You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
but inclusion vs fairness is done and dusted for me.
Fair enough. I don't expect you to respond to this as you have had your fill in what is a tricky and sensitive debate but......just to test the position if you will....
Should David Weir be allowed to enter the men's marathon? Assuming he wanted to that is. Now obviously he'd need to be in his wheel chair - he'd kind of struggle if he didn't - if this is about inclusion > fairness that would be alright wouldn't it? Some might suggest it's a bit unfair that he got to use his wheelchair but as you say it's all about the inclusion and that trumps all. Or is there a limit beyond which inclusion > fairness gets a bit silly?
Your comments about inclusion, Jon, put me in mind of The Princess Bride “You keep using that word” line.
It isn’t inclusion if you’re advocating only for one group, especially when in same post you talk about members of the other group being “displaced”.
You’re throwing away genuine inclusion along with fairness.
<p style="text-align: left;">I'm sat on a hill in the alps, overlooking Turin and surrounded by cows, that is animals with big horns.</p>
Some of these are obviously bullocks/oxen.... Big appendage without testicles.
They are massive compared to their female counterparts.
They obviously have no more testosterone flowing into their system, yet they retain the physical attributes that their dosage of testosterone gave them.
Good challenges.
Accepted. Only point I'd add is that this is in general terms a new topic. It might be a small minority opinion now, I suspect (and hope, definitely hope) that in 5, 10, 20, 50 years that may be different.
Tough one. I don't know; it would be knee jerk of me to say 'of course, that's the price of inclusion'. OTOH, I feel I'm undermining my position in pointing out that the mechanics and dynamics of a wheelchair marathon are different to a run marathon, so they are different events, leaving myself open to a similar 'ah! But genetically male and female individuals are mechanically and dynamically different'. So I guess yes in answer, there is a limit to inclusion when it becomes a different sport. Reductio ad absurdum, would we let a person with quadraplegia enter in a powered wheelchair to be inclusive? But I accept I'm now just giving answers from the far end of a long continuum and entirely based on opinion rather than 'knowing' anything.
@benos - fair enough, maybe inclusion isn't precisely the right word. I hope though you know what I mean. And I disagree people are being displaced, that's not the same as excluded. And I don't have a problem with advocating for the rights of one group over another, when IMHO (and I am biased) that group needs that preferential treatment. Which is a difficult balance, I agree. BLM, etc.
Some of these are obviously bullocks/oxen…. Big appendage without testicles.
They are massive compared to their female counterparts.
They obviously have no more testosterone flowing into their system, yet they retain the physical attributes that their dosage of testosterone gave them.
What would they be like if they were now taking large doses of GnRH and oestrogen?
What would they be like if they were now taking large doses of GnRH and oestrogen?
Genetically modified?
Still probably massive compared to the heifers.
Either way, I'm not standing in their way....
Oxen are male cows, castrated at young age. No more testosterone flowing through them, with all the physical advantages of a bull, but without the aggro mentality.
Why should humans be any different?
Why should be humans be different to farm animals? Is that a real question I read today? I’m out…
How far removed are we really from monkeys, mice, pigs or cows?
can we all show more humanity towards our fellow humans please
To all of them, or just a subset?
Why should humans be any different?
Your ludicrous comparison with Oxen falls down. Oxen are trained bovine used to pull ploughs or such. They can be castrated male, bulls or cows. Kind of fires back in your face.
Genetically modified?
Still probably massive compared to the heifers.
Either way, I’m not standing in their way….
Oxen are male cows, castrated at young age. No more testosterone flowing through them, with all the physical advantages of a bull, but without the aggro mentality.
Why should humans be any different?
You can still express an opinion on the philosophy and morals, but I think you have effectively disqualified yourself from being involved in the scientific discussion.
I think Alpin might be back on the green.
That explains it.
And in German Ochsen (oxen) are castrated male bulls.... Just read up on wiki and didn't realise that in English Oxen refers to both sexes. How progressive.
and genetics and hormones are two different things?
At this rate of new found knowledge you'll be a genius by lunchtime (and if like me, forgotten it again by this evening) 🙂
Should David Weir be allowed to enter the men’s marathon? Assuming he wanted to that is. Now obviously he’d need to be in his wheel chair – he’d kind of struggle if he didn’t – if this is about inclusion > fairness that would be alright wouldn’t it? Some might suggest it’s a bit unfair that he got to use his wheelchair but as you say it’s all about the inclusion and that trumps all. Or is there a limit beyond which inclusion > fairness gets a bit silly?
