Transgender Athletes

[stepic]

Why cant the solution be to compete against your birth sex?

Because trans women are women.

Trans women suffer mass discrimination and prejudice on a daily basis. They get misgendered. They get targeted for abuse. They are labelled by terfs and others as predators for wanting to use bathrooms that align with their gender. They frequently suffer from gender dysphoria, leading to depression and anxiety.

Telling trans women to compete with men is telling them: you’re a man. It undoes all the progress made in trans rights in recent years. It doesn’t just affect trans sports persons but the entire trans community. It gives terfs the justification to continue their ongoing hate speech.

I’m not sure why people are failing to see why this is problematic in so many ways.

On top of all that, as I’ve said multiple times, trans women do not dominate women’s sport, as much as some people here would like you to think they do.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

The process of transitioning reduces bone density and strength levels substantially. Plus nobody cares about the natural large differences in hormonal levels between men. Nobody is testing male athletes with 1000 ng/dl testosterone levels and banning them from competing with men sitting at 200 ng/dl despite the decades of physical development advantages that that afforded them. The only time this is on anybody's radar is if it's a trans person involved, outside of that they don't care about differences in hormone levels.

It's not about the hormones you have, it's about the hormones you had and what they did for you.

Love for competitive athletics starts early in life. Those who work hard at it, especially through puberty to adulthood, develop their natural physical advantages well beyond those of most people Although you indicate a substantial reduction in bone density and strength, this will be relative to their pre-transition physique. A transwoman athlete is likely starting from a much higher level relative to even cis-women athletes and retaining some of that advantage, at least in events where size and power are major factors.

You note that no one cares about the natural large differences in hormones in men. That's true, people only start having a problem with these things when they are seen as unnatural, like with Ben Johnson's 100m world record in 1988. It is detrimental to the idea of sport as meaningful competition. The question is where does a late transition athlete fall here? For some it seems like an unfair advantage because of the obvious physical disparity between the genders at the onset of adulthood, despite the diminished physical condition brought on by transitioning.

 

[JohnZSmith27]

Because trans women are women.

Trans women suffer mass discrimination and prejudice on a daily basis. They get misgendered. They get targeted for abuse. They are labelled by terfs and others as predators for wanting to use bathrooms that align with their gender. They frequently suffer from gender dysphoria, leading to depression and anxiety.

Telling trans women to compete with men is telling them: you’re a man. It undoes all the progress made in trans rights in recent years. It doesn’t just affect trans sports persons but the entire trans community. It gives terfs the justification to continue their ongoing hate speech.

I’m not sure why people are failing to see why this is problematic in so many ways.

On top of all that, as I’ve said multiple times, trans women do not dominate women’s sport, as much as some people here would like you to think they do.

Being targeted for abuse or facing discrimination is awful I agree. Anyone abusing someone for being trans should be called out. But that has nothing to do with the biological differences between males and females. You keep saying trans women are women but in the biological sense, they are not. Trans women I'm sure are more aware than anyone of that fact. That doesn't make them any less deserving of compassion or the chance to compete but not against biological women where those differences on average give males an advantage over females.

 

[Carolina Red]

Being targeted for abuse or facing discrimination is awful I agree. Anyone abusing someone for being trans should be called out. But that has nothing to do with the biological differences between males and females. You keep saying trans women are women but in the biological sense, they are not. Trans women I'm sure are more aware than anyone of that fact. That doesn't make them any less deserving of compassion or the chance to compete but not against biological women where those differences on average give males an advantage over females.

Well said.

 

[Sky1981]

Because trans women are women.

Trans women suffer mass discrimination and prejudice on a daily basis. They get misgendered. They get targeted for abuse. They are labelled by terfs and others as predators for wanting to use bathrooms that align with their gender. They frequently suffer from gender dysphoria, leading to depression and anxiety.

Telling trans women to compete with men is telling them: you’re a man. It undoes all the progress made in trans rights in recent years. It doesn’t just affect trans sports persons but the entire trans community. It gives terfs the justification to continue their ongoing hate speech.

I’m not sure why people are failing to see why this is problematic in so many ways.

On top of all that, as I’ve said multiple times, trans women do not dominate women’s sport, as much as some people here would like you to think they do.

Not winning by default isnt some kind or human rights. The rights to be recognized, protected, given equality, etc is fine and should be given.

Winning in sport in an unfairly gained advantages at the expense of every natural women is impeding the rights of natural women.

