i wonder what trans swimmers think of this.
Transgender Athletes
- Thread starter Stack
- Start date
i wonder what trans swimmers think of this.
It feels like alot of posters are just trying to do a bit of point scoring in this thread.
It's a really difficult situation that we're right at the beginning of and as different associations and sporting bodies feel their way through it, it is inevitable that people are going to be treated unfairly.
But it can be split into different age categories, as children there is no issue in my mind of trans kids (and yes there are trans kids and they often know it from a very early age) competing alongside the sex they identify with.
Outside of the States I don't see a huge problem with this carrying on into teenage years, I can't speak for other countries but in the few countries I have lived in sports scholarships are not a big thing.
The difficulty is the paradox of those people who say that post male puberty trans women shouldn't be regarded as women when it comes to sports are also the ones who say that kids who realise they are a different gender to the one they've been assigned at birth are too young and shouldn't be allowed to do anything about it. (To be clear, I'm not referring to posters here, but to society in general.)
Within the States this is clearly an issue and I understand @Carolina Red's arguments in this aspect as his lived experience is working with these teens in wrestling I think, which I can understand is a sport with a real problem with this. I don't know the answer, but it is very harsh to say you are a women in some aspects but not others, but it's also harsh to watch cis women possibly lose out to someone who has a clear genetic advantage. This problem becomes global once you get to elite level.
Open categories don't really work, and it's not just about inclusion. Remember we're not talking about blokes in dresses who have decided to identify as a different gender just so they can win something.
Adults who have been through male puberty, taking hormone therapy, for instance, will see a reduction in their testosterone levels and a reduction in muscle mass, at the moment it doesn't seem to be enough but it would certainly disadvantage them hugely in any open category.
Maybe as medicines improve and our understanding of how to prescribe hormone therapy grows, the playing field will level out more, but where you draw the line will still be very difficult.
It's a really difficult situation that we're right at the beginning of and as different associations and sporting bodies feel their way through it, it is inevitable that people are going to be treated unfairly.
But it can be split into different age categories, as children there is no issue in my mind of trans kids (and yes there are trans kids and they often know it from a very early age) competing alongside the sex they identify with.
Outside of the States I don't see a huge problem with this carrying on into teenage years, I can't speak for other countries but in the few countries I have lived in sports scholarships are not a big thing.
The difficulty is the paradox of those people who say that post male puberty trans women shouldn't be regarded as women when it comes to sports are also the ones who say that kids who realise they are a different gender to the one they've been assigned at birth are too young and shouldn't be allowed to do anything about it. (To be clear, I'm not referring to posters here, but to society in general.)
Within the States this is clearly an issue and I understand @Carolina Red's arguments in this aspect as his lived experience is working with these teens in wrestling I think, which I can understand is a sport with a real problem with this. I don't know the answer, but it is very harsh to say you are a women in some aspects but not others, but it's also harsh to watch cis women possibly lose out to someone who has a clear genetic advantage. This problem becomes global once you get to elite level.
Open categories don't really work, and it's not just about inclusion. Remember we're not talking about blokes in dresses who have decided to identify as a different gender just so they can win something.
Adults who have been through male puberty, taking hormone therapy, for instance, will see a reduction in their testosterone levels and a reduction in muscle mass, at the moment it doesn't seem to be enough but it would certainly disadvantage them hugely in any open category.
Maybe as medicines improve and our understanding of how to prescribe hormone therapy grows, the playing field will level out more, but where you draw the line will still be very difficult.
I appreciate that.
I have a feeling you'll be in the minority with such a hard-line stance.
An open category is currently the fairest way to include trans women in competitive sport. The science simply doesn't support anything else at the moment.
I would argue that inclusion is exclusive of tolerance.
We have a wealth of evidence that biological males routinely outperform biological females in athletic feats. So much so, that up until very recently (and seemingly only among people with certain ideological beliefs), such a statement need not be made because it was considered a universal truth.
We also have a (growing) amount of evidence that where biological males move into competition with biological females, their relative performances/rankings often see marked improvements. It's precisely the reason we're having this debate.
I would argue that until we have evidence that biological advantage is not a factor, competitive sports should not be used as a trial programme.
- I'd like to see the surveys/studies that show this and what questions have been asked to draw these conclusions. I would imagine not many specifically mention competitive sports.
- I'm also not even sure how relevant this is to the specific nature of competitive, particularly elite, sports.
- No one is banned from sports. It's disingenuous to keep repeating this, especially as you are simultaneously dismissing one of the only suggested compromises for inclusion.
But they do have a right to try and compete.
I don't want to distract from the topic with a tired bathroom debate.
I'm sorry you feel this way, but frankly it's deeply unfair to those engaging with you to claim that they have a "lack of basic empathy" simply because they don't agree with you.