Of course he can enter the men's marathon in a wheel chair but given the unfair advantage he won't get on the runners' podium if he is fastest, he'll be on the wheelchair podium in a specific category. An example of inclusive but recognising an unfair advantage and having a separate category.
I'm not sure why everyone wants to talk about what would happen if wheelchairs were allowed to compete. It's a completely different sport to running with completely different means of propulsion.
If you want to talk about advantages and inclusivity why are we not talking about Oscar Pistorius?
In his case he was given the benefit of the doubt until testing showed that he had an unfair advantage. That was then overturned on appeal because it was deemed the advantage wasn't clear enough and the methodology of the testing lacked some details to be conclusive.
The onus was always on the organisers to prove that Pistorius had an advantage. It was never on him to prove he didn't.
It makes sense to consider these things on a case by case basis. Inclusion should be the default and only if there is concern of an unfair advantage should each individual case be looked at. There are so many differences between individuals and between sports (and individual events in sports) that applying a blanket ban is simply an attempt to push transgender people back into the closet.
Let's remember that the number of cases we are talking about can still be counted on one hand. Sure, there might be more in the future but by that time we will have more data and be able to make an informed opinion on whether all transgender people have an unfair advantage.
Transgender people have been able to compete for 20 years now. So far we have seen two transgender people at the Olympics and none who have troubled the medals table.
Looking at each case individually is both fair and inclusive and despite the attempts by the media and others to portray this as an 'invasion' of trans people coming to take over the world, let's wait until transgender people are winning more than 1% of the available medals before we start assuming there must be an unfair advantage.
Inclusion should be the default and only if there is concern of an unfair advantage should each individual case be looked at
Being trans indicates a concern of unfair advantage.
Sorry bruce. It just is. Genetically male, gender female.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7930971/
Being trans indicates a concern of unfair advantage.
Sorry bruce. It just is. Genetically male, gender female.
Where is the evidence?
20 years trans athletes have been able to compete. Where are the medals?
The onus is on the organisers to prove there is an advantage. The research is very limited and inconclusive. There is no dominance in terms of results.
If you want to exclude you have to prove it is necessary. Not exclude just in case.
Edit for your edit: If you want to say that cis men have a physical advantage over cis women then I don't think you'll find many people arguing against that.
However, that's not the discussion we're having here so I'm not sure how you think your link is relevant?
Slightly off topic but regarding wheelchair racing..
never understood why they don’t just incorporate that into the able bodied Olympics, or at least some categories of it. Ultimately it’s no different than cycling, you use a set of wheels propelled by your limbs, and I’m sure that the guys that win it now would probably still win it even if able bodied athletes were allowed to compete.
it would obvious detract from the para games, but other than that I always enjoy watching it and it’s far more entertaining and worthy of a spot than some of the crap that you see at the games
Where is the evidence?
I posted above, quick cursory google search in an attempt to head this off.
But as evidence I'll point at the segregation, by sex, of mens and women's sports. Because women cannot compete against a similarly trained man.
A trans athlete is genetically a man. The trans athletes who do win women's events are, largely, unexceptional men who wouldn't make mid-field in the mens events, but because of their genetic advantage win at female-sex sports.
This is so obvious as to be self-evident. But despite that - trans women are women - in gender.
If you want to exclude you have to prove it is necessary. Not exclude just in case.
I don't think it is always clear which of these approaches should be taken. Why are people so insistent on presenting simplistic and trivial takes over complex issues?
Further, in a large majority of cases, people presenting such arguments have no understanding of the scientific process, either how it works or what can be "proven" or otherwise.
Ok, I know why people prefer simplistic and trivial takes. Truth is *hard*, most people just don't have the motivation or ability to chase it. So they prefer short-cuts and assumptions.
Ok, I know why people prefer simplistic and trivial takes. Truth is *hard*, most people just don’t have the motivation or ability to chase it. So they prefer short-cuts and assumptions.
A blanket ban is simple.
A case by case evaluation is hard.
@brucewee - feel free to disregard this one:
Transwoman Elite Athletes: Their Extra Percentage Relative to Female Physiology
And to very briefly summarise (not cherry-pick) for people who CBA clicking/reading:
...Most elite sports are divided into male and female divisions because of the greater athletic performance displayed by males. Without the sex division, females would have little chance of winning...
...Male physiology underpins their better athletic performance including increased muscle mass and strength, stronger bones, different skeletal structure, better adapted cardiorespiratory systems, and early developmental effects on brain networks that wires males to be inherently more competitive and aggressive. Testosterone secreted before birth, postnatally, and then after puberty is the major factor that drives these physiological sex differences...
...Male physiology cannot be reformatted by estrogen therapy in transwoman athletes because testosterone has driven permanent effects through early life exposure...
