I guess the solution is to place people into catagories other than gender? Weight, testosterone levels, height, strength index or whatever. Im sure someone much smarter than me can think of some way that men and women, both trans or not, can compete in a fair way together. But it sure as shit aint gender. Most of the time it looks down right comical when a trans woman competes with women. While its important to treat trans people right, we cant mistreat others to do it.
Transgender Athletes
- Thread starter Stack
- Start date
It's not a straw man at all. The argument is that a trans person has more testosterone than the person they're competing against. That's the same as normal sport with people of the same gender. We're also not talking about 'Olympic level athletes' we're talking about sport in general, including football from grass roots level at high school, to division one players, all the way up to the Champions league. The ruling would be for all sport. If anything, your point about Olympic weightlifters is the straw man because they're all juiced up to their eyeballs anyway even the Olympic feather weights. That's a completely separate but valid argument. Baseball players are able to roid up to feck but trans people can't compete in their actual gender? But anyway, that conversation aside, it's completely normal for levels to be 3-4x higher between CIS men who compete along side each other. But nobody ever had a problem with that. It has never been an issue that competitors could have an unfair advantage due to hormone levels, and it was never even thought of as an advantage until trans people were introduced to the conversation, and it became this gigantic chasm of difference that's always existed as long as sport has but noone ever had a problem with until now.
You're completely ignoring that this isn't about a natural difference between testosterone produced by men, but instead, about levels unnatural for a woman, precisely because one of the competitors, in this instance, had the fortune of being born male.
A line had to be drawn somewhere, and a very easy to make and largely fair distinction was by the sex-categories of men and women.
Nobody had a problem with a man beating a man in a sport because of the natural advantages one had over the other, because they were both men. People do care about one woman beating another because of natural advantages when those natural advantages are entirely due to one of them being biologically male.
I don't know how many trans-women are trying to compete in the women's categories at the Olympics and Paralympics, but I've read two articles, one about a weightlifter aged 43, and one about a sprinter aged 47. Both had careers as men, and it turned out they weren't good enough, even at peak fitness, to compete at elite level. Now, in their mid 40s, they are good enough, because they're competing as women. It just doesn't sit right.
Hang on, you've quoted me, when I have consistently been talking about Olympic weightlifting, so you can't tell me what I'm talking about. All your points have nothing to do with what I'm talking about, I haven't said anything about amateur sport, Sunday league football or the likes, I haven't even said anything about team sports in general. Why are you talking about PEDs, they aren't legal, people taking them illegally in sport has nothing to do with this conversation. Natural development and genetic advantage is clearly the main thing that defines hierarchy in sport, nobody talks about it because it's literally nature. Going through the M2F process is an unnatural thing, they have their x4 levels of testosterone from a situation that would render them unable to compete previously(a man cannot compete in women's competition).
Women(and men) in sports like Olympic lifting have accepted the variation in individuals that you talk about(testosterone levels, size, whatever) because that is how the human biology works. Now you have a situation where people can transition from one gender to the other, but one of the genders naturally produces much bigger and stronger individuals than the other. How can you expect women to just accept a M2F competitor, as they do the outlier cis woman genetic freak, when there is a completely obvious and unnatural process that has lead to that individual having this advantage over them? You keep saying it's completely normal for there to be a x3-4 gap in testosterone levels for male athletes, can you provide some evidence of this in a professional, individual sport setting, where strength is paramount? I severely doubt that is true, because I'm sure any professional athlete(probably in any physical sport) would be taking testosterone if they were at 1/4 of the expected levels.
not sure if you were meaning to equate trans women to drug cheats but if so, that's highly problematic.
there is an issue if the only time this is 'worth talking about' is when trans women beat cis women, but as long as they lose there isn't a problem. that's just punishing success of an already discriminated against group of people. and it just feels like a bit of a dog whistle for transphobia.
it's far too simplistic to just say: high testostorone leads to better athletic performance. and there is very little evidence that would support that conclusively. sometimes in fact higher testostorone can have a negative impact on women's athletic perforamance.