Sucks, maybe. But at the moment until we find something that works they just have to compete either separately or in their pretransformation class, maybe downgrade one tier to compensate.

Many other athletes got cut off for much less. A kg heavier, a cm taller, a year younger or older, born in unlucky countries with less facilities, born in the same era with dominating athletes. Such is the luck of the draw, but at least nobody is complaining.

And class classification is not discrimination. Its just common sense.

And you said about small number. The number is not small. One trans athlete transitioning into women category would mean that for the next 5 or 10 or however long their athletes lifeshelf no women would be able to compete against them. And thats not even counting that another younger trans women wont compete.

Saying that they do not have an unsurmountable advantages and that hormone limitation works is technicality. They dont work at all. Any trans women joining women sports would decimate the competition. Even if they dont become the winner theyre there at the expense of many natural women bellow the pecking order. A good trans athlete joining meant the end for everyone else. And at some point natural women would just stop trying because its not even realistic to compete against one.

Take olympic for example, even if trans athelete might not win the gold medal they would be picked in place of natural women who worked their traits for years only to be displaced by virtue of said athlete was a man for some years.

And a 10th placed trans athelete in olympic doesnt mean its ok since theyre not winning. But the fact that theyre there in first place meant theyre there as the nations representative, which meant the whole natural women in the country got cut.

It really is not even remotely fair. If you care about fairness then you should also see the other side of the coin.

The aim is fairness for everyone. Not just what's fair for the trans athlete

 

[maniak]

Not winning by default isnt some kind or human rights. The rights to be recognized, protected, given equality, etc is fine and should be given.

Winning in sport in an unfairly gained advantages at the expense of every natural women is impeding the rights of natural women.

I'm confused about this, what's the difference between the human rights you mention for trans people and the rights of natural women you mention next?

Surely the only rights that exist are the ones we as society say exist. So if we decide transgender women are women like all the others, then surely they have the same rights.

 

[Sky1981]

I'm confused about this, what's the difference between the human rights you mention for trans people and the rights of natural women you mention next?

Surely the only rights that exist are the ones we as society say exist. So if we decide transgender women are women like all the others, then surely they have the same rights.

While playing sports ir right. Competing in the class you wanted is not rights. Nadal has the rights to play tennis as a professional, but which class he gets thrown into is decided by the PTA for the sake of fairness.

 

[Dave Smith]

I do not really want to get into this debate in isolation as it is something that I feel is very difficult to navigate.

What I will say, however is that the current Transgender debate has brought us, imho, to the edges of an sociological epoch.

I have been reading up on this debate quite a bit as I am someone who is interested in sociology, history and politics. As a result, what I see with this debate is not as simplistic as to whether a transgender women should compete with biological females (sorry, if that is wrong, I do not intend to offend anyone) but rather the conclusion of feminism/the birth of it's successor.

I say this as feminism was born in the late 18th century/early 19th century with the yearning to bring equality to the sexes. Initially this started with education and then evolved/progressed/branched off into separate strands to other areas such as; the right to vote, hold public office, equal pay, contraception, rights within marriage etc.

Throughout this evolution, their have always been feminists who have agreed/disagreed with each other and others' who supported one strand, then disavowed the other. However, what underpinned all of this was that there is no real reason for there to be differentiation between the sexes as a women could do what a man could do.

However, with the transgender strand, it, imho, brings into question the founding principle of feminism; that equality between the sexes can ever truly be achieved.

I say this, as if you play the founding notion of feminism (true equality between the sexes) to it's end point/it's last strand, it is always bound to end with whether their is any need for for categorisation/differentiation to those born with different genitalia/hormonal differences.

Therefore, I am of the belief that this current debate needs to be looked at as a whole when people debate it. By that, I mean, do you believe that true equality between the sexes can/should exist? If so, then I do not see how one can argue, imho, that transgender people cannot compete in biological female sports or that there is a need for categorisation in sport/pretty much anything. However, if you do support this, then is there a need for a new socio-categorisation/movement?

Equally, if you do believe there is a difference/there is a need for categorisation, then where do you stop? (remember that throughout the history of feminism, there have always been people who agree with one strand and disavow the other.) In addition, is there a need to re-evaluate the founding principal of feminism and acknowledge that true equality cannot ever be achieved due to biological differences or if you disagree with this, then where will feminism go from here with it's founding principal being undermined?