...estrogen therapy fails to create a female-like physiology in the male. Ultimately, the former male physiology of transwoman athletes provides them with a physiological advantage over the cis-female athlete...
Q.E.D.
Trans women are women. I'll repeat this ad nauseam because I fully support this view. I fully support their self-identification and any humans desire to live their 'best' life as best they can.
However, trans women are also men. It is very sad for the small percentage of them them that want to compete in elite sports against the people they most identify with - those of the female gender - that they grew up as boys, and now retain an unfair advantage. It must cause them incredible sadness. But if we allow their inclusion into female-sex sports despite trans-women's sex-based advantages then it would cause incredible sadness and understandable rage in many of the female-sex athletes who've dedicated their lives to competition, only to have their efforts demeaned by male-sex athletes out-competing them.
It's not fair. It just IS.
Haha… Nope. Red wine 🍷.
Jealous! Nothing but water back here last night. It’s warm.
Sorry if my reply and any of those that followed on from others seemed rude. The farm animals thing just seemed absurd and crude to me, I didn’t wish to be rude to you personally. Sorry if I was.
You want evidence Brucewee? I've already poited you to the very average male US swimmer who became and excellent female swimmer. It'll always be anecdotal because we aren't all the same. Some things can't be proved with stats and standard deviations.
You yourself use anecdotal evidence with Pistorius and use it to suit your agenda rather than objectively. Trans people are not handicapped. Pistorius was briefly banned and then went on to complain about another athlete because he had better blades, oh the irony. As blade technology improves a ban might be needed again.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/sep/02/paralympics-oscar-pistorius-unfair-advantage
A bit of Googling reminded me that Lia Thomas was the trans swimmer I was thinking of, very average male to winning female, unfair IMO. As you point out there are very few transpeople/athletes, the odds of two finishing in the top six is vanshingly small - unless there's an advantage:
In the 2018–2019 season she was, when competing in the men's team, ranked 554th in the 200 freestyle, 65th in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd in the 1650 freestyle. In the 2021–2022 season, those ranks are now, when competing in the women's team, fifth in the 200 freestyle, first in the 500 freestyle, and eighth in the 1650 freestyle. According to an archived page of the swimming data website, Thomas was ranked 89th among male college swimmers for that season.
In a race during January 2022 at a meet against UPenn's Ivy League rival Yale, Thomas finished in 6th place in the 100m freestyle race, losing to four cisgender women and Iszac Henig, a transgender man, who transitioned without hormone therapy.
In March 2022, Thomas became the first openly transgender athlete to win an NCCA div 1 champs in any sport after winning the women's 500-yard freestyle with a time of 4:33.24; Olympic silver medalist Emma Wevant was second with a time 1.75 seconds behind Thomas. Thomas did not break any records at the NCAA event, while Kate douglas broke 18 NCAA records. Thomas was 9.18 seconds short of Katy Ledecky's NCAA record of 4:24.06. In the preliminaries for the 200 freestyle, Thomas finished second. In the final for the 200 freestyle, Thomas placed fifth with a time of 1:43.50. In the preliminaries for the 100 freestyle, Thomas finished tenth. In the finals for the 100 freestyle, Thomas placed eighth out of eight competitors in 48.18 seconds, finishing last.
As you point out there are very few transpeople/athletes, the odds of two finishing in the top six is vanshingly small – unless there’s an advantage
And who were those two swimmers? Probably worth more of a read about both of them before jumping to that conclusion.
@brucewee – feel free to disregard this one:
If you're not going to post studies with methodologies that can be examined then you are just posting the interpretations of people who may or may not have an agenda.
You have yet to show any evidence.
Read the original studies. Take into account the short comings. Then come back and post them if you still feel the evidence is irrefutable.
And who were those two swimmers? Probably worth more of a read about both of them before jumping to that conclusion.
Indeed. A quick google shows that Thomas wasn't 'unexceptional' before transitioning and while she did well post transition she wasn't 'beyond exceptional'.
Where her performances suffered was when she was competing (in the men's category) during transition which is to be expected.
What most, shall we say, 'critical' people like to compare her post-transition performances to is when she was transitioning as that suits their arguments better.
I can make it easier than that @brucewee: The author of that paper is Alison K Heather - she's a Synthetic and Molecular Biologist at the University of Otago and founder of Insitugen - a company that specialises in androgenic and oestrogenic hormone detection. Her area of specialisation is the effect of sex hormones on non-reproductive tissues, which includes use of sex hormones and related substances in sports doping.