Regardless of what you identify as, gender doesn't care about your feelings, it's a fact, it's biology dictated by your genes, I know it's unpopular but I have no issue with women who identify as men or vice versa. Identifying as something and physically, biologically being something is different, they shouldn't be able to switch gender categories, it's not fair, specifically the weightlifting incident, women have worked hard their whole career and now someone who naturally has had a lot more testosterone to build muscle just walks in? It's ridiculous. I can't stop anyone doing anything but that's my opinion and I'm free to give it
So does this suggest that men who transition to female are likely to immediately be at the top of the range for female athletes or better?
Also, it's interesting to see how closely grouped the female athletes tend to be, whereas the males range widely.
No, you've just decided to throw that suggestion in. One side of every discussion involving trans people doesn't have to be labelled 'transphobia', and I am sure there are some trans people out there that would agree with what I'm saying. While I have been specifically talking about testosterone because of the actual number available(see Pogue's post), there is a lot more to it than that. Muscle mass, skeletal structure etc.
You seem to be mixing up sex and gender.
Thanks, I assume this study was the basis of the things I've read on the topic, which are the bases of my posts.
And they're such neat little patterns, reminiscent of characters from Space Invaders or something. Being women, I'll bet they did that on purpose.
Sorry, you are correct.
You're in a thread titled 'transgender athletes' not 'transgender olympians'. The narrative you're using, is the same one being used to rule out trans people competing in all sports and so it's important to realise that any ruling would apply to all sports and so therefore requires consideration at all levels.
I would expect a woman to accept a M2F competitor with 4x the testosterone levels just the same as I would expect them to handle a female vs female competition where one of them has the same advantage with their own due to natural fluctuations. I.e, it wouldn't be a problem to them at all. We should be asking ourselves why in one instance the same advantage is completely irrelevant, a non issue to us, but as soon as it's a trans person it's suddenly a massive, massive issue.
I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying the distinction is irrelevant because it boils down to the same end result of the same advantage being present.
Sorry but this is just moronic. What is the actual issue at hand here? Because if the issue is simply that a 4x testosterone advantage is unfair as has been stated previously in the thread, then ok it has to apply to cis men vs cis men too. Because the issue is that the advantage is unfair, so it must be unfair wherever it is present. It is literally the same thing, how one came by this unfair advantage is completely irrelevant the fact would be that the advantage existed and is deemed to be unacceptable. You can't say 'ok it's ok to have a 4x advantage if X, but it's not ok to have a 4x advantage if Y' that's just dumb as feck.
The real issue is not that it's unfair however, because in reality nobody cares about it being unfair when it's between men. The issue is simply that people hate the idea of women MMA fighters getting beaten up by someone they wrongly consider to be a man. It doesn't sit right with them, and so it causes them to argue from a point of view about issues that they don't actually give a shit about when trans people are taken out of the equation.
Hypothetically speaking, if suddenly there's an influx of transgender athletes, would you still expect female athletes to "accept" it?
Yes, just as I would expect an influx of F2M transgender athletes wanting to compete in male sports to also have to accept that they may have a disadvantage (ignoring the fact that the actual transition period of M2F results in a significant loss of testosterone and bone density) if they compete at an elite level. I highly doubt in a hypothetical situation you'd advocate for a CIS male to be disqualified from competing vs a F2M athlete because of the same gap between them hormone wise - and if you wouldn't then your issue is not the presence of an advantage it's something else masquerading as that. But at the end of the day, you are either for equality, or you are not. There is no weird in between area. It might be uncomfortable to adjust to, but all big societal changes are, all that needs to be done is for the finer details to be analyzed and solutions implemented, but the starting question should not be a question.
that's a very wide variation in men, where, ofcourse, testosterone is produced in a regulated way. i wonder if time of day/year for the measurement makes a difference.
