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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

<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’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.

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.

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.

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😂)

[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.

@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.

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. 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.

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,…

They do and it’s been posted before 🙂

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.

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.