Forum menu
But in the context of this thread: Sporting categories are based on sexual differences, not gender ones. That’s the problem.
But they're not, I don't think. The UCI still allows trans-women that medically transitioned before puberty to compete in the woman's field, at least if I'm understanding correctly.
That's why, unlike this thread, the pinkbike article has *some* in the title
Edit: the important point here is that people seem to be assuming that trans-man have the same biological traits as cis-men. But if chatgpt can be trusted (see my quote above) trans women have significantly lower testosterone than cis-men, on average, and that's really important
After all, no one is arguing that it is mens' literal penises that make them better at sport -- it's all sorts of other advantages that men have, on average, but trans-women may not have to the same degree. That's the science question, and that's prob why the UCI ban is partial
But they’re not, I don’t think. The UCI still allows trans-women that medically transitioned before puberty to compete in the woman’s field, at least if I’m understanding correctly.
You misunderstand me. What I meant was that the reason you have different categories in sport is because of the disadvantages sexual female athletes suffer in comparison to males
Those saying you can’t change your sex because of biology are right when they put it like that. But they are creating a strawman, as Trans is about gender, not sex.
Problem here is that the two words are used to mean the same thing which in today's society they do not and that confuses the hell out of everyone. In my view men are males and woman are females. If you want to them to mean something else then you are going to have to refine what man/woman means. Good luck without using sex as a descriptor. That being said if you want to call yourself doris when you used to be dave and live like a woman or vice versa (what ever living like a man or woman is) go have at it and be happy. you will still be the sex you have when you were conceived and we split sport in to male and female categories. The wording has to be more specific because of the above mentioned change in what a man/woman means these days. So no strawman at all if you use the correct terms.
If you stick to only females can compete in female races then there is no ambiguity and no one can complain about it. Male/open category as well keeps everyone included and fair.
Problem here is that the two words are used to mean the same thing which in today’s society they do not and that confuses the hell out of everyone.
Yea, even I messed up in the comment you replied to
In my view men are males and woman are females. If you want to them to mean something else then you are going to have to refine what man/woman means. Good luck without using sex as a descriptor. That being said if you want to call yourself doris when you used to be dave and live like a woman or vice versa (what ever living like a man or woman is) go have at it and be happy.
In that case, I totally respect your opinion on this (and some days I hold the same opinion, as it may be better for everyone in the long-term).
It's the people that say sex == gender you can't change your sex, that's biology, and then say 'and this is how men and women should behave' that grate at me.
If you stick to only females can compete in female races then there is no ambiguity and no one can complain about it. Male/open category as well keeps everyone included and fair.
Or... categories are based on testosterone classes or something, like weight classes in fighting. Get rid of gender and sex, seeing as genitalia are irrelevent (or just a crude proxy for other abilities)
The UCI have banned post male puberty trans women. Since they will have benefited from years of higher endogenous testosterone than their fellow genetically female competitors. That testosterone is performance enhancing is not in doubt. Reduction in its effects will become apparent to more men than transitioning women once they start taking testosterone blockers for prostate issues. That number will dwarf trans athletes and there may be studies on the magnitude of effect.
Male/open category as well keeps everyone included
It would be convenient but to many genuine trans athletes the othering into 'you can't compete as a woman but you can go into a separate category' = exclusion.
I don't know the solution, but that is a reality. And we're back to - I understand why it is done for fairness in elite competition, but if the trickle down effect is to exclude social athletes who happen to be trans from participation, that will be a poor outcome societally. Not least because it validates the commentors on the twitter thread and their ilk.
but if the trickle down effect is to exclude social athletes who happen to be trans from participation, that will be a poor outcome societally.
I agree.
You misunderstand me. What I meant was that the reason you have different categories in sport is because of the disadvantages sexual female athletes suffer in comparison to males
@imnotverygood yes, fair enough. The question is then, do trans-women have the same traits, on average, as cis-men?
People seem to be assuming that. But if chatgpt can be trusted (see my quote above) trans women have significantly lower testosterone than cis-men, on average
Why’s that emotive, it’s an honest question. When you’ve felt the impact of having the shitty end of the stick does it make you more or less likely to then want to make someone else suffer it?
This is really a question about "intersectionality", isn't it? I don't think it's as simple as saying people who have been victimised are less likely to be victimised. I have no data but in my highly unscientific anecdotal observations I have come across plenty of homophobic ethnic minorities, racist women etc.
True, equally there are those who have been very badly treated in the past, get a break, and then use their past and experience combined with their new "good luck" to improve things for others.
The trouble is that regardless of what the UCI said I very much doubt any TG athlete is going to feel particularly ‘welcomed’, regardless of the rules
Referring back to theotherjonv’s post from a few days back, pointing out how how great it would feel for a TG athlete to compete against the sex they identify as and be welcomed by their fellow competitors. The second part just isn’t going to happen any time soon, even if they could compete. The majority of ladies just don’t want to compete against TG athletes, at any level of the sport.</p>
Which is the heart of the issue. In a competitive environment like sport, even down potentially to grassroots level, competition/'fairness' ranks above inclusion.
Sport and its participants are all for inclusion as long as it doesn't cost anything.