1998: Karsten Braasch vs. the Williams sisters
Another event dubbed a "Battle of the Sexes" took place during the 1998 Australian Open[56] between Karsten Braasch and the Williams sisters. Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple of bottles of ice cold lager".[57][56] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[58] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[56] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun"[59] and that the big difference was that men can chase down shots much easier and put spin on the ball that female players could not handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.[56]
This is how far ahead being a male in terms of performances.
Another event dubbed a "Battle of the Sexes" took place during the 1998 Australian Open[56] between Karsten Braasch and the Williams sisters. Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple of bottles of ice cold lager".[57][56] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[58] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[56] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun"[59] and that the big difference was that men can chase down shots much easier and put spin on the ball that female players could not handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.[56]
This is how far ahead being a male in terms of performances.
I think it does. If you start digging in the literature there’s all sorts of studies looking at levels before/after competing etc. I also remember reading a study about effects of sexual intercourse before competing. For men it’s a no no, as it can cause a reduction in levels. For women it has the opposite effect.
About this fact, so M2F transgenders have no biological advantage on females anymore? Is that what this fact implies?
I don't quite care what others argue about testerone differences between men. At the end of the day it's men competing against men. I want to know if M2F transgenders have a biological advantage on females.
The results are quite clear. People just hiding behind the technicalities. M2F trans has immense advantages, a good absolute majority of M2F athletes dominates their class to the point is not even a competition anymore.
You cant erase years of bone density and god given bigger lung capacity.
It pretty much mirrors the ranges expected:
I don't think you understand, or care to understand, where other people are coming from in this debate, or how and why they've formed their own opinions on the matter.
I'm not going to attempt to re-explain why I think it's fair for biological males with a natural advantage over other biological males to beat them in competitive sports, but unfair for biological males to compete as women and beat biological females because of that same advantage, because you don't care.
Won’t make much of a difference for the elite athletes being studied, who will represent a fairly narrow range of ages.
Speaking of age, that article doesn’t mention that the Williams sisters were 16 and 17 years old at the time.
That’s what I mean. Almost all of them will be in a youngish age range, with similar average levels. So whatever difference we see will be mainly down to other factors.
I think that is the issue with some, men and women are not equal and that's the whole idea of separating sports competitions based on sex, among other criteria. So if we overlook the physical and biological differences between men and women then that would compromise the sports for women and eventually is both categories are going to be dominated by men (or males that transitioned to female).
How is this even constantly up for discussion 
So what does the actual science so far say about MTF transgenders? Can we get some science here? Are they fitter/stronger than females?
Not really a question that needs to be asked.
Once we accept that men are typically stronger than women (not up for debate, just compare world records in, for example, power-lifting) then the only question is if it’s possible to artificially reverse that inherent advantage if someone transitions as an adult.
The tricky bit being to nail the reversal of that advantage so precisely that not one competitor is either advantaged or disadvantaged by the process (which has to be almost impossible)
He doesn't want to acknowledge any sort of rational, fact based discussion on the topic, he just wants to essentially shout 'I AM MORE PROGRESSIVE THAN YOU' at all of us.It pretty much mirrors the ranges expected:
I don't think you understand, or care to understand, where other people are coming from in this debate, or how and why they've formed their own opinions on the matter.
I'm not going to attempt to re-explain why I think it's fair for biological males with a natural advantage over other biological males to beat them in competitive sports, but unfair for biological males to compete as women and beat biological females because of that same advantage, because you don't care.
To show how much difference there is between men and women:
2016 Olympic 100m heats - where would the world record woman finish in each heat?
Heat 1 - 8th out of 10
Heat 2 - 8th out of 10
Heat 3 - 9th out of 9
Heat 4 - 8th out of 10
Heat 5 - 9th out 9 (10th runner was disqualified in the olympics)
Heat 6 - 9th out 9
Heat 7 - 8th out of 10
Heat 8 - 8th out of 10
The fastest woman in recorded history wouldn't even get out of the heats. And you also have to take into account the fastest runners actually take it easy in the heats; the gap gets bigger in the semi finals.
I think it would be punishing those born as women by allowing transgender to compete as it will lead to women becoming a non-entity in their own gender sport.
