Dame Kelly Holmes, Paula Radcliffe and Sharron Davies to write to IOC over transgender athletes

[Donner]

Transgender women take medication that lowers their testosterone levels and consequently makes them lose muscle mass. So if testosterone is the be all and end all of factors determining athletic ability, then this solves the problem no?

 

[Iceman]

Is there any rough estimate for how big the worldwide transgender population is? (I have no clue at all)

 

[DeadPresident]

Transgender women take medication that lowers their testosterone levels and consequently makes them lose muscle mass. So if testosterone is the be all and end all of factors determining athletic ability, then this solves the problem no?

We would need a study that ascertains the average muscle mass and testosterone levels of female athletes compared to the average muscle mass and testosterone levels of transgender woman males to make an educated assessment.

Then we would need endocrinologists to describe the specifics of a biological male’s development process and which aspects of that development could benefit them athletically while not being altered by artificial testosterone suppressors; bone density, fast-twitch vs slow-twitch muscle fiber development, etc.

After a cartload of research we would probably determine that even an average athletic male undergoing testosterone suppression holds noticeable physical benefits over biological females, as is being shown by the performance of male women competing in female events.

Also, just for curiosity’s sake, muscle mass isn’t an accurate indicator of muscle strength or performance necessarily, there are multiple other factors that contribute to performance that may or may not be affected simply by decreasing testosterone.

 

[Donner]

Honestly, I don't give a shirt. There are so few transgender women competing at high levels anyways, it's a moot point in my eyes. There is so much diversity in biology within the sexes that harping on transgender women for being who they are is disingenuous. They deserve to compete as well. And they mostly lose. I refuse to get riled up about this unless every sport is dominated by transgender women (which would never happen). They thought it would back in the 70s and it never came to fruition. It's just fear mongering and i have no problem ignoring the 3 women who wrote a letter complaining about it because obviously the vast majority don't care.

 

[DeadPresident]

Of course you don’t give a ****, you’re not competing, so at the end of the day your opinion doesn’t matter and neither does mine. The three women who wrote the letter, now their opinions do matter.

You’re choosing this as some token issue to give your two cents on because you want to push a moral position you value, but that position just doesn’t make a heck of a lot of sense, it only makes you feel good even though it’s anti-science and irrational in the extreme - but keep on going.

 

[Donner]

Of course you don’t give a ****, you’re not competing, so at the end of the day your opinion doesn’t matter and neither does mine. The three women who wrote the letter, now their opinions do matter.

You’re choosing this as some token issue to give your two cents on because you want to push a moral position you value, but that position just doesn’t make a heck of a lot of sense, it only makes you feel good even though it’s anti-science and irrational in the extreme - but keep on going.

It's not anti-science or irrational, but good try. Testosterone plays its part and yet men with higher levels are considered gifted, whereas women with higher levels are considered cheats, even if their body produces it naturally (I'm not talking about transgender athletes here). You also have environment to thank for certain advantages (such as training at a higher elevation and being more fit). The point is that there is so much that goes into whether an athlete will be naturally good at something, along with the training and dedication that would be required in order to realize those natural gifts, that banning transgender women from competing would be seriously short-sighted.

The science is muddled at best regarding the dominance of black athletes in running and the NBA/NFL, but maybe they should have their own category as well, to be fair to the white/Asian/Middle Eastern, etc athletes that lose to them. After all, it could be a genetic thing and that's just unfair, right?

 

[jolldan]

 

[jmc]

This has been coming for a while. The reality is not just an issue of competitiveness, but just outright safety for women playing sports like rugby where size and strength plays a huge factor in the game. As far as I can tell World Rugby has been the first international sporty body in the world to conduct extensive testing on the matter, which should hopefully now filter its way down to other major sports.

 

[Dark Raven]

I expect they'll also be banned from women's boxing or kick boxing.

 

[Batmannerism]

Does anyone have the science on strength ( and other) advantages of a trans woman of having a fully male body, with fully developed male musculature and skeletal structure that has then transitioned to becoming female.

Honestly, I don't know what the science says, but it seems to me that even if the amount of testosterone in a transwoman was the same as that of a born woman, that the skeletal and muscle development advantages provide a residual benefit.

On average women have 50 to 60% of the upper body strength of men. Can that advantage be completely neutralized? Without some sound science I'm not convinced.

I still feel it is unfair to expect female athletes, particularly in contact sports to be expected to contend with trans opponents, for safety reasons - but if someone has science to prove that there is no advantage then I'm happy to reconsider.

Why not create a competition for trans athletes ?
Yes, it might be a very small competition, but there's a question of safety. You would not put a 120 pound female boxer in the ring with a 120 pound male boxer of similar skill.

 

[Dark Raven]

Does anyone have the science on strength ( and other) advantages of a trans woman of having a fully male body, with fully developed male musculature and skeletal structure that has then transitioned to becoming female.

Honestly, I don't know what the science says, but it seems to me that even if the amount of testosterone in a transwoman was the same as that of a born woman, that the skeletal and muscle development advantages provide a residual benefit.

On average women have 50 to 60% of the upper body strength of men. Can that advantage be completely neutralized? Without some sound science I'm not convinced.

I still feel it is unfair to expect female athletes, particularly in contact sports to be expected to contend with trans opponents, for safety reasons - but if someone has science to prove that there is no advantage then I'm happy to reconsider.

Why not create a competition for trans athletes ?
Yes, it might be a very small competition, but there's a question of safety. You would not put a 120 pound female boxer in the ring with a 120 pound male boxer of similar skill.

Imagine a trans woman going for a knockout punch with a woman. It could be a situation like with Drago and Apollo Creed in Rocky 4 when he kills him.

But even in a sport where safety isn't involved, there's sure to be an advantage for something like athletics (eg sprinting) or tennis where a man hits much harder. If women find it difficult to play tennis against other women who are more muscular, imagine how it would be against a trans woman with the strength of a man. It would always be an unfair advantage.

 

[jmc]

Does anyone have the science on strength ( and other) advantages of a trans woman of having a fully male body, with fully developed male musculature and skeletal structure that has then transitioned to becoming female.