She's got the chops (and a financial incentive to be both correct and seen to be correct and unbiased in these sorts of assessments as it's her day job). And the fully-referenced paper is sound (you know what a fully-referenced paper is, right?)
You have clearly self-identified as arbiter of what qualifies as acceptable scientific discourse around here. Before I bow to you, over her, I'd like to see your qualifications.
What's your degree / PhD in, and your day-job?
Its in the quote, kelvin or Google around the events and names in the quote which is now now in italics cos I've been tidying up the post.
Your attitude is like a climate sceptic Brucewee, thereare plenty of scientific reasons there's going to be a climatic response to an increase in CO2 and you're asking the scientists to prove that last evenings shower was due to climatic change.
What’s your degree / PhD in, and your day-job?
Appeal to authority? OK, still not evidence.
Your attitude is like a climate sceptic
I can post multiple studies where the methodology can be examined that say climate change is real. There are probably thousands out there by now.
Please post one study that shows an advantage for transgender athletes with a methodology we can actually examine.
As far as I know there are roughly half a dozen such studies. The ones I've looked at are limited and generally conclude 'more research needed'.
Its in the quote, kelvin or Google around the events and names in the quote
I know who they are. One is a trans-man (who soon after switched to the mens category), which doesn’t support the idea that trans-women must have an advantage because of the number being successful. There was only one trans-woman in that race, and they didn’t podium.
There is evidence that after transition trans-women can carry over maintained advantages when it comes to swimming… height and hand size etc. But a blanket ban ignores the fact that a trans-woman can be shorter and have smaller hand size than the field. The trans woman I know best is short, very light, and has thin small hands. Blanket bans are the problem, nearly everyone gets that trans-women may maintain an advantage in some sports… it’s what you do with that concept. If exclusion is required, at what level of the sport should that be, and on what basis? It’s when anyone immediately screams “a genetic test is all that’s needed, and then exclude them at all levels of sport” that I worry. That simplicity has major effects on society well beyond who wins gold at the Olympics. I think the answer, for most sports, is that we don’t know enough. Blanket bans might seem like the safety first approach to many, I get that, but they also risk increasing our ignorance as well as sending a message to young trans people that sport is not for them.
@brucewee:
Appeal to authority? OK, still not evidence.
Not at all. Evidence has been presented.
I did ask a second question - do you know what a fully-referenced paper is? Because her paper is fully referenced - so the references to the actual science, the studies and their methodologies are contained therein. The evidence is there (if you want to read it).
So no. It's not an appeal to authority. You've clearly set yourself up as the authority of what is allowable science on STW. So my post is an attempt to establish whether you're qualified enough to refute a clear and obvious expert, who's provided a well-referenced scientific paper that comes squarely from her professional field.
So then. Evidence has been presented. Your qualifications and evidence-based refutation, please.
Edit: (Of course, I don't expect you to provide these. Your refusal to accept links to scientific resources, and your spurious demand to provide an analysis of the methodologies undertaken in the reasearch is a transparent attempt to remove science from the conversation, so you can carry on asserting your "truth" and opinion without the inconvenience of evidence-based challenge).
I wonder how many transathletes are competing and not winning medals, just finishing mid pack but getting all the benefits of feeling included and participating? Many of which people don't realise are even transathletes - at least not from the results table or from the twittersphere having singled them out for special treatment (and abuse). Just getting on with their lives and being people first, who also happen to enjoy sport. Instead the focus is on the few that have won events.
Ah! But if someone who would have finished 8th in the Woking and District 5000m now finishes 9th they've been penalised, and indeed 9th is now 10th and so on........ but that's what I mean when I say that competition << inclusion. In the grand scheme, and yes, there may be a dozen or more women who've been impacted by that, but do 12 women being impacted in a way that is frankly in the grand scheme of things minor (even if not to them) outweigh the major benefits to one TG athlete's quality of life.
As I said, IDK the answer and YMMV, but something to ponder.
Ah tremendous; we've got to stage in the thread where the usual suspects have begun to argue about arguments, via the medium of a group of minority athletes this time, which just adds to the overall effect.
Excellent work everybody.
In the grand scheme, and yes, there may be a dozen or more women who’ve been impacted by that, but do 12 women being impacted in a way that is frankly in the grand scheme of things minor (even if not to them) outweigh the major benefits to one TG athlete’s quality of life.
Wow, you're really nailing your colours to the mast there.
And nickc turns up just to slag everybody off whether he agrees or not. (sticking-out tongue smiley here)
Edit: I've found the debate interesting, perhaps unfortuntely it's taken me from interested observer to adamant I don't want trans-women in women's sport. I've been thoroughly reading the other side's ideas and ideals and been struck by the lack of consideration and respect pro-trans have for ciswomen (a term I dislike too it's limit derogatory like so many other expressions for women 🙁 ).