I don't particularly want to accuse you of arguing in bad faith, but at this point, it feels like your main tactic is to present your stance in such a manner that anyone that disagrees with you is implicitly transphobic, with the key phrase you bring up being "trans women are women". I've also tried to avoid addressing this with you directly because I know for a fact that you are going to turn around and accuse me of being transphobic.
Your present the statement "trans women are women" as if it is a universal truth. Simply put, it is not.
While it is something that I suspect most, if not all, of the posters in this thread accept as a social (for lack of a better term) truth, it is quite clearly not a biological truth.
In some aspects of life, biology matters. Competitive sports is one such example, and the fundamental differences in physical ability between biological males and biological females is a core component of it.
Maybe we'll reach a point where the words "men" and "women" are used exclusively (or at least overwhelmingly) in terms of gender identity, and the words "male" and "female" are used exclusively (or at least overwhelmingly) in terms of biology, at which point the statement can carry with it the degree of truth you currently attribute to it. We aren't there yet, and it hasn't escaped my notice that you've already been engaged on this matter.
Addressing this point specifically, what is it about an open category that people are finding problems with?
Additionally, aside from categories specific to gender identity (which have repeatedly been dismissed as impractical), what alternatives are there while maintaining the core component of fairness that must be present for competitive sport to be competitive?
You are right it's not the same and the distinction should be noted and remembered. In one case female athletes are asked to compete against males and in the other case males are asked to compete against males.
I'm sure we will get open categories initially while we try to work this out, but they are difficult on two levels I can think of. The first is as I said, hormone therapy, reduces testosterone levels and reduces muscle mass and in some cases reduces your energy as well, maybe not enough to make competing against cis women completely fair, but easily enough to make you uncompetitive against cis males. The second is the message it sends, basically you can be a woman sometimes but not always ie you are different and not normal.
As I've said a few times in this thread I don't have an answer to your final question and I don't think anyone does right now, I just hope we do find one that works for everyone, because right now the arguments are difficult and are used whether purposefully or not to further alienate one of the most preyed on and vulnerable groups in society.
I have no doubt that will improve with time and acceptance, but right now trans people through no fault of there own are at the brunt of a culture war and that is a very tough and unpleasant place to be.
Or "You are a woman all the time but not a female.". In these debates that's the missing part, for some reason we push aside the core point.
I can imagine it's bloody difficult trying to reassure your kid that tolerance will improve when you've got trans bashing threads most days in the popular press.
We think society's becoming more accepting more broadly on LGBT+ issues, but then you see punch ups outside schools about pride month for example, which I was just reading now.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-n...sters-lgbt-activists-clash-california-school/
Top post.
The issue with this is - although it makes a trans woman uncompetitive when compared to men, they’d still have an advantage when compared to women, even if that advantage may have reduced somewhat.
You can’t get away from the biological reality of the situation where genetics and inherent differences between male and female play a fundamental role. If you can’t get away from it then the fairest option is to have either a third category or an open category.
It's not the missing part at all, trans people are reminded every minute of everyday that they are different, they're constantly told "your X or your Y" in the press, online, everywhere. I can't speak for trans women but I do have some experience of trans men and in their mind they're men that's it. The sex they were assigned at birth was simply plain wrong.
Yet everywhere they turn they're reminded that the vast majority of people will not see that and instead constantly pigeon hole them in a way that makes themselves more comfortable and ignores the very real feelings of the trans person. Saying "your a woman all the time but not a female", however well meant is just another example of that.
Public opinion at any given time shouldn't be used as guidance for any policy regarding marginalised groups. Historically if you could have had polls, the general public would have been against letting women vote, letting people of colour live alongside white people, letting gay people marry etc. The decisions made now should be leading the public not following them.
Ref; bolded, I feel the same, that any discussion on this is geared towards confirm hidden transphobia in people who disagree
How is that not the missing part? The only reason there is an issue is because males and females are different, that's why male and females seldomly compete against each others in open categories. What you are doing here is ignoring the topic and the reason behind it.
Do you think that males should compete against females in female sports?
I'd suggest you read the thread of replies that prompted hobbers to post that poll.
I think this stuff has always happened but we see more of it because of social media algorithms. Ten years ago, you had bigoted nutters causing problems but it didn't make the news.
Or by their parents who are concerned that they don't fit gender stereotypes so they ask if they're trans.
Come off it.So now we're saying we can't ask the public, of which trans make up some %age of the population, for what they think is right.
This constant moving of the goalposts to suit a narrative is tiresome.
I'm not ignoring the topic at all, I've written about it extensively in my posts and repeatedly said that I don't know the answer, I've just tried to give a bit of insight into the effect these discussions and the way they are framed can have on people.
