worth adding to @tired post above that its not just about "strength". In cycling specifically, one of the issues that's been highlighted is the potential advantage a males narrower pelvis gives for pedalling mechanics ( in the sense that the upper bone of the leg operates closer to vertical) . Reducing testosterone levels does not change that after puberty, hence the puberty aspect of the ruling
I have not posted on here for ages, but here I am back.
I am concerned with a lot of issues in my life, but amongst them are a belief in LGB rights, women's rights, fairness, the importance of science, logic, reason, truth and reality, and protecting kids.
Trans"women" are men by definition. You literally cannot be a trans"woman" without being a man, and no-one has ever changed sex.
That I - a straight man - am not attracted to men who claim to identify as women, does not make me transphobic, it makes me straight. If I can exclude men from my bed because they are men, then women should be able to do the same in women's sport.
Women's bodies are completely different. Puberty is a red herring as boys pull ahead before puberty. Even if the only difference was the way women's practice is interupted by the menstrual cycle (pun intended) then men have no place in women's sport.
The trans lobby is a men's rights movement and it is bigoted and insane and destroying the west.
FWIW I thin Corbyn is a centrist politician economically, if you want an indication of where I sit on the political spectrum - I hate right wing politicians like starmer.
Who asked you, or cares, who you are attracted to? Cycling isn't dating.
legometeorologyFree Member
To summarise my last rambling post…I think what makes this complicated is that a set of traits that would be deemed male advantage in a trans-woman may be deemed talent, skill, strength or whatever if they existed in a cis-woman at the top of whatever game they play. That doesn’t seem logical to me
The point you are missing isn’t that there aren’t some women who can beat a trans person. It’s that an ‘average’ man who transitions is then able to beat an elite performing woman. Someone who was once in the top 10% athletically now comes in the top 0.1%
I think what makes this complicated is that a set of traits that would be deemed male advantage in a trans-woman may be deemed talent, skill, strength or whatever if they existed in a cis-woman at the top of whatever game they play. That doesn’t seem logical to me
It's not a set of traits but one factor - male puberty*. It's basically a life-long powerup that affects many traits, and so much so that it significantly outweighs any natural variation of the same traits within the sexes.
If performance advantage of natural trait variation outweighed the male advantage, then the female category wouldn't be justified. It could be dropped and replaced with trait-based categories (like weight classes).
*There are other sex differences, e.g. hip angle, but puberty is the huge difference.
I don't want to comment on the actual topic as I don't have anything to add, especially not knowledge, but I would like to say the first 4 pages of this thread have been Singletrack at its best. Thoughtful comments, differing opinions, but all done in a great tone and lack of vitriol. A lot of the posts have made me think, and lots of posters have said there are no easy answer, which I think is always a good sign.
Chapeau STW
Sam
Boys vs women sporting performance compared -
2016 Female Olympians vs 2016 High School Boys.
Gold - 1 vs 28
Silver - 2 vs 27
Bronze - 3 vs 26
Women are wonderful, they are so much better than men at so many things, but physical strength, speed, size and power are simply not amongst them, though, somehow (anyone know) when it gets to ultra distances women start being able to compete I think.
"lots of posters have said there are no easy answer".
Sorry, but there is a very very easy answer so long as you ask the right question.
Men have a massive advantage over women, which is the entire reason we have women's sport in the first place. Without women's sport we have no women competing meaningfully in sport.
So the question, "do you believe that men who claim to identify as women (whatever that means, and despite us having no idea whether their claim is an honest one) be able to destroy women's sport or not?"
Alternatively, "do you care about women or do you not care about them at all?" would be another way of phrasing the question in order to get to a simple answer.
It really is that simple.
Edit - the trans rights extremist side of all this tries to make it seem complicated but it is not. It is #nodebate because they have #noargument
The point you are missing isn’t that there aren’t some women who can beat a trans person. It’s that an ‘average’ man who transitions is then able to beat an elite performing woman. Someone who was once in the top 10% athletically now comes in the top 0.1%
Do trans-women, on average, out compete the highest performing women? I genuinely don't know -- obviously that would be a good grounds for exclusion if so. I also don't know exaclty how pre/post puberty changes the stats
It’s not a set of traits but one factor – male puberty*. It’s basically a life-long powerup that affects many traits, and so much so that it significantly outweighs any natural variation of the same traits within the sexes.
If performance advantage of natural trait variation outweighed the male advantage, then the female category wouldn’t be justified. It could be dropped and replaced with trait-based categories (like weight classes).
Do you mean the male advantage that cis-men have, or that trans-women have?
And if puberty is the key thing, is the UCI ruling actually a really good solution?
I think what he means is that if you have experienced male puberty, you have advantages that hormone treatment afterwards does not reverse
Sorry, but there is a very very easy answer so long as you ask the right question.
Everything is simple if you cherry-pick the bits you want to look at. Life is more nuanced.
