Cheers. So there's no clear evidence of her having an advantage?
Transgender Athletes
- Thread starter Stack
- Start date
Cheers. So there's no clear evidence of her having an advantage?
I can't say I've looked at the science in too much detail but I'd say yes, she has an advantage. Those athletes competing at the older end of the scale will have been at multiple world competitions and Olympic games before, it's very unusual to achieve such standard at such a late age.
I suppose even for accounting the wear and tear that she missed out on, you'd still expect a natural decline in athletic capability from age 33 onwards anyway so reaching such an high level late on is eyebrow raising. I guess this only becomes a real issue if she had been very successful but I'd imagine that some of the lifters that have missed out on a medal to her in competitions would feel aggrieved.
As it happens, she was unable to complete a lift today and is out of the competition - but she did compete, so she probably feels that it's a step forward for transgender athletes.
She unfortunately missed two of her Snatches and was no lifted (correctly) for the other. I can't see her being at the next Olympics, 47 will be really pushing the body.
Women’s weightlifting becomes the MLS for men who can’t hack it anymore.
Not serious please don’t kill me
Personally, I think it’s ridiculous when it comes to the olympics or any competitive sport. It’s already scientifically proven that men are genetically stronger and better athletes than women in every sport. Even the stats show this.
On that basis, it won’t be long before every female event or sport has a transgender as the world record holder or the best player in that sport.
Surely that’s unfair?
Hyperbolic nonsense, much like the majority of this thread.
So after all that turns out she didn’t win any medals. The end of women’s sport as we know it will have to wait a few more years I guess.
I think its a bit over the top to think it wont be long until every female event or sport has a transgender as a record holder etc. The numbers of trans gender athletes are pretty low and even lower at world class level. There is no danger of transgender athletes filling womens sport with world records and dominating sports and teams.
The end point is a free for all which could have serious financial consequences for certain groups, which is why they are losing their shit.
Whats the free for all??
Transgender athletes I understand there could be an issue but for people born as females getting banned because their bodies produce more testosterone than the average female is where I have a major problem.
No gender distinctions in sport...
That wont ever happen. No free for all in that regard even remotely on the horizon
Didn’t win at the Olympics. But did win medals at the World Championships and at the Pacific Games.. also gold at the World Cup in 2020, which was an Olympics qualifying event.
Made it to the top of the sport, taking the place off a natural women, they didn’t need to win to cause damage.
I’m all for inclusion, but this is not the way
The result of a single transgender athlete should not influence the discussion one way or the other. She should not have been allowed to compete at the Olympics, and I hope they change the rule going forward.
If an athlete has fallen foul of DSD rules, as the two Namibian athletes that I suspect you are referring to have, it is because of this:
In regards to Hubbard and other transgender athletes, the IOC have admitted that their current rules are not fit for purpose, which casts at least something of a shadow over the "qualified fairly" line.
Article
The issues surrounding DSD athletes are seperate to those surrounding transgender athletes though. There's also a different bar for testosterone levels, which seems odd, and you would think it's something that will be looked at in their review of the rules.
I'm pretty sure you have consistently been the main person pushing this supposed agenda in the thread, the majority of other posters actually engaging in the topic have managed to have a measured discussion, for the most part.
Stepic has only ever been interested in making out that anyone and everyone that doesn't 100% agree with him is a transphobic, hate monger.
He spent a good deal of time earlier in the thread going on about the IOC transgender guidance being in place since 2004, yet when it was pointed out to him that it was significantly relaxed in the build for this Olympics, he claimed it was no longer relevant.
Barely anyone has said that this would signal women's sports being competed in entirely by transwomen, and certainly no one who has an interest in actively participating in the discussion, but he'll continue to disingenuously argue against straw men and the occasional one off post and paint it as if they represent every voice in opposition to his regardless.
He's been smarter than Shamwow in that he's largely avoided outright calling people "bigots", but the insinuation has remained all the same.
ew
by all means tweak the rules if need be. lower the testostrone level if this makes the most sense. but you don't ban trans women outright. thankfully IOC’s medical and science director Dr Richard Budgett agrees - from your article:
“There is some research, but it depends on whether you are coming from the view of inclusion as the first priority or absolute fairness to the nth degree being the priority,” he said. “If you don’t want to take any risks at all that anyone might have an advantage, then you just stop everybody. If you are prepared to extrapolate from the evidence there is, and consider the fact the have been no openly transgender women at the top level until now, I think the threat to women’s sport has probably been overstated.”
“The other important thing to remember is that trans women are women. You have got to include all women if you possibly can.”
well said.
mate on this page alone you have people suggesting that every female sport will have a trans woman as the world record holder, and that this will lead to no gender distinctions in sport at all. it's absolute bollocks.
also, hyperbole is a comedic device too btw.
If they can prove the science is clear about advantages not being there then the opposing voices will be fewer.
Currently that isn't the case, and I think many will agree that the science has to prove that before inclusivity is considered.
