of the 99.99% of the distribution then we can not clearly conclude that men are biologically advantaged. Rather, it points to a fact that there is a small group of men (over all women and most other men) that might be . And then it would make much less sense to exclude transgender women in that given category.

Conversely, if we got a large  or at least clear separation in performance then one might conclude the opposite. 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

To the first part, I do not think that any of us without deep reading into the biology of long-distance running can really make but the most superficial assumption on what traits are really critical for ultramarathons and how that relates to gender differences.

 

 

I think most of the top coaches, and many of their athletes, would take the Cole's Notes version on the biology and science, and after weighing it against their experience...get most of it pretty close to correct.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

 

To the second part, having a lot of data is exactly the point. If your hypothesis is that men have categoric advantages over women in the performance of anything, we want to get large data sets and look how the distribution is. For example if the top 0.01% is all men but we see large overlap in the rest of the 99.99% of the distribution then we can not clearly conclude that men are biologically advantaged. Rather, it points to a fact that there is a small group of men (over all women and most other men) that might be . And then it would make much less sense to exclude transgender women in that given category.

 

 

Right. So where is the data? What is the distribution used for the claim you are supporting?

Edited July 10, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

How does this line of questioning get us closer to finding a reasonable solution for accepting trans humans into sports; sports which are themselves currently bifurcated into gender divisions based largely on historical accident and misogyny?

If it doesn’t, then I suggest it’s safe to move on and consider it as little more than a distraction preventing us from focusing upon and attempting to improve the actual challenge before us… the actual challenges faced by the trans community which is starving not just for acceptance and understanding, but also security in a world full of people actively trying to target and harm them. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

How does this line of questioning get us closer to finding a reasonable solution for accepting trans humans into sports; sports which are themselves currently bifurcated into gender divisions based largely on historical accident and misogyny?

With respect, I don't think that's a suitable term.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

With respect, I don't think that's a suitable term.

They are human. 
They are trans. 
I called them trans humans. 

What, pray tell, is your objection and reason for it?

[CharonY]

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think most of the top coaches, and many of their athletes, would take the Cole's Notes version on the biology and science, and after weighing it against their experience...get most of it pretty close to correct.

Right. So where is the data? What is the distribution used for the claim you are supporting?

The link I provided shows an analysis of averages, which is shrinking with distance, which considering the sample size gives a decent estimate of expected differences. If one is really interested one might get more data from the authors.

 

A discussion of possible female advantages can be found here. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01417-2

So going back to you, have you similar data to question those conclusions?

Note that for ultradistance open water competitions women beat out men by over 10% and hold records, too (papers from Knechtle et al.). So there is good reason to assume endurance advantage (discussed in the paper).

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 hours ago, CharonY said:

 

 

A discussion of possible female advantages can be found here. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01417-2

 

Thanks. So diminishing to 4%. Much more in line with what I would expect.

And again with swimming, guessing "superficially" that buoyancy is the main factor in the male advantage diminishing faster with distance, and eventually leading to a female advantage.

We both agree their is a trend, regardless if you eventually prove correct with regard to running (I doubt it)

Can we not also agree these stem from anatomical and physiological differences of males and females? What are they basing it on otherwise?

Can we not also agree that averages are less critical than the elite range of the distribution? Who cares if Hussein Bolt, for example, is at a natural disadvantage against top female marathoners? Is there a distance he should potentially be allowed to run competitively against top females? 

All of this should be decided, ideally, on the playing field, keeping the "judging" of individual cases out of it.

Obviously that ideal can't be perfect, with the difficulties in categorizing intersex athletes.

For typical transgenders it really isn't that hard, outside of having to tell a small but vulnerable part of our population they can't play in the category of their choice.

7 hours ago, iNow said:

They are human. 
They are trans. 
I called them trans humans. 

What, pray tell, is your objection and reason for it?

They are human.

They are transgenders.

It's not a term I would have expected you would want to promote for them, reinforcing that they are different from "normal" humans. (I'm not suggesting you think that way)

Plus the term is kind of taken:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhuman#:~:text=Transhuman%2C or trans-human%2C,beyond those of standard humans.

"Transhuman, or trans-human, is the concept of an intermediary form between human and posthuman.[1] In other words, a transhuman is a being that resembles a human in most respects but who has powers and abilities beyond those of standard humans.[2] "

Just my opinion. Carry on using the term if you don't see the harm.

I'm certainly not a good judge of what people might find offensive a priori.

[dimreepr]

18 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

They are human.

They are transgenders.

Indeed, so why can't they play?

[J.C.MacSwell]

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, so why can't they play?

In the category of their choice? Because any remaining male anatomical and physiological advantages can't be accurately evaluated and handicapped. Nor should it be, when the handicap[s resort to any unhealthy use of drugs.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

For typical transgenders it really isn't that hard, outside of having to tell a small but vulnerable part of our population they can't play in the category of their choice.

But we don’t have to tell them that. There is no requirement nor mandate to do so… unless we force ourselves to say “No!” for seemingly specious and arbitrary reasons. 

[dimreepr]

33 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

In the category of their choice?

Of course not; If I only want to win, I'm going to choose a guy in a coma... 😉

[iNow]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It's not a term I would have expected you would want to promote for them, reinforcing that they are different from "normal" humans. (I'm not suggesting you think that way)

That’s a fair point… it was a shorthand description from me that may have been unclear given other existing uses of the term “trans humans.” 