Honestly, I don't know what the science says, but it seems to me that even if the amount of testosterone in a transwoman was the same as that of a born woman, that the skeletal and muscle development advantages provide a residual benefit.

On average women have 50 to 60% of the upper body strength of men. Can that advantage be completely neutralized? Without some sound science I'm not convinced.

I still feel it is unfair to expect female athletes, particularly in contact sports to be expected to contend with trans opponents, for safety reasons - but if someone has science to prove that there is no advantage then I'm happy to reconsider.

Why not create a competition for trans athletes ?
Yes, it might be a very small competition, but there's a question of safety. You would not put a 120 pound female boxer in the ring with a 120 pound male boxer of similar skill.

Once puberty hits is where things become difficult to alter. There simply wouldn't be the number of athletes around to make it viable teams because the population size is so small. There's only one option to solve this - mens sports becomes an open division, whilst women's sport is for women only. I know there are some trans folks who will object to it, but they also have to look at not just themselves in this instance but their competitors rights too. Sport should be open to everyone, but sport also has to have as level a playing field as much as possible, which is why we ban cheaters whether they win a gold medal or not. People are free to live their lives how they want, but sport cannot accomodate some of these people to the degree they desire. Biology simply doesn't care about whether you see yourself as male or female. Sport, by it's very nature, has to discriminate in most instances for the sake of fair competition.

 

[Donner]

If girls were given the same opportunities and access to sports programs as boys, this wouldn't be such an issue. But we as a society discriminate so early on (segregated gym classes are a joke and I will always hate that they separate the boys and girls) that anyone who grows up playing with boys and competing against them will have an advantage, both physically and mentally.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Once puberty hits is where things become difficult to alter. There simply wouldn't be the number of athletes around to make it viable teams because the population size is so small. There's only one option to solve this - mens sports becomes an open division, whilst women's sport is for women only. I know there are some trans folks who will object to it, but they also have to look at not just themselves in this instance but their competitors rights too. Sport should be open to everyone, but sport also has to have as level a playing field as much as possible, which is why we ban cheaters whether they win a gold medal or not. People are free to live their lives how they want, but sport cannot accomodate some of these people to the degree they desire. Biology simply doesn't care about whether you see yourself as male or female. Sport, by it's very nature, has to discriminate in most instances for the sake of fair competition.

First, it isn't a question of "how you see yourself". It's about who you are. Second, bringing biology into this conversation is interesting, considering that isn't how someone is assigned male, female, intersex, etc. at birth. Case in point, Caster Semenya. Someone who was assigned female at birth, and has lived as a woman her entire life isn't allowed to compete without reducing their physical performance because she, a woman, is too good at her sport. Third, we really shouldn't conflate sex and gender.

I have done a lot of soul searching and actual researching on this topic over the last year or so. The way I see it, eventually trans athletes will be allowed to compete as their correct gender. The little scientific data we have mixed with human rights laws and such will see it come to pass. And I am glad for this. After all, we are talking sports. Bringing up violent sports being violent and the dangers involved with them really doesn't change much. If the fear is potential injury and death playing rugby or a combat sport, that is already there. Rugby players and footballers are dealing with concussion issues leading to some of the worst deterioration of health, you will see. That is the nature of the sports. Moreover, having physical advantages never comes into play in men's sports. But with women's sports, it does, even when it comes to people who have been women all their lives. Being too strong, too tall, too fast, etc. does not enter the equation when it comes to sports, when we talk "level playing field", outside of youth sports. And we aren't talking about youth sports. So it is an non-issue imo. A theoretical "lack of competitiveness" does not outweigh the rights of someone competing as is their right.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Okay there was a post here, but there no longer is but I want to try and respond to the points.

There is zero reason to bring up cisgender men and cisgender women in a conversation about cisgender women and trans women athletes. Cisgender men are irrelevant to the conversation in that regard.

My point was if one fears injury and/or death to a point of not wanting to compete, they probably shouldn't compete in sports. Outside of the most egregious actions, which have been performed illegally not simply in terms of sport but by law (attacks after a fight, headbutting someone, etc.) all of these risk are part of the game. More over, there are ridiculous physical advantage among all athletes. It is inherent to sports. It is when the superior athletes are superior. Compare skeletal structure of Lebron to Steph. Gronk to Patrick Mahomes.

Bringing up research and data. You will be hard pressed to find wide spread and ranging data on transgender athletes. There just aren't enough transgender athletes in sports to provide it, along with this research is rather new. Most are very small data sets, many of which are comparing cisgender women to cisgender men, which is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Defining what qualifies as fair competition in general seems fundamentally different from how many define fair competition in women's sports. The idea that what equals "fair" is based on the idea that any competitor has a "chance" is a false premise that does not exist in any sport.

There isn't a lot of research as I pointed out, but there is some. That research points to HRT and it's reduction of performance in terms of running to about 8%. The same basic difference between cisgender men and cisgender women at the height of sports. More over, what is lacking is what HRT does to athletes themselves. There are long ranging effects that can hinder a trans athletes that a cisgender athlete would not have to compete with, also arguably leveling the playing field even more so if that is the concern.

Beyond that though there is no such thing as a level playing field. Let us consider for one moment, the case of Caster Semenya. A cisgender woman who is being asked to suppress her body because she is considered "too good" at her sport. In what realm is that fair? She was born too good? The gatekeeping when it comes to women's sport is almost always, "the athlete cannot be too good" no matter their gender. This includes cisgender women. What that says about how people view women's sport is far more unfair and damning then the idea of an "unfair" playing field, because a trans athlete, dare be an athlete.

Finally I want to point to something specific. A quote was used from well know TERF Nicola Williams. The quote included the incorrect statement that transwomen competing in women's sports are "mediocre males". That is a level of transphobic statement that should make anyone question someone like Nicola Williams and anything she has said. But still, someone thought it was okay to post that here and that is a big issue with the discourse on this topic. Giving credence to those that might lace potential legitimate concerns, with overt transphobic rhetoric. If one cannot make the argument without the support of someone who is obviously a bigot, what does that say about the argument?

 

[Batmannerism]

Okay there was a post here, but there no longer is but I want to try and respond to the points.

