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.