I'm going to make sure I don't let the attitudes expressed here affect my attitudes to trans in general in society as a whole (inclusive), but ciswomen have my support in defending their interests as they see them.
I did that ages ago. I know you don't like it, I don't like your opinions. That's OK, they're opinions.
But sometimes the majority have to make sacrifices for the minority, and yes i know that the majority in this case were and still are a minority in other cases. But that's back to a previous argument about whether having been the 'repressed' makes you more sensitive to another minority group's struggles, or the other way and 'we've been repressed for too long, now it's time to enjoy being on top'
So then. Evidence has been presented. Your qualifications and evidence-based refutation, please.
So, instead of reading the referenced studies yourself you want me to read them for you and then present to you the issues with methodologies (such as sample size or the lack of variable control) for each one?
Otherwise you win by default?
Can't you just at least read, understand, and then post one of the studies and then we can discuss it's merits.
I tell you what, of the 98 papers referenced in your link, I'll post the studies that concern post-transition transgender athletes and you tell me which ones you think are the silver bullet that proves your point:
79. Wiik A., Lundberg T.R., Rullman E., Andersson D.P., Holmberg M., Mandić M., Brismar T.B., Leinhard O.D., Chanpen S., Flanagan J.N., et al. Muscle strength, size and composition following 12 months of gender-affirming treatment in transgender individuals: Retained advantage for the transwomen. bioRxiv. 2019;105:e805–e813. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
81. Harper J. Race times for transgender athletes. J. Sport. Cult. Identities. 2015;6:1–9. doi: 10.18848/2381-6678/CGP/v06i01/54079. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
If I've missed any feel free to post them.
By the way, here's an actual example of a man coming in and dominating a women's event:
https://tvpworld.com/68908668/a-brave-new-world-male-athlete-smashes-womens-benchpress-record
In related news:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-suspends-man-who-applied-12581206
I would definitely say that cis men who want to 'prove a point' are far more of a risk to women's sport and women in general than any transgender person could ever be.
I’m not sure why everyone wants to talk about what would happen if wheelchairs were allowed to compete. It’s a completely different sport to running with completely different means of propulsion.
If you want to talk about advantages and inclusivity why are we not talking about Oscar Pistorius?
I specifically chose Weir over Pistorius. Pistorius' advantage was and is still contested and went through testing and arbitration. Weir in his wheelchair has an obvious advantage. I chose Weir to just health check if theotherjonv (or Hannah's for that matter) view that inclusion > fairness has a limit. Weir can't compete against other men without a chair - not his fault or choice - just how it is. Despite it being a protected characteristic for reasons of fairness society currently makes him compete in sport in a special category. In a world where inclusion trumps all surely he (and his wheelchair) would be welcomed into the main race?
To me Pistorius and his blades are pretty close replica of the current trans athlete debate - testing and appealing striving for some sort of equity. Then rejecting bladed athletes back to their own minority catagory if they don't fit in conveniently and fairly. If I understand Hannah and Jon's view correctly - that should have never happened. Pistorius (and Weir) should have had an automatic right to compete regardless of any potential unfairness and inclusion is everything.
@brucewee, before I even consider engaging in any sort of deeper scientific discussion with you, I'd like to know I'm not talking to a Chip Shop owner from Croydon.
Not that there's anything wrong with owning a Chippy*, but I've already stated clearly that I think your motives are disingenuous.
Frankly, you've had the opportunity to engage in good faith. But you have failed to do so, so I think it's pointless trying further. You've been proven wrong, you're coming up with very silly roadblocks to deny, delay and block things whilst derailing the thread (which is your form). That's fine, it's all up there for everyone to see but I want no more part of it. People can judge by what's already up there, and other people have stuff to contribute.
*People from Croydon, however, can get in a hole.
I specifically chose Weir over Pistorius. Pistorius’ advantage was and is still contested and went through testing and arbitration. Weir in his wheelchair has an obvious advantage.
Wheelchair racing and running are a different sports. 400m Running and 400m Running the same sport. Hence Pistorius was actually running with able-bodied athletes.
Many of these arguments hinge on things that have never actually happened. Is it not better to focus on things that have actually happened?
In Pistorius' case, inclusion was the default. When concerns were raised he was tested and found to have an unfair advantage. That was overturned on appeal because the testing was not considered rigorous enough. Then, you know...
The point is that inclusion was the default and it was up to the IAAF to prove he had an unfair advantage.
It should be the same with transgender athletes. Inclusion should be the default until it can be proved they have an unfair advantage.