I recognise this is a highly philosophical interpretation of this debate, however I really think it needs to be considered when debating this issue at hand as for me it is interconnected and whatever way it goes, it will ultimately see if true equality between the sexes can be achieved or whether will be concluded it cannot.

 

[Zarlak]

It's not about the hormones you have, it's about the hormones you had and what they did for you.

To an extent, but what those hormones did for you is enhance your bone density and strength, things which go backwards with transition.

A transwoman athlete is likely starting from a much higher level relative to even cis-women athletes and retaining some of that advantage, at least in events where size and power are major factors.

I think this is where the discussion needs to be had by experts and not by lay people. The word 'that advantage' is so loose, that it sounds unfair when you say it but advantages occur all the time in competitive sports and nobody cares. There are a million advantages in the average game of football alone, or the average boxing match and nobody cares about them. We do not really strive that hard for equality in competition, and in some sports we celebrate discovering advantages that set you apart from your competition.

So we have a precedent of advantages not being a bad thing in sport, but yet the moment the trans argument comes up 'advantage' is banded about really loosely as if it's forbidden from sports which absolutely isn't the case.

The only way the conversation can be had in a meaningful way is to quantify exactly what that advantage is from a medical science point of view and then have the discussion of how those advantages might compare to other advantages that we may happily overlook in every day sport. Lay people aren't interested in that conversation though, or finding the evidence. All they can see in their head is 'man vs woman is unfair' which isn't the case to begin with. They'll mention differences in strength and ignore that they overlook this in all non trans sports where it occurs naturally. They'll mention bone density without knowing that transitioning weakens bone density, and they don't have the data available to see comparatively how much it is and whether it's to an equitable state but they'll remain entrenched in their view nonetheless because all they can think is 'man vs woman wrong'. If people really had a problem with higher testosterone levels creating stronger bones and muscles, they'd cry out for CIS men with 5x the testosterone levels of their competitor to be banned on unfairness grounds - but the reality is they don't actually care about the thing they then pretend to care deeply about when the trans argument comes up.

You note that no one cares about the natural large differences in hormones in men. That's true, people only start having a problem with these things when they are seen as unnatural, like with Ben Johnson's 100m world record in 1988. It is detrimental to the idea of sport as meaningful competition. The question is where does a late transition athlete fall here? For some it seems like an unfair advantage because of the obvious physical disparity between the genders at the onset of adulthood, despite the diminished physical condition brought on by transitioning.

This is again where the conversation can only really be had with medical science as the basis and foundation of knowledge, not lay peoples personal opinions. We also need to stop brushing it off as an 'advantage' as if that's bad, because advantages occur in all sports and are largely celebrated. If a CIS male boxer had a 1 foot reach advantage along with 5x the testosterone levels of another CIS male boxer, nobody would give a shit if they fought and there you're stacking advantages. So for that reason the fact that there is an 'advantage' is not grounds to base an argument on banning someone, you have to actually quantify exactly what it is and make it relative, comparing it also to non trans sports to assess the fairness otherwise we're being hypocrites choosing to die on a hill that on any other given day we demonstrably don't care about.

 

[Acheron]

Surely the only rights that exist are the ones we as society say exist. So if we decide transgender women are women like all the others, then surely they have the same rights.

Yeah, that's the issue they're giving a sort of legal status as a woman but biologically they're still a male and the dividing sports by sex it was something done taking into account the athletic differences between men and women.

I mean they still have the right to compete in their respective biological sex, like Iszac Henig does. He's a transgender man but was also competing some days ago and making into the finals but nobody has a problem with him, unlike with Lia, competing against girls because biologically he's still a female that is not taking any hormone treatment and thus all his times and records are seen as fair.

Ultimately having transgender women competing at that level is something that compromises the integrity of the competition and it goes against the spirit of fairness.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

To an extent, but what those hormones did for you is enhance your bone density and strength, things which go backwards with transition.

The impact of backwards could be dependant on your baseline. If you are likely to have started off much taller and with more, larger and stronger muscle than your cis-gender counterparts that you now compete against, then losing 14% of your grip strength might be a meaningless statistic relative to your competition.

Other potentially important physical metrics don't change significantly like height or foot size, which in the swimming example can be important to performance.

Muscle memory is another consideration that may not be negatively impacted by transitioning.

Some of the studies also measured a wide range of trans people including non-athletic individuals making the results less applicable to athletics.

So it's maybe not quite as cut and dried when it comes to top performing athletes.