"Do trans-women, on average, out compete the highest performing women?"
That is simply not a relevant question, unless you can show me a way of clearly and definitively define "trans-women" as a specific group that excludes all normal men and women.
The questions are -
"Do men, on average, have a massive physical advantage over women, hence the reason women's sports exit in the first place?" Obviously "yes".
and
"Is there anything about men who claim to have a "transwomen" gender identity that makes their male bodies magically perform like smaller, lighter, differently proportioned female bodies?" Obviously "Of course not".
Is there anything about men who claim to have a “transwomen” gender identity that makes their male bodies magically perform like smaller, lighter, differently proportioned female bodies
You do understand that TG athletes aren’t just blokes wearing a wig don’t you??
all the evidence points to a drop in performance after transitioning. The question is how much, and do they still have an advantage . The general consensus is they still do.
tbh I’m not sure if you are serious or just trolling. If the latter then not cool on this thread
@ceepers, slight segue but does the hip width mean women (or in fact anyone outside of the "norm") should have a different q factor?
Do you mean the male advantage that cis-men have, or that trans-women have?
Average male advantage irrespective of identity, but pre-transition. The science shows the advantage can be reduced (hence the testosterone reduction policies that have been tried) but can't be fully reversed.
And if puberty is the key thing, is the UCI ruling actually a really good solution?
It seems so, and it's in line with many other orgs' policies. The policy also works for DSDs like CAIS.
A ban without any thought on some reasonable accommodation is oppressive in my view. There needs to be some more thought into how trans athletes can be included in a way that is fair for all. The governing bodies have a responsibility here to find a way to make it work.
Given it is deeply evil to transition a child or young person (socially as well as medically, as social transition makes medical transition more likely) before their brain has fully developed aged 25 this ban mean only the victims of the most horrific medical / seual abuse could be permitted to compete in the wrong sex category.
It really is simple, Trans Women are Men by definition and Women's sport cannot include men and still be women's sport. Either you want a men's category and a mixed sex category, or you care about and respect women and their rights and you keep all me out, no matter how offensive their womanface act is, and how disgusting their cosplaying and LARPing is. This issue really is incredibly simple.
Caster Semenya (sic?) is a man with a DSD (he has fathered children, something no woman has ever done). People with DSDs should never be in the wrong sex category.
But, to be clear, Caster is a man with a DSD, not a woman.
I think another unspoken assumption here seems to be that a trans-woman winning a womens’ event is automatically unfair
I mean, if 1 in every 100 women was trans, you’d expect 1 in 100 womens’ events to be won by a trans woman, all else equal
And some of the highest performing cis-women may well have higher testosterone levels than trans-women — is that unfair on women with lower levels?
There is also the flip side to this, which is that if, on average, trans-women have lower testosterone than cis-men (and even before transitioning), then it is also unfair (for them) if they have to compete against these cis-men
To be clear I’m not even trying to argue against the UCI here. But I think the situation is way more complex than most people realise.
athletic ability and fitness aren't completely defined by testosterone levels. It is not a case of who has the highest level of testosterone wins (in male sport).
The issue is that male and female bodies develop differently. Some of those changes will not go away just be removing T.
The only people that should really debating this are cis-women athletes as it impacts them the most.
I feel the recent discourse around Trans is pretty unpleasant and I feel for them. Who in their right mind would want to go through that. But having their cake and eating it at the expense of others doesnt seem fair.
Self-identification is irrelevant. The eligibility definition is based on serum testosterone levels falling inside the normal ranges for genetically male and female populations#. A trans woman who will have taken drugs for blockade of testosterone, and oestrogen, will have testosterone levels within the female normal range. The debate is whether at the elite level, that athlete will have retained any advantage from the period during puberty where they did not satisfy the criteria. For trans males, the reverse is true, where supplemental testosterone is taken, and it is likely that testosterone levels in the normal range for males will confer some benefit over their previous female hormonal status. Whether they achieve the same sporting potential as they would had they been born male is moot. The East Germany doping scandal showed the effects of systematic androgen doping in females.
The UCI have decided that the benefits of puberty in genetic males cannot be fully reversed.
#For DSM and complete androgen insensitivity, this was not previously the case. High but non-functioning testosterone in women was allowed. Caster Semanya’s case (and others) focused on normalising testosterone levels to within the normal range of genetic females. CS’s genetic status is not in the public domain.
@squirrelking i don't know. I just remember reading that it was one of the factors cited in the British cycling ruling on the trans cyclist Emily something.
I know the swimming ruling body cited increased foot / hand size after male puberty as a factor in their trans ruling which is a similar thing that isn't reversed by hormone treatment
Self-identification is irrelevant.
It's only irrelevant if you are prepared to accept two "classes" of TG athletes - those who have undergone some sort of physical transition and those who haven't.
Well. 4 pages of reasoned and respectful debate of a very tricky topic before shouty bloke chimed in and spoilt it.