Instead, exclusion is the default and there is no opportunity to prove otherwise. It's neither right nor fair.
In Pistorius’ case, inclusion was the default.
This is factually incorrect. At the time I was heavily involved in parasport and it is entirely incorrect to say that the use of blades was by default accepted in able body racing.
No, that wasn't my conclusion - but perhaps didn't express it well enough to create the confusion. Part of me wants to say yes, fairness above all...... but then running (or wheeling) with mechanical aids makes it a different sport (as i said, taken to the extreme would we allow a person with quadraplegia to compete in a powered chair?)
Blades is a strange one, if it can be proved that there is neither advantage nor disadvantage compared to a limb then maybe there is a path forward. I guess by the same token, maybe if a wheelchair athlete's equipment can be limited (eg: partly braked) so their effort to speed ratio is limited to the same as a runner.... but that's getting way off topic. It does however enable me to joke about handicapping racers which I know makes me an evil person....sorry!!
And I know that the counter is that a transwoman athlete has physiological advantages (caveats apply, etc.) but they are physiological and we've always allowed that, with exceptions for specific sports such as combat sports. We don't ban tall people from playing volleyball, etc.
I know there's holes all over these arguments and if people want to pick at them then they can be made to unravel. I'm not apologising because I don't have a perfect solution, I don't think there is one. Someone is going to be disadvantaged and then we're back to the central point, who has more to lose and who can better afford to give up ground, and on that mileages vary and will continue to.
This is factually incorrect. At the time I was heavily involved in parasport and it is entirely incorrect to say that the use of blades was by default accepted in able body racing.
He started racing against able bodied athletes in 2005. He wasn't banned until 2007.
Even after he was banned he was able to appeal and was reinstated. His ban didn't continue until he was able to prove he had no advantage. It was up to the IAAF to prove that he had an advantage.
Whatever way you look at it, the default position was inclusion with exclusion only happening after proof had been provided that there was an advantage.
That was overturned on appeal because the testing was not considered rigorous enough.
More rigorous testing came after the appeal and proved he had an advantage of 10s over 400m. It wasn't acted on by the authorities, a bit like Armstrong's doping.
Ass for your prove- prove -prove arguments, you are ignoring the inconvenient truths being posted on this thread. As it stands there's proof enough for the UCI and Swimming federations.
Which brings us back to the fairness and ethics. Eastern block countires were happy to get women pregnant to win, east German coaches poisoned a generation of female athlets with their doping - it continues the world over. Give countries/coaches/athletes the possibility of gaining unfair advantage and they'll use it.
As it stands there’s proof enough for the UCI and Swimming federations.
Because trans athletes have won so many medals? Or because they are simply reflecting the prejudice shown by society at large?
They are looking at the same inconclusive studies the rest of us are. They have the same lack of information and yet they have chosen to default to exclusion.
Give countries/coaches/athletes the possibility of gaining unfair advantage and they’ll use it.
They've had the opportunity to use this for 20 years. Surely there should be nobody but trans athletes standing on podiums by now?
He started racing against able bodied athletes in 2005.
You missed out the history before that - deliberate to fit with your argument or are you just not aware if it?
deliberate or are you just not aware if it?
Just not aware of it. Did he have to prove there was no advantage before he was allowed to compete?
<p style="text-align: left;">They are looking at the same inconclusive studies the rest of us are</p>
Oh dear. You keep asserting they are inconclusive, but human biology is very well understood. We're refining and expanding our knowledge all the time.
However, the studies on the simple stuff like "do men have inherent advantages over women, even after artificially reducing testosterone and enhancing estrogen" are completely conclusive.
Men retain their advantage.
The studies just don't fit with your, and many people's, worldview, unfortunately.
I think I just read an argument that said “transwomen matter, women don’t matter”
I’d stop if I was you Bruce. You’re trying, but all it is achieving now is soliciting the same overly simple reductionist response from the same posters. Leave them to it, others can read your contributions so far and the responses to them and consider them for themselves (many will do so and not post at all, because they’ve seen what happens in similar threads many times before). More argument, especially about a completely different subject (prosthetics in sport) won’t help anyone’s understanding or encourage more consideration about trans-people and sport.
However, the studies on the simple stuff like “do men have inherent advantages over women, even after artificially reducing testosterone and enhancing estrogen” are completely conclusive.
Bone density competitions are not a thing, as far as I'm aware, but if it turns out they are then I will admit that a transwoman may have a competitive advantage.
Meanwhile, in the real world, we can continue waiting for the first transgender person to win something at the Olympics despite them having had 20+ years to do so.
I’d stop if I was you Bruce.