That was my post. I have thought long and hard about whether to respond to its deletion. On one hand this is such a sensitive issue that it could get me banned, and then my reply would be deleted too.

Ultimately if that's what the hype has come to - shutting down discussion because of fear of offense to someone - well then getting banned is a risk worth taking.

Having said that I'm still going to apologize for part of my post - and if you or anyone else, you too @Snow Queen , had simply said " I'm offended by this because...." then I'd have responded with an apology and deleted that part myself.

But instead my whole post was deleted - disappointing. Maybe we should talk about why, and then maybe we'll both reach some degree of understanding. There's a possibility we still may not agree, but by just shutting down the conversation, there's no chance of any movement at all.

There is zero reason to bring up cisgender men and cisgender women in a conversation about cisgender women and trans women athletes. Cisgender men are irrelevant to the conversation in that regard.

You have a point there. However, a key issue in this discussion is whether trans women retain biological advantages from their male life, after they transition, which give them an unfair advantage over cis females. Part of that discussion involves establishing that they had an advantage to begin with, when they were biologically male ( irrespective of gender identity), as such it is important to compare cis men and vis women in such a way.

The deleted post also referred to science which shows that transwomen retain a significant advantage over cisgender women athletes. More on that in a minute.

Then there were your comments about contact sports....

My point was if one fears injury and/or death a point of not wanting to compete, they probably shouldn't compete in sports. Outside of the most egregious actions, which have been performed illegally not simply in terms of sport but by law (attacks after a fight, headbutting someone, etc.) all of these risk are part of the game.

Based on your comments you come across as someone who hasn't done a lot of contact sports. Take it from someone who has ( including rugby, wrestling, boxing, judo and karate) most sane people who do contact sports KNOW that the risk of injury is a part of the game - particularly in fight sports, e.g when I competed in judo I knew there was a chance someone would break my arm or choke me out). However, we do things to mitigate those risks - weight divisions, amateur and professional competitions, divisions based on experience etc. Thus they are acceptable risks.

The issue of trans women competing in contact sports is about whether it bears an unacceptable risk of injury.

When I played rugby we played against men's teams at a senior A club level, and while there were still plenty of injuries ( which we all accepted) - if we'd have played against an international side, like the Springboks, and they'd played at their best against our best, we'd have been carried off the field in pieces ( although in rugby there's usually a sense of sportsmanship that would preclude such a thing). Anyway, a ridiculous example, but one that illustrates unacceptable risk of injury.

Having helped a little with training a girls rugby team I feel safe saying that allowing male vs female competition in rugby would create an unacceptable risk of injury to female players.

My point has always been that putting a transwoman, who has a significant strength advantage simply because of having gone through puberty as a male and having a male muscle/ skeletal structure against a cisgender woman, creates an unacceptable risk.

During my contact sports time I have occasionally sparred against cisgender females. My lived experience is that even when facing female opponents of similar or even superior skill levels, I was always much stronger and usually quicker, and I am not a big person ( at 5'4") - even against much larger female opponents. I always had to hold back for fear of hurting them. Could I beat Ronda Rousey, not a chance, but a male judoka of similar weight and skill level would destroy her no question.

I would be interested to hear about your lived experiences with contact sports - maybe they're different to mine.

It is true that there are few precedents, Fallon Fox being the main example of a trans woman being allowed to fight cisgender women. Her opponents, even the only one who managed to beat her, all complained about her strength. I accept that this is far too small a sample to be definitive, but it is indicative, particularly the damage she inflicted on them.

More over, there are ridiculous physical advantage among all athletes. It is inherent to sports. It is when the superior athletes are superior. Compare skeletal structure of Lebron to Steph. Gronk to Patrick Mahomes.

Now it's your turn to compare cisgender men to cisgender men, isn't that irrelevant to our discussion? What you are doing is comparing the skeletal structure of two cisgender males, when the real comparison is the skeletal structure of a cisgender female to trans female. I suggest to you that as all skeletal structures are different this is becomes a question of degrees - and the degree of advantage.

It seems to me hard to argue that having a male skeletal structure does not give a trans woman athlete an advantage over a cisgender female athlete - that is simply unavailable to the cisgender female - to the degree that the advantage is unfair in competition.

Skeletal structure is just one factor, there are also muscle distribution and development and of course, testosterone. I know very little about endurance based sports so I honestly can't speculate on whether trans women competitors would have an advantage over cisgender women. Although I can say that generally cis males outperform cis females at endurance sports.

But back to your point, if you're suggesting that since no two athletes are physically the same, and some have inherent inherited biological advantages over others so that there's no point worrying about them....well, okay why do we have separate men's and women's divisions in sport ?

That's the logical extension of that argument - trans women have a biological advantage, but all athletes have varying degrees of biological advantage so what ? This is what your argument appears to be, and if you are correct then why have men's and women's divisions at all ?

Most people would probably say " because it's not fair to the female competitors". The notion of fairness still means something in sport.

Similarly, why not allow athletes to use performance enhancing drugs ?

It is a question of degree - the degree of advantage makes it unfair for trans women to compete against cisgender women in mant sports. I suppose if you could find a sport where strength made no difference, that might be okay, but for the majority of sports it's going to be an issue. I can't weigh in on running endurance sports here - other than to refer you back to Dame Kelly Holmes and Paula Radcliffe, and their views ( and any evidence supporting them).

Bringing up research and data. You will be hard pressed to find wide spread and ranging data on transgender athletes. There just aren't enough transgender athletes in sports to provide it, along with this research is rather new. Most are very small data sets, many of which are comparing cisgender women to cisgender men, which is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Well it is true that sample sizes will be small. Thes article link below, from my deleted post, refers to research which suggests that trans women athletes retain significant advantages over cisgender women:

Researchers claim testosterone cap won't fix trans athletes' 'unfair advantage'

I confess it's not a very well written article.

Defining what qualifies as fair competition in general seems fundamentally different from how many define fair competition in women's sports.

Actually defining what is fair competition at all is pretty difficult.

The idea that what equals "fair" is based on the idea that any competitor has a "chance" is a false premise that does not exist in any sport.