The point is, I doubt whether only having trans women compete in the female category up to a certain ‘level’ would solve the issue. Firstly because you would get up and coming athletes who would suddenly be barred from female events once they’d improved to a certain point. More significantly, I suspect the issue would be that having any barrier at all is a tacit admission that being a trans woman is not the same as being a biologically born woman. The whole premise that ‘a trans woman is a woman’ would not be viable if in some cases there weren’t. In other words the ‘othering’ is still present & visible even if an individual is not directly affected.
You can simply switch that around though, and say that trans activists are all for fairness as long as it doesn't cost them anything.
I'm not sure either statement helps much.
No I agree with that too. It's the balance of inclusion vs fairness and I suppose that at elite level the fairness can be considered more important, my (new - as in last 3-4 years really*) thinking at social level reverses.
* I make this distinction because when I was a player, before being challenged to think hard about what inclusion looks like and in some cases might cost, I think I'd have supported competition above all, at all levels.
An insoluble one, for sure.
Good discussion, generally civil, but I think I'm done. I just keep repeating my view which isn't going to change, and I hope has been consistent since my first post. Consistent, as opposed to dogmatic 😉
Surely this is what matters, not what a bunch of blokes on here or twitter think....
The majority of ladies just don’t want to compete against TG athletes, at any level of the sport
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.
But I think the situation is way more complex than most people realise.
Well, nobody on this thread is really addressing the issue of those TG athletes being excluded from female competition because they identify as a man but haven't gone through any form of transitioning. Where do "fairness" and "inclusion" rank then?
trans men can still ride in the female category
Imagine if gender was not being defined by testosterone, but another hormone, let’s call it EPO. Would it be fair to compete with an athlete who has spent much of their formative feinting with higher levels that allowed them to develop superior fitness through increase stamina, only to drop those levels when it came to entering formal completion as they now identify as female?
There was a time when male cyclists were subdivided by such a “gender”. One even won seven races of significance that we all follow. I am sorry but I do not think this is about inclusion. It’s is about testable benefits of a period of advantage. I would not think it fair to compete against someone who has spent significant time doping to gain an advantage, and I think that is the crux of the matter. It is also why prepubertal transitions have exemption for inclusion. The real challenge is DSM where insensitivity to testosterone does not necessarily confer the benefits of genetically being male. Such females have a genetic advantage for sure, but then elite athletes all have genetic advantages over us mortals.
trans men can still ride in the female category
Not if they are taking testosterone. It’s a banned substance and no TUE would be offered.
<p style="text-align: left;">I think another unspoken assumption here seems to be that a trans-woman winning a womens’ event is automatically unfair</p>
It’s not an unspoken assumption. It’s the explicit principle at the forefront of the discussion (and it applies to competing not just winning).
Male performance advantage in sport is huge, typically 10-40% depending on the discipline, so it trumps anything else (eg the supposedly freakish Phelps was just 0.5% faster than his competitors), and the science is clear that male advantage can be reduced but not reversed in athletes that transition.
The female category exists for the sole purpose of excluding male advantage. If you believe it’s fair to allow male advantage, then logically your position is that the category itself is unfair and should be abolished.
To be clear I’m not even trying to argue against the UCI here.
Understood!
But I think the situation is way more complex than most people realise.
The point I’m trying to make is that it’s actually not complex at all.
It’s not an unspoken assumption. It’s the explicit principle at the forefront of the discussion (and it applies to competing not just winning).
Hmm, ok fair point. Perhaps what I mean then is that there is an assumption that any trans woman winning a female category event has done so because of male advantage. But I don't see why all trans-women will have something definable as that advantage, partly as I can't imagine how trans women possibly have the same traits as cis-men, and partly as top-performing women may well have some traits* more similar to cis-men -- which is not considered cheating, either though it is arguably just as unearned.
Male performance advantage in sport is huge, typically 10-40% depending on the discipline, so it trumps anything else (eg the supposedly freakish Phelps was just 0.5% faster than his competitors), and the science is clear that male advantage can be reduced but not reversed in athletes that transition
If the science is clear on this that potentially settles it (I didn't know that; I got the impression it was lacking consensus, but only from reading others' comments).
Even so, it does leave the problem that trans-women are male-advantaged in the female field, and what you may call trans-disadvantaged in the male field
The female category exists for the sole purpose of excluding male advantage. If you believe it’s fair to allow male advantage, then logically your position is that the category itself is unfair and should be abolished.
I don't bluntly believe that male advantage should be allowed, I just think I'm looser with my definition of it.
I mean, should the benchmark for assessing male advantage in a trans women regarding, say, testosterone, be the average levels in all women? Or the average of women at the top end of a particular sport?
If the former, trans-women would be being excluded for reasons of fairness, even though the cis-women actually winning the event in question are also biologically advantaged.
Put another, are trans-women not allowed some of the genetic freakishness that characterises any world class athlete? If so how would it be distinguished from male advantage? I've no clue how this would be done.
So I guess this is why I find this stuff interesting as well as morally charged (I realise the former is a privilege).
Fundamentally, I think all competition is unfair and is basically a genetic and social lottery (even the ability to work hard at something is just a result of nature and nuture, not individual agency). Although while competetion does have the place it does in society, I completely support the separate women's category and support more support for it (I just don't have a answer to the question about trans-women inclusion).
*btw, for transparency, I keep saying 'traits' as I really have no understanding of the actual science here.
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
But I do nonetheless accept that sex-based categories would be a blunt but defensable solution to all this, and allowing pre-puberty-transitioned trans-women only is perhaps a less blunt and better solution
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.