Done.
Surely there should be nobody but trans athletes standing on podiums by now?
Dumb question but I'll answer in the spirit of the question: no, too many variables and not enough trans athletes.
"such discrimination is a necessary, reasonable and proportionate means of achieving the IAAF’s aim of preserving the integrity of female athletics in the Restricted Events."
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/caster-semenya-testosterone-ruling-gender-science-analysis
Do you favour the many or the few in the interests of fairness? that's the debate and I'm in favour of favouring the majority of ciswomen. 12 seems a reasonable cut off point if only on the basis of growth curves for boys and girls and that's the current position of federations that have made a decision - but I'm very unhappy about children being forced to make a decision at that age and a blanket ban may be the more acceptable ethcial decision.
In terms of blades such as Pistorius used it's a situation that can be and is managed by technology rules. IPC Policy on Sport Equipment includes sections on fairness and if technology gives handicapped athletes an advantage it's possible to limit that technology just as it is in sport in general to limit athletic performance thus leveling the playing field with valid athletes. You can't shave 2cm off a trans persons legs to compensate for being male beyond 12 years old.
human biology is very well understood. We’re refining and expanding our knowledge all the time.
Id say thats really not true!
However, the studies on the simple stuff like “do men have inherent advantages over women, even after artificially reducing testosterone and enhancing estrogen” are completely conclusive.
and it is more complex than that, length of time post hormone treatment etc make a big difference
theres also not really a consensus on natural hormone levels
I think I just read an argument that said “transwomen matter, women don’t matter”
If aimed at me - no, that's overly simplistic. And not my intent at all.
If you want it reduced to a slogan, it's that the benefits of enabling transwomen to participate in sport that matches their gender identity outweigh the importance of finding out who's the fastest. Catchy. But to play the game, your argument in the same terms is
"Finding out which female-at-birth athlete is fastest is more important than the rights of TG athletes to be recognised in their gender identity"
I'd love a solution where no-one is disadvantaged but I can't see what it is - so comes down to who can afford to give something up to benefit the other, and we're back to the same opinions that won't be changed no matter if 95% of people think I'm wrong.
OK, I said I wasn't going to participate, then I did, now some posts are verging on unpleasant again (not the post above specifically, FWIW), so I'm out. Thanks for those that do listen and even if you don't change your opinions, recognise that it is just that, an opinion and that others do have merit.
I think the real point is being missed. If trans are allowed to compete post M-F then will this just be abused in the same way drugs were? It doesn’t take a great leap of imagination to see either individuals or even states using this to win medals at elite level. Does anyone really think that someone like china would have any reticence in transitioning athletes m to f to wipe the floor at the olympics for example.
How would you stop this from happening as a governing body?
There is no such thing as a trans woman
And here was I thinking the debate was actually quite respectful (ignoring the red wine fueled comparison to cattle😂)
Is the issue is going to be that for it to actually not infer an advantage the medical transition would have to be completed too young, at a point where it's not ethical for the individual to have made that decision? By the time the individual is grown up enough to make the biggest, most important decision of their life, they've already gained the physiological advantage a male has.
I'm guessing that the governing bodies are also looking at it from a point of view that they don't want to be seen to be encouraging individuals to transition. IE it's absolutely fine for someone to transition, then as an afterthought start competing in women's events but not for it to be on the plus side of the decision making process.
[edit - post has been edited to remove the quoted post that so triggered this response, as has the post itself. I understand who, just adding this for context, not to argue the decision]
Do you think those things don't concern me every day. We don't know what the long term harm will be to a life on testosterone. No-one wants their child to undergo 'unnecessary' surgery and the risks involved (or the costs, because of the shitshow that GI is in the country this is all being paid for by me)
But equally I am terrified that the 'mutilation' of his body will be on his wrists and ankles and far more severe. I used to DE shave but we got rid of the razor blades. The paracetomol is hidden and we only ever have only small amounts in the house. If he's in a dark mood and needs to take the dog out for some time alone my wife and I sit on tenterhooks until he's back - the nearby woods crosses a railway line.......
So while I try to be civil and debate even handedly on something that there is no easy solution to, this is not an academic debate for me. It is deeply personal, but I can still be far less of a **** about it than some others, so it would seem.
Rant over, and definitely out now.
Rant over, and definitely out now.
I know I said I was out as well but...
As a father I still find you to be a huge inspiration and I hope I can do half as good a job as you. Don't let the bastards get you down.
Nah mate, you said there was no such thing as a trans woman. That’s not remotely the same thing as arguing they shouldn’t be allowed to compete..