That is a pretty sweeping statement - and not one I necessarily agree with, mostly because of its breadth. I submit that there is always a "chance" that one competitor will win, despite a mismatch in ability, athleticism etc. and that is an important consideration in competition.

I have a boxing match with Mike Tyson just each of us bringing our natural physical talents and training- so a level playing field in that respect- I'll be off to the hospital with a serious concussion after about 30 seconds of round 1 - if I'm lucky. I do have a chance of winning, very slim indeed ( and mostly if Iron Mike trips on the ring ropes and knocks himself out) but it's still a "fair fight". The idea of my chance of winning is linked to the concept of fairness.

Similarly in tennis we get the phenomenon where a very highly ranked player is defeated by a virtual unknown, it happens.
It occasionally happens in team sports too - Japan's rugby team defeating Ireland and South Africa at the world cup. Argentina beat the All Blacks last year.

In those circumstances one competitor appears to be superior to the degree that the other has no chance, yet competition is deemed to be fair.

As such, I submit that the idea of both competitors having a chance at winning , although not an equal chance, is linked to the notion of fair competition.

Again defining what is fair competition in sport is tricky - it's often easier to define what is unfair competition.

There isn't a lot of research as I pointed out, but there is some. That research points to HRT and it's reduction of performance in terms of running to about 8%. The same basic difference between cisgender men and cisgender women at the height of sports. More over, what is lacking is what HRT does to athletes themselves. There are long ranging effects that can hinder a trans athletes that a cisgender athlete would not have to compete with, also arguably leveling the playing field even more so if that is the concern.

The research I referred to above suggests that there is a lot more to the issue than hormone and testosterone levels. Something even the IOC hasn't seemed to understand

Beyond that though there is no such thing as a level playing field. Let us consider for one moment, the case of Caster Semenya. A cisgender woman who is being asked to suppress her body because she is considered "too good" at her sport. In what realm is that fair? She was born too good? The gatekeeping when it comes to women's sport is almost always, "the athlete cannot be too good" no matter their gender. This includes cisgender women.

I have a lot of sympathy for Caster, who has been through a terribly stressful controversy, which has probably resulted in the IAAF and IOC's focus on testosterone. However, you are over simplifying the issue by simply stating she's " too good" . She has an exceptionally high level of testosterone, although it is natural, due to her very rare biology.

If a cisgender competitor achieved a similar level through performance enhancing drugs, she'd be disqualified and banned. Semenya's body produces it naturally. I honestly don't know what the right answer is, because it's a very complex issue , involving a nearly unique situation.

What that says about how people view women's sport is far more unfair and damning then the idea of an "unfair" playing field, because a trans athlete, dare be an athlete.

Well that's what you take away from it. These appear to be 2 distinct but related issues - the bigger issue of " what is fairness in women's sports ? " and " should trans women athletes compete against cisgender athletes? " which is a sub issue of the first issue, this thread seems to deal with the second rather than the first.

The idea of a trans athlete "daring" to be an athlete isn't the issue as I see it. It is the balancing of their rights to compete against athletes of the gender they identify with against the right of cisgender female to a fair competition. You raise some interesting questions about what "fair competition " is and whether it exists at all. I do not agree with you here.

At this point I feel it's time to return to another part of my deleted post - which concerned Laurel Hubbard. Laurel is a trans woman, who competed in weightlifting as a male, before her transition - achieving unremarkable results, other than a NZ youth record.

After transitioning she continued to compete and has become very successful. This has raised some controversy as she's beaten cisgender women at the Commonwealth games ( until having to withdraw from injury) the Pacific Games 2019 ( gold medal), and the Roma Games 2020 ( gold medal).

This is a very small sample, a sample of one, but the research I referred to earlier suggests Laurel has an unfair advantage over cisgender female competitors. Is this definitive, no, but the results are concerning.

Does Laurel Hubbard's right to compete as a trans woman, despite having biological advantages some of which are simply unavailable to cisgender women ( as a result of her going through puberty as a male) outweigh the right of cis female athletes to fair competition?

Finally I want to point to something specific. A quote was used from well know TERF Nicola Williams. The quote included the incorrect statement that transwomen competing in women's sports are "mediocre males". That is a level of transphobic statement that should make anyone question someone like Nicola Williams and anything she has said. But still, someone thought it was okay to post that here and that is a big issue with the discourse on this topic. Giving credence to those that might lace potential legitimate concerns, with overt transphobic rhetoric. If one cannot make the argument without the support of someone who is obviously a bigot, what does that say about the argument?

First, I apologize for the quote because Dr Williams' reference to mediocre men is mislabeling transwomen as men - and that is not correct.

It may surprise you to learn that I have a trans friend, female to male, I can't even begin to understand his journey but I accept him for who he is. If someone called him a " woman" now I would feel he had been insulted, although he would probably laugh it off, knowing him. I myself occasionally mistakenly use the pronoun "she" when referring to him ( because I knew him as a woman first) but always try to correct myself.

Anyway Dr Williams' quote is deliberate mislabeling and so I apologize to anyone who was offended by that part of it.

However, I still agree with Dr Williams' point about protecting women's sports and that sport in general is not the platform for validating gender identity. My solution would be having separate divisions for trans people. Then Laurel Hubbard could compete without controversy - maybe she'll still be a world champ, who knows ?

Simply stating that an argument is null because you are offended by the way in which it is presented or because you disagree or dislike or are offended by the viewpoint of the person who makes it doesn't seem a particularly valid approach - and kind of intellectually limiting, it offends you therefore it's wrong ? Why not listen to what she has to say ? You might actually learn something - you don't have to agree with her, or like her views, but in amongst all that stuff you don't like there might be some valid points you haven't thought of.

I certainly can make the arguments above without referring to Dr Williams or mislabelling - and have done so in this post. You absolutely can separate transphobia from legitimate concerns about protecting women's sports.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

That was my post. I have thought long and hard about whether to respond to its deletion. On one hand this is such a sensitive issue that it could get me banned, and then my reply would be deleted too.

Ultimately if that's what the hype has come to - shutting down discussion because of fear of offense to someone - well then getting banned is a risk worth taking.

Having said that I'm still going to apologize for part of my post - and if you or anyone else, you too @Snow Queen , had simply said " I'm offended by this because...." then I'd have responded with an apology and deleted that part myself.