I think this is where the discussion needs to be had by experts and not by lay people. The word 'that advantage' is so loose, that it sounds unfair when you say it but advantages occur all the time in competitive sports and nobody cares. There are a million advantages in the average game of football alone, or the average boxing match and nobody cares about them. We do not really strive that hard for equality in competition, and in some sports we celebrate discovering advantages that set you apart from your competition.

So we have a precedent of advantages not being a bad thing in sport, but yet the moment the trans argument comes up 'advantage' is banded about really loosely as if it's forbidden from sports which absolutely isn't the case.

The only way the conversation can be had in a meaningful way is to quantify exactly what that advantage is from a medical science point of view and then have the discussion of how those advantages might compare to other advantages that we may happily overlook in every day sport. Lay people aren't interested in that conversation though, or finding the evidence. All they can see in their head is 'man vs woman is unfair' which isn't the case to begin with. They'll mention differences in strength and ignore that they overlook this in all non trans sports where it occurs naturally. They'll mention bone density without knowing that transitioning weakens bone density, and they don't have the data available to see comparatively how much it is and whether it's to an equitable state but they'll remain entrenched in their view nonetheless because all they can think is 'man vs woman wrong'. If people really had a problem with higher testosterone levels creating stronger bones and muscles, they'd cry out for CIS men with 5x the testosterone levels of their competitor to be banned on unfairness grounds - but the reality is they don't actually care about the thing they then pretend to care deeply about when the trans argument comes up.

This is again where the conversation can only really be had with medical science as the basis and foundation of knowledge, not lay peoples personal opinions. We also need to stop brushing it off as an 'advantage' as if that's bad, because advantages occur in all sports and are largely celebrated. If a CIS male boxer had a 1 foot reach advantage along with 5x the testosterone levels of another CIS male boxer, nobody would give a shit if they fought and there you're stacking advantages. So for that reason the fact that there is an 'advantage' is not grounds to base an argument on banning someone, you have to actually quantify exactly what it is and make it relative, comparing it also to non trans sports to assess the fairness otherwise we're being hypocrites choosing to die on a hill that on any other given day we demonstrably don't care about.

Boxing is a bad example to use because it's a sport where your weight, something that can influence or be related to your other physical characteristics and abilities, results in you being segregated into different competitive classes.

Some advantages are not celebrated in sport, this is why I pointed to the Ben Johnson example. People raise similar concerns here. Men and women develop differently to adulthood and it's reasonable to question if it is fair to develop as a man and then compete against people who developed as women as there is an substantial inherent physical disadvantage for those who developed as women, one that is different from the advantages and disadvantages within a gender.

Because of this, determining the impact of transitioning is paramount but the subject lacks data and research that is focused on athletic individuals, unique events, and could have better performance metrics pre and post transition to help answer the questions people have. Until that time the debate is fair. Yes it's going to attract people who are simply transphobic but that label does not apply to everyone who is discussing this issue.

 

[Acheron]

I recognise this is a highly philosophical interpretation of this debate, however I really think it needs to be considered when debating this issue at hand as for me it is interconnected and whatever way it goes, it will ultimately see if true equality between the sexes can be achieved or whether will be concluded it cannot.

It's a good way to frame it and fundamentally I also think it boils down to whether people consider men and women as equal.

What I believe is that men and women are not equal, not in the sense of one being better but just in the sense of recognizing our biological differences and different mechanics.

The most glaring and obvious difference should be the primary and secondary sexual characteristics along with the differences in athletic performance. Either as a man or a woman is something very tangible to everyone of us. Then stating that we're different shouldn't mean we can't achieve equity or that we can't have the same human rights.

Like if there wasn't any division in categories by sex, then the female competitive scene would disappear.

 

[Wibble]

Because trans women are women.

Trans women suffer mass discrimination and prejudice on a daily basis. They get misgendered. They get targeted for abuse. They are labelled by terfs and others as predators for wanting to use bathrooms that align with their gender. They frequently suffer from gender dysphoria, leading to depression and anxiety.

Telling trans women to compete with men is telling them: you’re a man. It undoes all the progress made in trans rights in recent years. It doesn’t just affect trans sports persons but the entire trans community. It gives terfs the justification to continue their ongoing hate speech.

I’m not sure why people are failing to see why this is problematic in so many ways.

I see all those issues, which is why I worry about "common sense" exclusion as a solution.

On top of all that, as I’ve said multiple times, trans women do not dominate women’s sport, as much as some people here would like you to think they do.

