Not In My Name: Trans Athlete Bans

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.

@tpbiker

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.

@convert

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?

Monkeys and mice? There might be more to learn there, as they haven’t been bred to provide meat. But still… can we all show more humanity towards our fellow humans please.

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.

Haha… Nope. Red wine 🍷.

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.

@brucewee

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.

So… what you mean to say is ‘I have no evidence.’

For 20 years Olympic sport has been segregated by gender rather than biological sex (as in chromsome testing which was last done in 1996).

Where are the medals?

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.