But instead my whole post was deleted - disappointing. Maybe we should talk about why, and then maybe we'll both reach some degree of understanding. There's a possibility we still may not agree, but by just shutting down the conversation, there's no chance of any movement at all.

This sounds like a long winded way of complaining about having a post that contained something incredibly transphobic taken down, while also trying to stay on the board.

So from this point on, I am going to take your "apology" with the hollowness in which you have given it. Though I need no apology. We have transgender members on this board, and while they can most certainly handle themselves, the board has rules against posting bigoted statements, and rightly so. If you had decided to posted a blatantly racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. I would have done what the board rules advise us to do. Report it.

There are plenty of posters I have interacted with on this subject that I do not agree with, but only you and jmc deemed it necessary to do so while posting blatant transphobia.

You have a point there. However, a key issue in this discussion is whether trans women retain biological advantages from their male life, after they transition, which give them an unfair advantage over cis females. Part of that discussion involves establishing that they had an advantage to begin with, when they were biologically male ( irrespective of gender identity), as such it is important to compare cis men and vis women in such a way.

The deleted post also referred to science which shows that transwomen retain a significant advantage over cisgender women athletes. More on that in a minute.

Then there were your comments about contact sports....

Based on your comments you come across as someone who hasn't done a lot of contact sports. Take it from someone who has ( including rugby, wrestling, boxing, judo and karate) most sane people who do contact sports KNOW that the risk of injury is a part of the game - particularly in fight sports, e.g when I competed in judo I knew there was a chance someone would break my arm or choke me out). However, we do things to mitigate those risks - weight divisions, amateur and professional competitions, divisions based on experience etc. Thus they are acceptable risks.

The issue of trans women competing in contact sports is about whether it bears an unacceptable risk of injury.

When I played rugby we played against men's teams at a senior A club level, and while there were still plenty of injuries ( which we all accepted) - if we'd have played against an international side, like the Springboks, and they'd played at their best against our best, we'd have been carried off the field in pieces ( although in rugby there's usually a sense of sportsmanship that would preclude such a thing). Anyway, a ridiculous example, but one that illustrates unacceptable risk of injury.

Having helped a little with training a girls rugby team I feel safe saying that allowing male vs female competition in rugby would create an unacceptable risk of injury to female players.

My point has always been that putting a transwoman, who has a significant strength advantage simply because of having gone through puberty as a male and having a male muscle/ skeletal structure against a cisgender woman, creates an unacceptable risk.

During my contact sports time I have occasionally sparred against cisgender females. My lived experience is that even when facing female opponents of similar or even superior skill levels, I was always much stronger and usually quicker, and I am not a big person ( at 5'4") - even against much larger female opponents. I always had to hold back for fear of hurting them. Could I beat Ronda Rousey, not a chance, but a male judoka of similar weight and skill level would destroy her no question.

I would be interested to hear about your lived experiences with contact sports - maybe they're different to mine.

It is true that there are few precedents, Fallon Fox being the main example of a trans woman being allowed to fight cisgender women. Her opponents, even the only one who managed to beat her, all complained about her strength. I accept that this is far too small a sample to be definitive, but it is indicative, particularly the damage she inflicted on them.

Okay the bold bit? Yeah, again with the hollowness of the apology. We aren't talking about men vs. women. We are talking about trans women vs cis women. Forget the discounting of what going through HRT does to you. Forget that we don't even know the disadvantages of being a trans woman in any specific sport. You continue to specifically attempt to compare men and women where it does not apply, and use anecdotal evidence to do it. You keep deciding to do this.

As to "acceptable" risk. To say that while bringing up rugby, which is dealing with it's own reckoning based on concussions is incredibly ironic. The like of acceptable risk has always been arbitrary and continues to shift for a reason.

Now it's your turn to compare cisgender men to cisgender men, isn't that irrelevant to our discussion? What you are doing is comparing the skeletal structure of two cisgender males, when the real comparison is the skeletal structure of a cisgender female to trans female. I suggest to you that as all skeletal structures are different this is becomes a question of degrees - and the degree of advantage.

It seems to me hard to argue that having a male skeletal structure does not give a trans woman athlete an advantage over a cisgender female athlete - that is simply unavailable to the cisgender female - to the degree that the advantage is unfair in competition.

Skeletal structure is just one factor, there are also muscle distribution and development and of course, testosterone. I know very little about endurance based sports so I honestly can't speculate on whether trans women competitors would have an advantage over cisgender women. Although I can say that generally cis males outperform cis females at endurance sports.

But back to your point, if you're suggesting that since no two athletes are physically the same, and some have inherent inherited biological advantages over others so that there's no point worrying about them....well, okay why do we have separate men's and women's divisions in sport ?

That's the logical extension of that argument - trans women have a biological advantage, but all athletes have varying degrees of biological advantage so what ? This is what your argument appears to be, and if you are correct then why have men's and women's divisions at all ?

Most people would probably say " because it's not fair to the female competitors". The notion of fairness still means something in sport.

Similarly, why not allow athletes to use performance enhancing drugs ?

It is a question of degree - the degree of advantage makes it unfair for trans women to compete against cisgender women in mant sports. I suppose if you could find a sport where strength made no difference, that might be okay, but for the majority of sports it's going to be an issue. I can't weigh in on running endurance sports here - other than to refer you back to Dame Kelly Holmes and Paula Radcliffe, and their views ( and any evidence supporting them).

I brought up cis men specifically to point out that men's sports are no longer treated like a protected class, where athletes aren't allowed to compete based on something they cannot control about themselves. The days of a certain baseball league existing are done.

You separate men's and women's sports through gender. That is why it is men's and women's sports.

Why even bring up PEDs in a conversation involving trans athletes? This implies an obvious nefarious intent, and we are back to the hollowness of that apology again.

Well it is true that sample sizes will be small. Thes article link below, from my deleted post, refers to research which suggests that trans women athletes retain significant advantages over cisgender women:

Researchers claim testosterone cap won't fix trans athletes' 'unfair advantage'

I confess it's not a very well written article.

It's really not, while also failing to address the actual issue.