But as just happened in NCAA swimming, we will increasingly see trans women winning. Sooner or later it will occur at the Olympics or other top level competition. If I were a CIS woman who lost out on a medal after a lifetime of dedication and training I would feel very hard done by as in many sports the advantage of being male when your body develops will never totally go away.

 

[frostbite]

"Motorcyclist, Who Identifies As Bicyclist Sets Cycling World Record!"


Okay, bad joke but yeah, I think there should be a limit on this kind of stuff... By the way, people go through unbelievable training and incredible pain just to have a shot at getting a gold medal at the Olympics. I can imagine someone will change gender with just this goal in mind... But anyway, this situation is really unfair to women. As an extreme example, can you imagine what will happen in women's boxing?

I can understand that there are real transgender athletes who want to compete, but I don't think that anyone would have a problem if they did compete with men only. I know it is not perfect, but it is more fair in my opinion.

 

[Moby]

Having a separate division for trans athletes is the closest to a fair solution but that doesn't have the numbers as of now. Until that time trans women shouldn't be allowed in women sports, although it seems there is no other option as of now.

 

[stepic]

Having a separate division for trans athletes is the closest to a fair solution but that doesn't have the numbers as of now. Until that time trans women shouldn't be allowed in women sports, although it seems there is no other option as of now.

it will never have the numbers. trans women won't suffer the further ignominy of competing with men, on top of all the other abuse they already face. i don't know why everyone keeps proposing this as a solution: it's not a solution. to propose it shows a lack of understanding about trans rights.

 

[stepic]

But as just happened in NCAA swimming, we will increasingly see trans women winning. Sooner or later it will occur at the Olympics or other top level competition. If I were a CIS woman who lost out on a medal after a lifetime of dedication and training I would feel very hard done by as in many sports the advantage of being male when your body develops will never totally go away.

conjecture at this point. trans women are not dominating competitions and we shouldn't be banning them just because maybe, possibly, one day they will.

and as seen from other comments on here, it's not about them winning or dominating women's sports anyway, it's about them competing at all.

 

[Moby]

it will never have the numbers. trans women won't suffer the further ignominy of competing with men, on top of all the other abuse they already face. i don't know why everyone keeps proposing this as a solution: it's not a solution. to propose it shows a lack of understanding about trans rights.

I'm not gonna pretend that what I posted is an ideal solution. There are definitely issues with it but allowing trans women in women sports is far more problematic.

 

[stepic]

I mean they still have the right to compete in their respective biological sex, like Iszac Henig does. He's a transgender man but was also competing some days ago and making into the finals but nobody has a problem with him, unlike with Lia, competing against girls because biologically he's still a female that is not taking any hormone treatment and thus all his times and records are seen as fair.

yes, the same Iszac Henig that beat Lia.

 

[JohnZSmith27]

conjecture at this point. trans women are not dominating competitions and we shouldn't be banning them just because maybe, possibly, one day they will.

and as seen from other comments on here, it's not about them winning or dominating women's sports anyway, it's about them competing at all.

Nobody is saying that they should not be able to compete at all. We're saying that should not be able to compete against females where, on average, males will have an unfair advantage. It doesnt matter if said trans woman doesn't dominate the sport. If they take the spot of a female due to the benefits of having a male physiology, that is unfair.

Competing with males may or may not affect a trans womans dysphoria. Not all trans people are dysphoric. But it is the fairest way for them to compete. The integrity of the sport should not be compromised to accommodate what was ultimately a choice made by that individual to transition.

More power to them for making that choice if it makes them more comfortable in themselves but we cannot and should not expect them to be given an unfair advantage due to how they choose to identify.

 

[UpWithRivers]

I do not really want to get into this debate in isolation as it is something that I feel is very difficult to navigate.

What I will say, however is that the current Transgender debate has brought us, imho, to the edges of an sociological epoch.

I have been reading up on this debate quite a bit as I am someone who is interested in sociology, history and politics. As a result, what I see with this debate is not as simplistic as to whether a transgender women should compete with biological females (sorry, if that is wrong, I do not intend to offend anyone) but rather the conclusion of feminism/the birth of it's successor.

I say this as feminism was born in the late 18th century/early 19th century with the yearning to bring equality to the sexes. Initially this started with education and then evolved/progressed/branched off into separate strands to other areas such as; the right to vote, hold public office, equal pay, contraception, rights within marriage etc.