2016 Olympic 100m heats - where would the world record woman finish in each heat?
Heat 1 - 8th out of 10
Heat 2 - 8th out of 10
Heat 3 - 9th out of 9
Heat 4 - 8th out of 10
Heat 5 - 9th out 9 (10th runner was disqualified in the olympics)
Heat 6 - 9th out 9
Heat 7 - 8th out of 10
Heat 8 - 8th out of 10
The fastest woman in recorded history wouldn't even get out of the heats. And you also have to take into account the fastest runners actually take it easy in the heats; the gap gets bigger in the semi finals.
I think it would be punishing those born as women by allowing transgender to compete as it will lead to women becoming a non-entity in their own gender sport.
Realistically, there’s no chance of that ever happening. The number of trans women (now or in the future) who also happen to be world class athletes will always remain fairly insignificant compared to the number of cis women they’re competing against.
The only issue is whether you think any trans woman winning a medal/trophy at the expense of someone who was born female is sufficiently unfair that steps need to be taken to prevent this ever happening. You could certainly argue that it’s a small price to pay if that’s what it takes to make trans women in general (who don’t happen to be elite athletes) feel more accepted.
Transgender women should not compete in women's sports. Why is this even allowed. Why is it even a debate? It's ridiculous. The physical advantages they have gotten from growing up a biological male are just unfair to all the biological women. Might as well stop with male and female categories altogether if these physical differences don't matter. They could set records that maybe women could never break because they just don't have the physical characteristics to do so. It's a label that is self selected and not physically determined. A run of the mill cis male athlete can decide one day he transgender and overnight becomes a highly competitive female one. Ridiculous.
The only one I understand is transexual. Here I can only trust that the scientists can figure out where to draw the line as being too far along the male continuum irrespective of which gender you have chosen.
The only one I understand is transexual. Here I can only trust that the scientists can figure out where to draw the line as being too far along the male continuum irrespective of which gender you have chosen.
Are there any instances of female-to-male transitioned athletes competing at the highest levels of their respective sports?
For non contact sports being 18 is imo an advantage. My 18 yo is younger stronger fitter.
Plus the guy just finished golfing and 2 shandies and a constant smoker, against the williams sister. And the gap isnt even close. If they go on for a few more sets it could have been 18-2 each.
You cant deny that man has unsurmountable advantages over woman in most sports.
The issue it's not only at olympic events, or in professional competitions, it's still a pretty big issue though but it also affects girls trying to get a scholarship. It compromises the whole idea of separating athletes by sex. Also it doesn't have to be a world class athlete, at least not a world class male athlete. In most sports it only takes a trained teen to stomp a world class female athlete. I mean I get your point that they won't represent a majority but it would take only one athlete to disrupt the whole thing and compromise the integrity of a given sport.
First couple of sentences are nonsense. Because non-contact sports aren’t dominated by 18 year olds.
I don’t disagree with the last sentence. Just think this particular example is flawed because it was an adult against teenagers. Jimmy Conors and Martina Navratilova was a better one. He destroyed her despite only being allowed a single serve and she was allowed use the doubles sidelines!
That’s a fair point. Didn’t an U16s boys team recently beat the USWNT something like 10 nil?
EDIT: It was an U15s club team and they beat them 5-2. Link.
Last edited:
in 2003, the B-Jugend team (meaning 15-17 year old players) of VfB Stuttgart beat the german national team of women 3:0. This team won the world championship in 2003. Obviously in 2003 the state of women's football is not comparable to today, but results like these keep popping up. In 2016, the women's national team of Australia lost 0:7 to the U15 team of the Newcastle Jets. In 2017, USA's national team lost 5:2 against the youth academy team of the FC Dallas.
The physical difference between men in women in sports - generally speaking - is gigantic and leads to gigantic advantages. It's a worlds difference, not only in professional sports and the best 1%, but even more so when it comes to lower skill levels and not highly trained and educated individuals.
If a male athlete suddenly identifies as non binary can they then enter either male or female competitions? Wouldn’t it be discriminatory to refuse them?