Actually defining what is fair competition at all is pretty difficult.

That is a pretty sweeping statement - and not one I necessarily agree with, mostly because of its breadth. I submit that there is always a "chance" that one competitor will win, despite a mismatch in ability, athleticism etc. and that is an important consideration in competition.

I have a boxing match with Mike Tyson just each of us bringing our natural physical talents and training- so a level playing field in that respect- I'll be off to the hospital with a serious concussion after about 30 seconds of round 1 - if I'm lucky. I do have a chance of winning, very slim indeed ( and mostly if Iron Mike trips on the ring ropes and knocks himself out) but it's still a "fair fight". The idea of my chance of winning is linked to the concept of fairness.

Similarly in tennis we get the phenomenon where a very highly ranked player is defeated by a virtual unknown, it happens.
It occasionally happens in team sports too - Japan's rugby team defeating Ireland and South Africa at the world cup. Argentina beat the All Blacks last year.

In those circumstances one competitor appears to be superior to the degree that the other has no chance, yet competition is deemed to be fair.

As such, I submit that the idea of both competitors having a chance at winning , although not an equal chance, is linked to the notion of fair competition.

Again defining what is fair competition in sport is tricky - it's often easier to define what is unfair competition.

It's really not. Show up, play. Don't cheat, don't bet on the sport..

The research I referred to above suggests that there is a lot more to the issue than hormone and testosterone levels. Something even the IOC hasn't seemed to understand

No, the IOC understands it. It is a question of what they deem an unfair physical advantage in sport, in comparison to the inhuman argument against a class of people. Victory is not a guarantee to anyone in sport. The vast, vast majority don't win. Being an Olympian is about representing your country at the Olympics.

I have a lot of sympathy for Caster, who has been through a terribly stressful controversy, which has probably resulted in the IAAF and IOC's focus on testosterone. However, you are over simplifying the issue by simply stating she's " too good" . She has an exceptionally high level of testosterone, although it is natural, due to her very rare biology.

If a cisgender competitor achieved a similar level through performance enhancing drugs, she'd be disqualified and banned. Semenya's body produces it naturally. I honestly don't know what the right answer is, because it's a very complex issue , involving a nearly unique situation.

How unique is Caster's situation in comparison to the amount of trans athletes compete in sport?

Having a rare biology is literally how being a superior athlete works, and having such an advantage in men's sports would never be considered unfair. Writing a bunch of words does not change that you are actually entertaining the argument that someone can be too naturally gifted to be in women's sport, even as they are a cis gender woman. What a poor view of women's sport.

Well that's what you take away from it. These appear to be 2 distinct but related issues - the bigger issue of " what is fairness in women's sports ? " and " should trans women athletes compete against cisgender athletes? " which is a sub issue of the first issue, this thread seems to deal with the second rather than the first.

The idea of a trans athlete "daring" to be an athlete isn't the issue as I see it. It is the balancing of their rights to compete against athletes of the gender they identify with against the right of cisgender female to a fair competition. You raise some interesting questions about what "fair competition " is and whether it exists at all. I do not agree with you here.

At this point I feel it's time to return to another part of my deleted post - which concerned Laurel Hubbard. Laurel is a trans woman, who competed in weightlifting as a male, before her transition - achieving unremarkable results, other than a NZ youth record.

After transitioning she continued to compete and has become very successful. This has raised some controversy as she's beaten cisgender women at the Commonwealth games ( until having to withdraw from injury) the Pacific Games 2019 ( gold medal), and the Roma Games 2020 ( gold medal).

This is a very small sample, a sample of one, but the research I referred to earlier suggests Laurel has an unfair advantage over cisgender female competitors. Is this definitive, no, but the results are concerning.

Does Laurel Hubbard's right to compete as a trans woman, despite having biological advantages some of which are simply unavailable to cisgender women ( as a result of her going through puberty as a male) outweigh the right of cis female athletes to fair competition?

Why is it concerning? Because the trans athlete win on occasion?

Fairness to competition is the right to show up and compete, not win. 99.9% of athletes do not win. Why is it an issue when someone loses to a trans athletes?

First, I apologize for the quote because Dr Williams' reference to mediocre men is mislabeling transwomen as men - and that is not correct.

It may surprise you to learn that I have a trans friend, female to male, I can't even begin to understand his journey but I accept him for who he is. If someone called him a " woman" now I would feel he had been insulted, although he would probably laugh it off, knowing him. I myself occasionally mistakenly use the pronoun "she" when referring to him ( because I knew him as a woman first) but always try to correct myself.

Anyway Dr Williams' quote is deliberate mislabeling and so I apologize to anyone who was offended by that part of it.

The, "I have black friends" defense means nothing to me. Actually it does, just not in the way you intended. Especially when you hit us with the, "to anyone who was offended" non-apology BS.

However, I still agree with Dr Williams' point about protecting women's sports and that sport in general is not the platform for validating gender identity. My solution would be having separate divisions for trans people. Then Laurel Hubbard could compete without controversy - maybe she'll still be a world champ, who knows ?

No, of course sports isn't that. Because trans people are valid and are who they are. Admission into the sport isn't an attempt to validate, it is about having the right compete like anyone else. This is no different then the situation with the separation of black people from MLB. Them playing in the league wasn't an attempt to seek validation of being a human being like their white counterparts. It is because it was their right to do it.

The bit you said you agree with, is just more transphobia, because it displays even the question that trans people might have to do that.

Simply stating that an argument is null because you are offended by the way in which it is presented or because you disagree or dislike or are offended by the viewpoint of the person who makes it doesn't seem a particularly valid approach - and kind of intellectually limiting, it offends you therefore it's wrong ? Why not listen to what she has to say ? You might actually learn something - you don't have to agree with her, or like her views, but in amongst all that stuff you don't like there might be some valid points you haven't thought of.

I certainly can make the arguments above without referring to Dr Williams or mislabelling - and have done so in this post. You absolutely can separate transphobia from legitimate concerns about protecting women's sports.