It's not what you did, in fact what you are suggesting is kind of problematic because transgender kids are different, that's the reality. Why is that important for them and everyone to accept it? Because how are you going to explain to a kid the possibility of transitioning and the implications that it has if at the same type you pretend that they are not different. How are you going to explain their experience when they are confused and maybe worried? Lying isn't an option, at least not a good one.
Being different isn't a bad thing, it doesn't make you less of a person. Transgenders aren't lesser people, their reality shouldn't be hidden or deluted but their reality is different to the average person and less common.
And none of that tackles the topic of the conversation.
The politicisation of anti-gay and trans sentiment in the US in particular, if not new, is certainly resurgent and the right wing press in the UK are doing their level best to stoke up fear and hatred.
We need to fight for the rights of transgender people and gay people, but participation in women‘s sport by transgender women is not part of that fight as far as I am concerned. It is blatantly unfair to the other competitors.
I'm unsure why you're suddenly focusing on transgender kids, I've just gone back and checked and in all my posts this afternoon discussing this with you and others, I've only talked about transgender people apart from once in my first post today where I said that, in my mind, there is no issue with kids competing against the gender they feel most comfortable with.
So I can only assume that you've gone back further and picked up on a post I made a couple of days ago where I mentioned I that I am the father of a transgender teen. It's fecking tough for him and for me, but mostly for him and what is particularly sad is I could never show him this thread as I know plenty of posts in it would cause upset and anxiety and we have plenty of that already.
Your parenting advice is surprising for someone I had always rated a decent poster and unless you have your own experience of what it is like, which I don't think you do, it's patronising and particularly unwelcome.
I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here.
So we moved to personal attacks? I mentioned kids because transgender kids are faced with comprehensive therapy and latter the option of transitioning, neither of these things are in line with the idea that they are not different or that they wouldn't be told by medical professional or their parents that they are different.
Anyway I take note of your statement. Don't ever interact with me.
Last edited:
Classy post
Yeah, I think this is true but moreso on social media.
This article is being published today and is also offered non paywalled as well.
Looks like a deep dive into puberty blockers and whether they are harmless medicine or whether they have an affect. Given some of the claims in the thread earlier on the blockers being safe, effective and reversible I thought it was worth posting.
https://archive.ph/VdZ8L The link to the non-paywalled version, for those interested. I wouldn't call this a "deep dive", but perhaps that's what's being published next week.
Sorry that's what I meant, the longer form is being released next week.
With regards to this, it can be easy to think that inaction is the risk free choice, whereas as you’ve just stated this isn’t always the case. A lot of care and planning go into these kinds of decisions, with highly trained professionals involved. I want to stress I’m not talking about individuals on here, but I’ve seen certain elements online where their use of language, “butchers” etc that kind of thing, demanding Nuremberg like trials where they’re clearly ideologically positioned against the transgender community as a whole. When I was prescribed ADD medication as a child, despite being a completely different situation, I had two occasions where my doctor was accused of child abuse due to the medication she dispensed.
I strongly agree with this (though I understand why bobbers initially posted it). A wide range of viewpoints is very useful, we can see for example in this thread, having those who are transgender, or the parents of a transgender child, those who are involved in coaching, those who come with a sports orientated view and those who don’t etc can lead to a more holistic view of these issues. But yes public opinion when it comes to marginalised groups can lead to some Ill advised suggestions at best, and some downright horrific ones at worst. I wouldn’t want Brexit Bob leading the way on immigration integration, or someone from redcafe making a Manchester United coaching decision. Recipe for disaster.
Sorry for not responding, by the way.
I don't want to get involved in the discussion of sports, I just wanted to point out that even if we concede that trans women have a physical advantage it's completely inaccurate to say that they have the "ability of a man". There are serious things to be said on this subject, but I very much doubt it'll happen on Redcafe, and if I happen to be wrong it's not going to involve me in any case.
I had to sign up for WSJ which annoyed me. It's an OpEd from a writer whose preeminent work is pretty much anti-pharma. This piece doesn't say anything new or convincing. I don't think the Just the Facts follow up will either.
Hormone therapy is off label, which means under/unstudied and certainly not approved by the FDA. That really should be the end of discussion especially when talking about prescribing this to children who have non-pharma options for conservative management until they're of age. Any good doctor or protocol for any sort of illness or condition should and will push for conservative treatment prior. Except when there's some surreptitious and nefarious motivation.
This discussion is not based on facts and science though. It's based on feelings and politics subsidized heavily by pharma companies.
It's a futile effort to try and address this with facts. You'd have as much luck trying to talk a Pro-Lifer out of that viewpoint.
All of this stuff is now becoming fodder for the culture war.
Each side will now leap on these type of interviews.
It's the sad resignation from Paige that says it all.
Worries about this stuff “becoming fodder for the culture war”...
Immediately finds and shares more tweets on the same topic…