@kimbers, respectfully:
and it is more complex than that, length of time post hormone treatment etc make a big difference
I posted very pertinent science on that - which clearly stated that the physiological advantages from before birth and growing up are retained - and no amount of hormone therapy can reverse this.
I'm not being a pedant - I would like genuine progress to happen in this discussion. However, to have genuine, real progress we can only argue on evidence. So if you've got some real scientific evidence that can refute the above I would dearly love to see it.
Genuinely. Really would. Because I prefer to treat the world as it actually is, not just how I would wish it to be. So to begin to amend my position I need to see hard evidence that backs up your claim.
Until then, trans women are women in gender alone. It's the sex part that is the issue, not the gender.
I don’t know who you are or what your circumstances are, but you have taken my generic opinions about men entering women’s competitions and it sounds like you’re applying it very personally to what sounds like mental health problems with your son. I’m sorry to hear about your son.
Like I said, theotherjonv is a far better father and also a far better person than I am.
The worst thing is, I honestly don't know if you have no idea what you are saying (and therefore you're just brutally insensitive and ignorant) or if you know exactly what you are saying (and therefore you're just an arsehole).
Given that you are now shrouding your abuse with plausible deniability, I'm going to take a guess and say arsehole.
I'll take that ban now, thanks.
Come on everyone. You know it all gets shut down when the insults begin.
Keep it to the issues.
It’s ok that another person doesn’t agree with you. Sometimes you just have to accept that and step away.
It’s ok that another person doesn’t agree with you.
This particular person doesn't agree that transpeople exist.
You cool with that?
It’s ok that another person doesn’t agree with you. Sometimes you just have to accept that and step away.
It's the STW/lefty classic of "you can have free speech within the bounds that I have decreed to be acceptable"
If this were a court case, would jonv be allowed on the jury?
Declaring that there is no such thing as trans women is a perfectly valid opinion. I happens to be my opinion too - there are men, there are women, and there are trans people...the end. The best way to classify them from a sporting perspective would be to include them in their own separate category, or in a fully open category in addition to the men's + women's.
As it happens I have your exact quote saved as it's still on my clipboard. And it's pretty far in my mind from 'generic opinions about men entering women's competitions'
But the mods deleted it so I won't requote.
@mark and others; please don't take a ban sticking up for me and don't shut this thread over it either. Although it can cause angry reactions, I believe in people's right to an opinion as I also believe in the right to be able to call that opinion out. There is a lot of good debate on this thread and the views of a few shouldn't be able to collapse that. Plus, sunlight is a great disinfectant and I'd rather have them out in the open having views debated than having their views deleted.
(exception made for trolling, people taking views just for shits and giggles can FRO)
there are men, there are women, and there are trans people…the end. The best way to classify them from a sporting perspective would be to include them in their own separate category
So, all trans people in one category? Those that others (not you) term trans women competing with those that are termed (not by you) trans men? That would be okay with you? Why is that?
Not that anyone ever watches videos or clicks and reads links, but this seems appropriate about now:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zDap-K6GmL0
...
Not that anyone ever watches videos or clicks and reads links,...
They do and it's been posted before 🙂
It’s ok that another person doesn’t agree with you. Sometimes you just have to accept that and step away.
Really? And here's me reading over the forum thinking people must only come here for their love of hot topic debates and arguments 🤣
and it is more complex than that, length of time post hormone treatment etc make a big difference
theres also not really a consensus on natural hormone levels
Hormone levels are irrelevant. By creating a hurdle out of some medical or surgical procedure you are deliberately excluding a large number of folk who identify as their non-birth gender. If you are truly in favour of inclusion then self-id should be sufficient.
Declaring that there is no such thing as trans women is a perfectly valid opinion.
It's a valid statement in some circles. In others it would lead to you being told where to go.
STW is under no obligation to provide a platform for people to say blatantly ignorant and transphobic shite,. Nor is it under any obligation to provide a platform to people who tell people who make transphobic comments where to go.
They decide what is allowed to be said on their platform.
Maybe they'll decide that saying 'Transwomen aren't women and transmen aren't men' is not OK. If so, you'll have to decide whether you want to stay or not.
Maybe they'll decide that saying 'Transwomen aren't women and transmen aren't men' is OK. But telling people who say such things to **** off with their transphobic ignorant comments is not OK. In which case I'll have to decide if I want to stay or not.
Either way, ball's in STW's court.
I was going to write a comment but this topic is so ridden with linguistic pitfalls that I'm terrified of getting any of the terms wrong so I can't be bothered. Why does it bring out the worst in people? On both sides.
Bruce in a "censor people I don't agree with or I'll leave" rant...
... 🙂