I have had discussions with people who can. You clearly cannot. Beyond the not so subtle parts before your finale, you decided to spend the end of your post justifying not only your use of a transphobic statement, but you had to make it clear you still think it was right. So just like the start of your post, you make it clear that you weren't really wrong, that you aren't actually sorry, it just wasn't phased in an acceptable manner. Not part of the statement was transphobic. The whole thing was.

You also do not consider the obvious issues with this. Maybe you're just stubborn, maybe it is something else, but it doesn't really matter. The reason you don't use bigots and make no mistake, Nicola Williams is a bigot, is because anything they state comes with the obvious bias of being a bigot. This would be like taking the argument of a racists white person for why getting rid of segregated schools and water fountain. Maybe the use of skin color will make this breach your thought process, though at this point I doubt it.

 

[Batmannerism]

This sounds like a long winded way of complaining about having a post that contained something incredibly transphobic taken down, while also trying to stay on the board.

So from this point on, I am going to take your "apology" with the hollowness in which you have given it. Though I need no apology. We have transgender members on this board, and while they can most certainly handle themselves, the board has rules against posting bigoted statements, and rightly so. If you had decided to posted a blatantly racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. I would have done what the board rules advise us to do. Report it.

There are plenty of posters I have interacted with on this subject that I do not agree with, but only you and jmc deemed it necessary to do so while posting blatant transphobia.


Okay the bold bit? Yeah, again with the hollowness of the apology. We aren't talking about men vs. women. We are talking about trans women vs cis women. Forget the discounting of what going through HRT does to you. Forget that we don't even know the disadvantages of being a trans woman in any specific sport. You continue to specifically attempt to compare men and women where it does not apply, and use anecdotal evidence to do it. You keep deciding to do this.

As to "acceptable" risk. To say that while bringing up rugby, which is dealing with it's own reckoning based on concussions is incredibly ironic. The like of acceptable risk has always been arbitrary and continues to shift for a reason.


I brought up cis men specifically to point out that men's sports are no longer treated like a protected class, where athletes aren't allowed to compete based on something they cannot control about themselves. The days of a certain baseball league existing are done.

You separate men's and women's sports through gender. That is why it is men's and women's sports.

Why even bring up PEDs in a conversation involving trans athletes? This implies an obvious nefarious intent, and we are back to the hollowness of that apology again.


It's really not, while also failing to address the actual issue.


It's really not. Show up, play. Don't cheat, don't bet on the sport..


No, the IOC understands it. It is a question of what they deem an unfair physical advantage in sport, in comparison to the inhuman argument against a class of people. Victory is not a guarantee to anyone in sport. The vast, vast majority don't win. Being an Olympian is about representing your country at the Olympics.


How unique is Caster's situation in comparison to the amount of trans athletes compete in sport?

Having a rare biology is literally how being a superior athlete works, and having such an advantage in men's sports would never be considered unfair. Writing a bunch of words does not change that you are actually entertaining the argument that someone can be too naturally gifted to be in women's sport, even as they are a cis gender woman. What a poor view of women's sport.


Why is it concerning? Because the trans athlete win on occasion?

Fairness to competition is the right to show up and compete, not win. 99.9% of athletes do not win. Why is it an issue when someone loses to a trans athletes?


The, "I have black friends" defense means nothing to me. Actually it does, just not in the way you intended. Especially when you hit us with the, "to anyone who was offended" non-apology BS.


No, of course sports isn't that. Because trans people are valid and are who they are. Admission into the sport isn't an attempt to validate, it is about having the right compete like anyone else. This is no different then the situation with the separation of black people from MLB. Them playing in the league wasn't an attempt to seek validation of being a human being like their white counterparts. It is because it was their right to do it.

The bit you said you agree with, is just more transphobia, because it displays even the question that trans people might have to do that.


I have had discussions with people who can. You clearly cannot. Beyond the not so subtle parts before your finale, you decided to spend the end of your post justifying not only your use of a transphobic statement, but you had to make it clear you still think it was right. So just like the start of your post, you make it clear that you weren't really wrong, that you aren't actually sorry, it just wasn't phased in an acceptable manner. Not part of the statement was transphobic. The whole thing was.

You also do not consider the obvious issues with this. Maybe you're just stubborn, maybe it is something else, but it doesn't really matter. The reason you don't use bigots and make no mistake, Nicola Williams is a bigot, is because anything they state comes with the obvious bias of being a bigot. This would be like taking the argument of a racists white person for why getting rid of segregated schools and water fountain. Maybe the use of skin color will make this breach your thought process, though at this point I doubt it.

Well it appears we are at an impasse then.

That apology was sincere, and I have actually thought about what you said, and tried to see things from your point of view- and not abused you or accused you of anything. That's the first time I've been accused of being "nefarious", not sure what to make of that.

Anyway, if you can't extend the same courtesy then we have nothing further to talk about.

Good luck to you Sir.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Well it appears we are at an impasse then.

That apology was sincere, and I have actually thought about what you said, and tried to see things from your point of view- and not abused you or accused you of anything. That's the first time I've been accused of being "nefarious", not sure what to make of that.

Anyway, if you can't extend the same courtesy then we have nothing further to talk about.

Good luck to you Sir.

I do not extend such courtesy to those that double down their support for bigoted statements, especially after they have already been told what the issue is.

Also, the only time "nefarious" came up was in reference to the intent being applied to trans athletes. You implied nefarious intent to trans atheletes by comparing the fairness of them competing to drug cheats.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Get it, girl!

Laurel Hubbard: New Zealand weightlifter to become first transgender athlete at Olympic Games - CNN

 

[Dr.]

Get it, girl!

Laurel Hubbard: New Zealand weightlifter to become first transgender athlete at Olympic Games - CNN

Controversial from some quarters (as noted in the article). But she meets the IOC criterion:

"...allowing any transgender athlete to compete as a woman provided their testosterone levels are below 10 nanomoles per liter for at least 12 months before their first competition."

 

[NHawk19]

It is almost getting to the point where we'll need Men's, Women's, and Open class to deal with this. Honestly I'm curious to see the results an Open Class, maybe even an Enhanced Open including PEDs would yield. It really would be the best way to gather data on the subject in an open and honest manner. By no means am I saying that trans athletes are transitioning as a way of using this as a PED. I'm just addressing the unintended side effects these therapies and prior development may cause as a result of them trying to live their best lives.