Throughout this evolution, their have always been feminists who have agreed/disagreed with each other and others' who supported one strand, then disavowed the other. However, what underpinned all of this was that there is no real reason for there to be differentiation between the sexes as a women could do what a man could do.

However, with the transgender strand, it, imho, brings into question the founding principle of feminism; that equality between the sexes can ever truly be achieved.

I say this, as if you play the founding notion of feminism (true equality between the sexes) to it's end point/it's last strand, it is always bound to end with whether their is any need for for categorisation/differentiation to those born with different genitalia/hormonal differences.

Therefore, I am of the belief that this current debate needs to be looked at as a whole when people debate it. By that, I mean, do you believe that true equality between the sexes can/should exist? If so, then I do not see how one can argue, imho, that transgender people cannot compete in biological female sports or that there is a need for categorisation in sport/pretty much anything. However, if you do support this, then is there a need for a new socio-categorisation/movement?

Equally, if you do believe there is a difference/there is a need for categorisation, then where do you stop? (remember that throughout the history of feminism, there have always been people who agree with one strand and disavow the other.) In addition, is there a need to re-evaluate the founding principal of feminism and acknowledge that true equality cannot ever be achieved due to biological differences or if you disagree with this, then where will feminism go from here with it's founding principal being undermined?

I recognise this is a highly philosophical interpretation of this debate, however I really think it needs to be considered when debating this issue at hand as for me it is interconnected and whatever way it goes, it will ultimately see if true equality between the sexes can be achieved or whether will be concluded it cannot.

I was reading an article in The Guardian yesterday about trans women being refused to leave Ukraine because all the males aren't allowed to leave so the border guards are turning them away. The Trans society obviously think this is a disgrace. So to your point - are men and women equal? If so then why arnt women fighting (i know some women are but they are volunteers not conscripted like the men)? If there are kids then obviously the woman should be able to leave and take care of the kids. But if they are single and in fighting age then isnt it sexist to let them leave and the men not? In the case of transgender women - I presume most are single. Most have a male physique. Why do they get to leave and the men have to stay and get bombed to sht? I've been wrestling with this over the past day. Am I being transphobic? Maybe but I dont see why.
In the case of sports it just seems so obvious that you are choosing discrimination towards trans women to not let them compete with the women or you discriminate against women athletes to have trans women compete against them with an unfair advantage.

 

[frostbite]

it will never have the numbers. trans women won't suffer the further ignominy of competing with men, on top of all the other abuse they already face. i don't know why everyone keeps proposing this as a solution: it's not a solution. to propose it shows a lack of understanding about trans rights.

Look at it this way.

1. If trans athletes compete with men, then trans athletes will feel bad.
2. If trans athletes compete with women, then women athletes will feel bad.

These are the two possible solutions, there's no other possibility. None of those solutions is perfect. Which of the two solutions have the smallest number of human beings feeling bad?

 

[stepic]

Nobody is saying that they should not be able to compete at all. We're saying that should not be able to compete against females where

same thing

More power to them for making that choice if it makes them more comfortable in themselves but we cannot and should not expect them to be given an unfair advantage due to how they choose to identify.

it's not a 'choice', much like being born gay isn't a choice.

 

[JohnZSmith27]

same thing



it's not a 'choice', much like being born gay isn't a choice.

It's very obviously not the same thing.

In what way is transitioning not a choice? Keep in mind theres dysphoric people who don't transition. And there's people who transition that are not dysphoric. Conflating that decision with sexual orientation is dishonest.

 

[jojojo]

Just to put a bit of historical context into the current story, effectively the IOC used to set the sporting rulebook and other sports followed. Prior to 2014, the rules insisted on surgical transformation, multiple years living as a woman, legal recognition as a woman, and some rules around testosterone levels. The net effect was that it was unlikely that any athlete could complete all the steps during their most competitive sporting years. They dropped the surgical requirements in 2014, though the rule changes came too late to impact the 2016 games as qualifying was already underway.

What they did mean was that sports started using testosterone rules across all women's competitions, which moved a lot of DSD/intersex athletes competing in women's athletics into the banned category - unless they took testosterone suppressants. Not a great outcome on the inclusion front.

Further challenges to the rules led the IOC to give up trying to make rules and to ask individual sports to write their own.

That's where we are now - but we more or less literally only just got here. Sports are currently deleting and rewriting their rules. Some of them have been rewritten multiple times and some have changed with qualification already underway.