The Dr Budgett also said:
"It may be the right thing to do in many sports, because it is at the most elite level in their case that they are concerned about safety. As you come down from that level you can start to prioritise inclusion more than safety. You can understand it. I think there is a legal element to this as well, they have really prioritised safety.”
There are obvious concerns when it comes to safety in certain sports, particularly at elite level, but fairness will also need to be considered in this respect.
I do think it's notable that Quinn has had no issue competing with women in the football, despite not identifying as one. They compete in a category for their sex.
One of your biggest allies in this thread (Shamwow) spent a number of posts arguing for the removal of gender/sex distinctions.
You are picking and choosing random single posts for the most part; it's the internet, anyone can find a crap opinion on a topic when you have the possibility of thousands of people posting in a thread. It's the forum equivalent of the new trend of someone writing an article based on a tweet with 2 likes, from an account with 5 followers. I doubt anyone genuinely discussing this topic in here would disagree that there are some people out there with the opinion you're talking about, I don't see why you keep needing to go on about it with a sarcy tone, as if it's all anyone has said.
You are also mentioning posts where people are taking the piss half of the time(I don't like those sort of posts in a thread of this nature, personally), but yet you allow yourself to take the piss with your posts. If you don't think this is a topic that should be joked about, then your own posts should be held to the same standard, when it comes to being genuine and measured.
Have there been any FTM transgender athletes, who competed as a woman prior to transition?
Surely they wouldn't stand a chance at the highest level in the vast majority of sports?
Chris Mosier one of the more notable. Made it to Olympic trials in the men's category for 50km racewalking.
Mack Beggs is probably a good example of the different issues surrounding FtM trans-athletes. He was made to compete with girls in high school wrestling, despite wanting to compete with the boys, and acknowledged the treatment he was receiveing during his transition had given him an advantage. I think he pretty much had a clean sweep of victories.
Quinn is non-binary and competes with women in football. Alana Smith is also non-binary and competed in the women's skateboarding. I don't believe either have taken any cross-sex hormones though, and neither identifies as male.
As far as I'm aware there is currently no one that has competed in both categories at an elite level, and no transgender man has competed in an elite men's category.
I'm not sure if the synthetic testosterone would break doping rules.
I'm going to weigh in to this debate which feels a lot more interesting the more I think about it and what it means to talk about it.
Maybe I'm stating the obvious here, but it feels to me like this whole issue feels like a microcosm of the natural divide between left and right wing people. You have leftists believing there should be NO walls at all - free movement of people, no discrimination between race or gender because ultimately we are all equal and thus capable of anything. What you THINK you are is what you -are-, and anyone can be anything. Then there's the right wing who believe there are absolutely walls and they should be set in stone - walls between countries, walls between ethnicity in the extreme cases, and walls between genders. And fundamentally a wall of "ability". There are hierarchies and the "best" people deserve to be rewarded appropriately.
Setting this against the Olympics though, is extremely weird to me because they Olympics is the ULTIMATE hierarchy. Some people are naturally faster, better swimmers, stronger. But the debate then moves to "why is it 'fair' that a person is so much stronger than me". And outside of drugs and hormones treatment, left alone with only training, that would be the case.
... But we are already interfering with people's hormones and using all sorts of drugs on people to get them to the next level as the Russian Olympic doping programme proved (and the use of which is absolutely rife across sports in the world, including in the UK, you have to believe unless you're incredibly naive)
So do we then move to a system where you have to have (X) amount of hormone therapy for (y) number of years? Do we conclude that There's a third gender (which seems unacceptable to both ends of the debate) and create a new category? What is the purpose of the Olympics - is it to find the BEST or is it the best of a category?
Maybe I'm stating the obvious here, but it feels to me like this whole issue feels like a microcosm of the natural divide between left and right wing people. You have leftists believing there should be NO walls at all - free movement of people, no discrimination between race or gender because ultimately we are all equal and thus capable of anything. What you THINK you are is what you -are-, and anyone can be anything. Then there's the right wing who believe there are absolutely walls and they should be set in stone - walls between countries, walls between ethnicity in the extreme cases, and walls between genders. And fundamentally a wall of "ability". There are hierarchies and the "best" people deserve to be rewarded appropriately.
Setting this against the Olympics though, is extremely weird to me because they Olympics is the ULTIMATE hierarchy. Some people are naturally faster, better swimmers, stronger. But the debate then moves to "why is it 'fair' that a person is so much stronger than me". And outside of drugs and hormones treatment, left alone with only training, that would be the case.
... But we are already interfering with people's hormones and using all sorts of drugs on people to get them to the next level as the Russian Olympic doping programme proved (and the use of which is absolutely rife across sports in the world, including in the UK, you have to believe unless you're incredibly naive)
So do we then move to a system where you have to have (X) amount of hormone therapy for (y) number of years? Do we conclude that There's a third gender (which seems unacceptable to both ends of the debate) and create a new category? What is the purpose of the Olympics - is it to find the BEST or is it the best of a category?