She has the levels currently, which is fine, but biologically she has still benefited from going through development as a male. Also, this is not a skill based sport like shooting, archery, or curling. It is based on training, biology, and physiology. It comes down to whether or not you consider her prior development to be similar in effect to PED's. The sports world has gone to great lengths to limit them, and determine the height of human development and achievement in sports though some go further than others.

Another question we have to answer is what happens if a biological woman has testosterone levels above those limits naturally? Do they have to use PED's to effectively put a restrictor plate on? Similarly if a Trans Male uses testosterone in their treatment. Is there now an upper limit? Is that hormone therapy considered a supplement similar to a PED for their weight class?

Certainly a complex issue. Honestly though I'm of the opinion you offer Men's, Women's, and Open to address the issue and have people compete in their weight classes the same as you would before. Only you may have a few more at the top and bottom to even it out.

Even in more skill based sports having the 3 classes could answer some other interesting questions. Is the best whatever in the world Male? Female? Trans? Cisgender?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It is almost getting to the point where we'll need Men's, Women's, and Open class to deal with this. Honestly I'm curious to see the results an Open Class, maybe even an Enhanced Open including PEDs would yield. It really would be the best way to gather data on the subject in an open and honest manner. By no means am I saying that trans athletes are transitioning as a way of using this as a PED. I'm just addressing the unintended side effects these therapies and prior development may cause as a result of them trying to live their best lives.

She has the levels currently, which is fine, but biologically she has still benefited from going through development as a male. Also, this is not a skill based sport like shooting, archery, or curling. It is based on training, biology, and physiology. It comes down to whether or not you consider her prior development to be similar in effect to PED's. The sports world has gone to great lengths to limit them, and determine the height of human development and achievement in sports though some go further than others.

Another question we have to answer is what happens if a biological woman has testosterone levels above those limits naturally? Do they have to use PED's to effectively put a restrictor plate on? Similarly if a Trans Male uses testosterone in their treatment. Is there now an upper limit? Is that hormone therapy considered a supplement similar to a PED for their weight class?

Certainly a complex issue. Honestly though I'm of the opinion you offer Men's, Women's, and Open to address the issue and have people compete in their weight classes the same as you would before. Only you may have a few more at the top and bottom to even it out.

Even in more skill based sports having the 3 classes could answer some other interesting questions. Is the best whatever in the world Male? Female? Trans? Cisgender?

Why, because one trans athlete made it to the Olympics?

Unless you are bigot, there is no reason to consider living your life to be similar to blatant cheating of PED use.

As to your question on csigender women, we have already seen that issue with Caster Semenya. They literally ran her out of her event.

 

[NHawk19]

Why, because one trans athlete made it to the Olympics?

Unless you are bigot, there is no reason to consider living your life to be similar to blatant cheating of PED use.

As to your question on csigender women, we have already seen that issue with Caster Semenya. They literally ran her out of her event.

Partly yes. However trans athletes and their participation in sports is becoming more common, and it's not going to go away. More and more people are choosing to live their best lives rather than hide. I commend them for that. Regulatory authorities need to get out in front of it to communicate expectations to everyone. People adjusting to trans participation in these things hasn't and isn't going to be like flipping a switch. It's going to continue to take time for everyone to find a system that works.

As for the PED comment. Both PEDs and the Trans therapies are designed to use chemicals to alter the human body physically in ways that are inconsistent with how a body would have otherwise developed without them. That's why there's a comparison. Granted PEDs as a term spark the notion of cheating, and as I said before I'm not suggesting that by transitioning and participating in sports that they are intentionally cheating. Rather there is still a question of whether the introduction of that chemical at a specific time in their lives, after a certain period of development in a different manner, provides a competitive advantage when compared to someone who used no chemicals to alter their development. Also the regulation of PEDs could be used as a guide for determining what is and is not acceptable in terms of body chemistry prior to competition. The programs are in place they just need to be adapted to reflect transition drugs and body chemistry, and quite frankly based on that article indicating that "testosterone levels are below 10 nanomoles per liter for at least 12 months before their first competition." it may already have been.

Well that sucks for Caster Semenya and sports because it's not a fair representation of what a person can achieve.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Partly yes. However trans athletes and their participation in sports is becoming more common, and it's not going to go away. More and more people are choosing to live their best lives rather than hide. I commend them for that. Regulatory authorities need to get out in front of it to communicate expectations to everyone. People adjusting to trans participation in these things hasn't and isn't going to be like flipping a switch. It's going to continue to take time for everyone to find a system that works.

What expectations need to be communicated or changed, for a group of people who make up a tiny fraction of athletes across the globe? That trans athletes shouldn't be allowed to compete with everyone else?

As for the PED comment. Both PEDs and the Trans therapies are designed to use chemicals to alter the human body physically in ways that are inconsistent with how a body would have otherwise developed without them. That's why there's a comparison. Granted PEDs as a term spark the notion of cheating, and as I said before I'm not suggesting that by transitioning and participating in sports that they are intentionally cheating. Rather there is still a question of whether the introduction of that chemical at a specific time in their lives, after a certain period of development in a different manner, provides a competitive advantage when compared to someone who used no chemicals to alter their development. Also the regulation of PEDs could be used as a guide for determining what is and is not acceptable in terms of body chemistry prior to competition. The programs are in place they just need to be adapted to reflect transition drugs and body chemistry, and quite frankly based on that article indicating that "testosterone levels are below 10 nanomoles per liter for at least 12 months before their first competition." it may already have been.

They aren't "intentionally cheatings". So they are cheating "unintentionally".

You are talking about PEDs in the manner of someone who have very little knowledge of them. Same with HRT.

PEDs are specifically used to cheat. There is no getting around it. They are performance enhancing drugs. HRT treatment in trans women athletes who are forced to do it to compete lowers performance in general. PEDs are done for nefarious means. Any comparison is ridiculous and rather gross. Just like the idea that a trans woman athlete would be cheating unintentionally by simply competing.

Well that sucks for Caster Semenya and sports because it's not a fair representation of what a person can achieve.

This comes with the ridiculous policing of athletes who aren't cheating.