A couple of transwomen competed at the Tokyo Olympics in 2021. Laurel Hubbard made her weightlifting debut at 43. Chelsea Wolfe was an alternate in the US BMX team but didn't get the chance to compete.

That's why the debate is happening now, because the rules are changing now and some sports currently have no rules at all. Every test case is going to be ripped apart beyond what's reasonable for an individual athlete. Because that's what they are - the test cases.

 

[Drifter]

Just plain wrong and diminishes everything women have worked for to promote women's sport.

 

[Ajr]

People are never going to change their opinion on this so why debate it

 

[RedC]

same thing



it's not a 'choice', much like being born gay isn't a choice.

They are making a choice to transition physically, you can't just ignore their starting point in this discussion.

 

[adexkola]

 

[Schmiznurf]

It's very obviously not the same thing.

In what way is transitioning not a choice? Keep in mind theres dysphoric people who don't transition. And there's people who transition that are not dysphoric. Conflating that decision with sexual orientation is dishonest.

So what, they're supposed to be born in the wrong body and not transition, thus being stuck in the wrong body their whole lives, because of bigots? It's hardly a choice, transitioning is a necessity when faced with going your whole life not able to be who you really are.

 

[Roane]

The process of transitioning reduces bone density and strength levels substantially. Plus nobody cares about the natural large differences in hormonal levels between men. Nobody is testing male athletes with 1000 ng/dl testosterone levels and banning them from competing with men sitting at 200 ng/dl despite the decades of physical development advantages that that afforded them. The only time this is on anybody's radar is if it's a trans person involved, outside of that they don't care about differences in hormone levels.

Have to say I'm not clued up on this topic and look to guidance from those who know more.

I was listening to a discussion on this in LBC the other night, admittedly it was whilst working so I wasn't able to give it 100% attention. So maybe I'm wrong.

However one person was saying it's more complicated than some would suggest. In the case of the swimmer, which was the main focus, it's also about lung development etc.

Personally I don't know how much of this would be an advantage/disadvantage in terms of swimming. Just putting it out there for those more knowledgeable to understand if it would make a difference

 

[JohnZSmith27]

So what, they're supposed to be born in the wrong body and not transition, thus being stuck in the wrong body their whole lives, because of bigots? It's hardly a choice, transitioning is a necessity when faced with going your whole life not able to be who you really are.

Why assume bigotry is the only reason a person would choose not to transition? I've met people who treat their dysphoria in ways other than transition who might be very offended by the suggestion they are not being who they really are if they don't transition.

And what about people who are not dysphoric but still transition? They don't feel they were "born in the wrong body" as you put it. What about those who transition and transition and then transition back? They're all making a decision to do so. I have no doubt it's an extremely difficult path to take and anyone who gets relief from their dysphoria by transitioning has my utmost admiration. They should be free from any abuse for trying to live a life on the outside that best reflects how they feel on the inside. But it is very clearly a choice. Nobody makes a choice to be straight/gay/bi so equating being trans as the same as sexual orientation is incorrect.

 

[Ajr]

Nobody makes a choice to be straight/gay/bi so equating being trans as the same as sexual orientation is incorrect.

A progressive argument is that non transitioning people who suffer from gender dysphoria and are unable to actually transition due to personal circumstances (safety or living circumstances mainly) still come under the umbrella of being trans hence the act of socially transitioning ( I hate that terminology actually) is a choice but being trans isn't.

 

[NotThatSoph]

"Motorcyclist, Who Identifies As Bicyclist Sets Cycling World Record!"


Okay, bad joke but yeah, I think there should be a limit on this kind of stuff... By the way, people go through unbelievable training and incredible pain just to have a shot at getting a gold medal at the Olympics. I can imagine someone will change gender with just this goal in mind... But anyway, this situation is really unfair to women. As an extreme example, can you imagine what will happen in women's boxing?

I can understand that there are real transgender athletes who want to compete, but I don't think that anyone would have a problem if they did compete with men only. I know it is not perfect, but it is more fair in my opinion.

What's the joke?

 

[JohnZSmith27]

A progressive argument is that non transitioning people who suffer from gender dysphoria and are unable to actually transition due to personal circumstances (safety or living circumstances mainly) still come under the umbrella of being trans hence the act of socially transitioning ( I hate that terminology actually) is a choice but being trans isn't.

But you're assuming that all people who are dysphoric who don't transition are only not doing so due to the external circumstances. Some view their dysphoria as a mental condition and treat it with behavioral therapy etc. Why would we put them under the umbrella of being trans if they don't want to transition? Why would we put them under that umbrella if they don't want to be?