Thanks for the info - I was thinking along the lines of "where would it be an advantage", and the answer seems to be "it isn't, in general." I'm kind of wondering that because transgender elite athletes are such a small number of people, each case would need to be judged individually rather than making a rule about hormone levels, etc.
Hubbard is old-ish and doesn't look in good shape - fat rather than fit, no offence to her but that's what I see. There may be another MtF weightlifter in the future who is younger and more athletic. Should they be judged by the same yardstick? On the other hand, Hubbard had been a weightlifter before she transitioned and was a mature adult, not an adolescent.
I don't know, it's very complicated and difficult to be fair to everyone.
Well it’s not hyperbolic nonsense though is it. Your post shows a lot of naivety and stupidity.
There aren’t many athletes who are transgender at the moment so it’s not really an issue. You’re making out like this athlete is the only one there will ever be.
As more transgender athletes take part, they naturally have a scientific and genetic advantage than the females. You surely can’t deny that?
Last edited:
Like I said, it’s obviously not a big issue right now. But next olympics there will likely be more transgender athletes than there were in this one. As time goes on, the physical advantage they have over the females is going to have an advantageous affect.
From what I can tell, there are a few issues with the hormone levels method, one of which you've touched on there.
Testosterone alone doesn't make the difference, it's whether the body can use it. Male bodies are able to use more of the available testosterone than female bodies due to differences in levels of another hormone (that I've forgotten the name of). Transitioning, even with hormone therapy, doesn't negate this. When you couple that with the current testosterone levels transgender athletes have to be below still being notably higher than what is considered a normal female range, it seems there will be a considerable advantage in that regard.
As you've alluded to, there are also lasting effects of how the body had made use of the hormones through puberty. Hubbard, as an example, developed fully as a male, and will have benefited physically (in terms of athleticsm) from that hormonal development. It may be different if a child has been on hormone blockers and did not go through puberty (there is a separate arguments debate regarding hormone blockers and children, but this isn't the thread for it) and then in their late teens/early 20s were hoping to compete, and I think this is one of the things they're looking at with the review of rules.
When it comes to elite level sport, science should be the only consideration I think.
That's not true in every other walk of life however.
I just think the two need to be separated.
That's not true in every other walk of life however.
I just think the two need to be separated.
Im wondering if differences in things such as ligament size/strength, skeletal structure/shape will play any part in giving any advantage? I cant imagine those can be balanced by hormone therapy if they are a factor?
I think that's pretty much it. Male puberty grants permanent benefits in muscular and skeletal development that female puberty can't give.
You don't undo that by suppressing your testosterone, which is currently the only real requirement for competing.
Couple that with still being allowed higher testosterone levels than ciswomen (including DSD athletes) and having a body equipped to make better use of that testosterone, and I'm not sure there's a way to maintain fairness and have the same inclusivity.
Puberty/hormone blockers can offset it, I think, but as I said earlier, there's a debate around the ethics of these treatments and the long term effects are not yet truly known, but that's not really for this thread.
I imagine if proven safe, there may be a much fairer pathway for transgender athletes, but the "if proven safe" is still being explored. From what I've read, underdeveloped and therefore brittle bones is a side effect they're worried about, as is a lack of mental development that would usually occur during puberty.
The guidelines relating to transgender athletes changed in 2015/16 because they a) didn't want to exclude anyone from a country that wouldn't provide legal recognition of gender identity, and b) didn't want to force people to undertake life changing surgical procedures.
I can understand the thinking there, but the changes meant that the requirements had suddenly gone from needing legal recognition of gender and full reassignment surgery (often accompanied by cross-sex hormones), to living as your gender for 4 years in pronoun use and self-declaration only, and suppression of hormones below a set level for 12 months. It's a drastic step, and the IOC have already acknowledged that the science doesn't support the changes to the guidelines, and this is the first Olympics to truly be affected by them.
I posted an article earlier about this, and the IOC doctor said they need to find a sweet spot between inclusivity and fairness, which is true, but, at the elite level especially, I think the science needs to prove the fairness of the inclusivity, rather than have the inclusivity while they're working out how fair it is. It may well turn out that there is no sweet spot, as such.
Hubbard will be a good case study for this. By the rules as they were, she qualified fairly, but before her event had even come around, the IOC were announcing that those same rules that were allowing her to compete, were not fit for purpose.
Not transgender, but I was reading about Mboma who was banned because she has naturally high levels of testosterone from the 400M. I find that very strange. Banning someone because they have a natural advantage - not quite sure how that works, unless I’m missing something? It’s like banning other athletes who have unique characteristics which inherently make them better at their sport.
These are artificial rules they make up as they go along.
It's ridiculous and stupid to think only certain distance of running is affected by the naturally produced hormones in the body. Now the two Namibians are running in the 200, and if they win are they going to include the 200 too in it?
It's nothing but racial discrimination. If you have a penis at birth then you are a man. If you have a vagina then you are a woman.