My intent was to reinforce their human-ness more than their trans-ness… and as you rightly mention, they are just human like the rest of us… just like you and me and everyone else… and yet here we are… page after page after page of thread exploring why some people are totally fine including transgendered humans in sports… and why others cannot seem to overcome their psychological opposition to letting them compete unless we first define some sort of “separate but equal” bracket to place them into… and all due to what? Due to the risk that like 6 total female athletes MIGHT not win a cheap trophy or medal if we do so?

I find this all so horribly trite and narrow minded TBH, and it’s doubly frustrating when I see it coming so often from so many otherwise extremely intelligent and capable individuals like you. I understand where your head is on this, but I also feel somewhat strongly that you’re on the wrong side of this issue and will realize the same for yourself soon enough once a few more years have passed.

Oversimplifying my take, this issue overlaps tremendously with historical opposition to letting blacks and whites marry, or being against school integration, or against gay marriage… this is just the latest tribalistic cultural fight and… FWIW… I would also be here equally arguing against making transgendered individuals drink from separate water fountains or forcing them to use bathrooms that don’t align with the gender with which they identify. You surely agree with me those things would be anathema to who we wish to be as a society, but can’t seem to see the same once sports get involved… specifically female sports. It’s so needlessly paternalistic. 

Are their differences we should consider and account for? Of course, but are those differences so large as to justify the perpetuation of discrimination and exclusion? Absolutely not. No way, and no how. 

Edited July 10, 2021 by iNow

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

That’s a fair point… it was a shorthand description from me that may have been unclear given other existing uses of the term “trans humans.” 

My intent was to reinforce their human-ness more than their trans-ness… and as you rightly mention, they are just human like the rest of us… just like you and me and everyone else… and yet here we are… page after page after page of thread exploring why some people are totally fine including transgendered humans in sports and why others cannot seem to overcome their psychological opposition to letting them compete unless we first define some sort of “separate but equal” bracket to place them into… and all due to what? Due to the risk that like 6 total female athletes MIGHT not get a trophy or medal if we do so?

I find this all so horribly trite and narrow minded TBH, and it’s doubly frustrating when I see it coming so often from so many otherwise extremely intelligent and capable individuals like you. I understand where your head is on this, but I also feel so,what strongly that you’re on the wrong side of this issue and will realize the same yourself soon enough once a few more years have passed.

Oversimplifying my take, this issue overlaps tremendously with historical opposition to letting blacks and whites marry, or being against school integration, or against gay marriage… this is just the latest tribalistic cultural fight and… FWIW… I would also be here equally arguing against making transgendered individuals drink from separate water fountains or forcing them to use bathrooms that don’t align with the gender with which they identify. You surely agree with me those things would be anathema to who we wish to be as a society, but can’t seem to see the same once sports get involved. 

Are their differences we should consider and account for? Of course, but are those differences so large as to justify the perpetuation of discrimination and exclusion? Absolutely not. No way, and no how. 

Great post +1...

19 hours ago, MigL said:

Obviously winning is much more desirable ( to a whole country ) than simply competing, and doing your best.

Why?

When I wake up monday, England will have either won or lost...

I'll therfore be happy, or not; but I can't be either; if we don't play...

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

 

Oversimplifying my take, this issue overlaps tremendously with historical opposition to letting blacks and whites marry, or being against school integration, or against gay marriage… this is just the latest tribalistic cultural fight and… FWIW… I would also be here equally arguing against making transgendered individuals drink from separate water fountains or forcing them to use bathrooms that don’t align with the gender with which they identify. You surely agree with me those things would be anathema to who we wish to be as a society, but can’t seem to see the same once sports get involved… specifically female sports. It’s so needlessly paternalistic. 

 

Oversimplifying your take. would that be like allowing school integration, gay or interracial marriage, washroom of choice use, or drinking from the same fountains, but only if certain individuals altered there body chemistry to meet conditions you deemed necessary, or alter their skin tone enough that you deem acceptable?

Of course you would not, so why are you doing the equivalent here? Why are you on board with it? Why do you find it totally fine?

7 hours ago, iNow said:

… and yet here we are… page after page after page of thread exploring why some people are totally fine including transgendered humans in sports… and why others cannot seem to overcome their psychological opposition to letting them compete unless we first define some sort of “separate but equal” bracket to place them into… and all due to what? Due to the risk that like 6 total female athletes MIGHT not win a cheap trophy or medal if we do so?

Can you not see that it's a terrible compromise, both unhealthy and impossible to do fairly, and that competitive female sports are in fact threatened, with or without it? Or do you have some psychological impediment to understanding any of that?

Edited July 10, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[TheVat]

Inow and MacS... I wonder if the fulcrum of your disagreement may lie at the degree to which traditional female sports are impacted.   INow said "Due to the risk that like 6 total female athletes MIGHT not win a cheap trophy or medal if we do so."  This suggests a Spockian "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few,  or the one" ethos,  which is often sensible, but here lacks foundation in establishing that a mere handful of cis women would be impacted.  If more people are making the choice to transition for whatever reason,  and so there are more trans-females who,  with their XY legacy of aerobic capacity,  muscle mass,  fast-twitch fibers,  bone density,  etc. are looking for paths in which they can achieve distinction and success,  it's worth considering that many could see competitive league sports as an attractive choice.   Asking questions about such a possible future trend now seems like a good idea,  especially in those sports that are NOT diving,  ultramarathons, or volleyball. 

I don't think one has to enter into a culture war or wave an ideological flag to take a humane interest in the welfare of those who compete.