 

[Dave Smith]

It's a good way to frame it and fundamentally I also think it boils down to whether people consider men and women as equal.

What I believe is that men and women are not equal, not in the sense of one being better but just in the sense of recognizing our biological differences and different mechanics.

The most glaring and obvious difference should be the primary and secondary sexual characteristics along with the differences in athletic performance. Either as a man or a woman is something very tangible to everyone of us. Then stating that we're different shouldn't mean we can't achieve equity or that we can't have the same human rights.

Like if there wasn't any division in categories by sex, then the female competitive scene would disappear.

But here is the rub, the feminist course has always been fundermentally underpinned by bringing equality to the sexes and that there isn't any real reason why there should be differentiation; obviously this was achieved in stages/took on different issues as it evolved, hence why there has always been an element of in-fighting within the movement.

However, if people say when it comes to this stage, 'no actually there is a difference', then it could open a pandora's box of consequences imo.

I say this as it will support the notion that feminism is hypocritical and doesn't actually want true equality but rather a 'mix and match' status where they only pick and choose which areas they wish to have equality but want protection/special status/continuation in other areas.

This for me is very dangerous as hypocrisy is the quickest way to lose an argument and even have things that you've already gained reversed.

The comment below, is somewhat of a good example. If feminism wants true equality then, why are women who do not have children (as obviously children need someone to look after them and typically this is still the mother) not forcibly conscripted like men? I say this as a lot of combat today isn't hand to hand, but rather long range with machinery. There isn't really a difference between weather a man pulls the trigger or a women.

This is why I am philosophically challenged in this debate, as I see repercussions for the feminist movement/a evolution into a new movement in which ever way it ultimately goes.

This consequently gets back to my initial point. If feminism's overarching aim since it's inception was equality between the sexes, something like this was always bound to happen and is unavoidable (allowing transgendered atheltes/the abolishment of differentiation between the sexes) if they are ultimately going to achieve this. However, if the movement rejects this, where does it go from there and will there then be a roll back of other liberties gained as it's founding principal will be undermined?

I say this, as the rolling back (abortion in particular) has already started in places such as The US and Poland (although I also recognise this is also a issue that touches on religion as well.)

I was reading an article in The Guardian yesterday about trans women being refused to leave Ukraine because all the males aren't allowed to leave so the border guards are turning them away. The Trans society obviously think this is a disgrace. So to your point - are men and women equal? If so then why arnt women fighting (i know some women are but they are volunteers not conscripted like the men)? If there are kids then obviously the woman should be able to leave and take care of the kids. But if they are single and in fighting age then isnt it sexist to let them leave and the men not? In the case of transgender women - I presume most are single. Most have a male physique. Why do they get to leave and the men have to stay and get bombed to sht? I've been wrestling with this over the past day. Am I being transphobic? Maybe but I dont see why.
In the case of sports it just seems so obvious that you are choosing discrimination towards trans women to not let them compete with the women or you discriminate against women athletes to have trans women compete against them with an unfair advantage.

 

[stepic]

But you're assuming that all people who are dysphoric who don't transition are only not doing so due to the external circumstances. Some view their dysphoria as a mental condition and treat it with behavioral therapy etc. Why would we put them under the umbrella of being trans if they don't want to transition? Why would we put them under that umbrella if they don't want to be?

there is a whole host of reasons why someone who is trans may choose not to transition. the abuse, discrimination, and prejudice they receive by doing so being a large part of it I imagine. it's very much the equivalent of being a closeted gay person from say 30 years ago, and even still today.

people are born trans. nobody chooses it.

 

[Ajr]

But you're assuming that all people who are dysphoric who don't transition are only not doing so due to the external circumstances. Some view their dysphoria as a mental condition and treat it with behavioral therapy etc. Why would we put them under the umbrella of being trans if they don't want to transition? Why would we put them under that umbrella if they don't want to be?

Because if someone wants to be under that umbrella they can be, and I'm not going to tell them otherwise. If someone doesn't want to then they dont have to be.

 

[JohnZSmith27]

Because if someone wants to be under that umbrella they can be, and I'm not going to tell them otherwise. If someone doesn't want to then they dont have to be.

Precisely. It's a choice as I said.

 

[Zlatattack]

I saw that man sized trans athlete stood next to those female swimmers and thought, surely they must think whats the point? Trans athletes need their own category. it's not fair on women.