Transgender

[Gralin]

Discussion continuing in Part 2 found here

Transgender - Part 2

Please be aware that the tolerance of anti-trans language on BF is at an all-time low. Jokes and insults that are trans-related, as well as anti-trans and bigoted rhetoric will be met with infractions, threadbans etc as required. It's a sensitive (and important) topic, so behave like...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Gralin]

Honestly does it matter if a trans woman who is meeting the requirements of the sport to compete is dominating?

All of the arguments used against trans women in sport could also be used, and have been used against cis women including intersex women in sport


and the measures they put in place always impact cis women as well, not just trans women so it never is just about one thing

 

[Chief]

Again, why is there a benchmark of 'dominating' the sport? This is why it's a motte and Bailey. The question of fairness (and safety) is not predicated on there being any domination.

In any case, I'll do your homework for you. Unfortunately it's actual work time now, so you'll have to be patient.

Safety - Where is the evidence trans women are less safe or other females are less safe on the field when trans women play? Something like injuries caused per unit of time playing would at least be a help. Injuries suffered by trans athletes? Any relationship to comparative size? Age?

 

[Bloods86]

I do appreciate someone making blanket statements about restrictions on X being concrete evidence that Y is a problem, then accuses others of hand-waving things away, in a thread where the same topics have been laboured over on repeat.

 

[ShanDog]

Safety - Where is the evidence trans women are less safe or other females are less safe on the field when trans women play? Something like injuries caused per unit of time playing would at least be a help. Injuries suffered by trans athletes? Any relationship to comparative size? Age?

I will look but am not aware of any major studies that have looked into this. You have to understand that all this is in its infancy, both as far as sample size and interest in study by academics. However, it seems like quite an obvious thing to say that - on average - men are larger, have denser muscle and bone mass, weigh more and have more power than women. All things being equal, rates of injury etc should reflect the same as what male and female intersex competition would produce, minus a % for the reduced strength and size etc a transwomen has. Of course there is the caveat that it isn't all quite as simple as that.

 

[ShanDog]

Honestly does it matter if a trans woman who is meeting the requirements of the sport to compete is dominating?

All of the arguments used against trans women in sport could also be used, and have been used against cis women including intersex women in sport


and the measures they put in place always impact cis women as well, not just trans women so it never is just about one thing

It matters if there's an unfair advantage that most people feel shouldn't exist. Yes, it's hard to quantify this. Doesn't mean the conversation shouldn't be hard.

Can you expand on your last two paragraphs? What do you mean by arguments against women and intersex? Is there an example you're thinking of? I'm unsure what you're referring to in your last.

 

[ShanDog]

I do appreciate someone making blanket statements about restrictions on X being concrete evidence that Y is a problem, then accuses others of hand-waving things away, in a thread where the same topics have been laboured over on repeat.

Except I'm pointing to actual evidence of things that are, in fact, things. I.e. you don't put limitations on trans levels of testosterone etc if you don't acknowledge there is in fact a physiological advantage that males who have gone through puberty have over females. So you can accuse me of hand-waving things away, but it's actually more akin to pointing towards something instead.

 

[Chief]

However, it seems like quite an obvious thing to say that - on average - men are larger, have denser muscle and bone mass, weigh more and have more power than women.

It's hard to make the argument with "it seems obvious" then say "men" when we are talking about trans women. kirsti and others have given us a lot of info on the effects of transitioning on physical size, muscle mass and so on.

I just haven't seen anything to back up the safety aspect. You would think with the billionaires backing the anti-trans fad that they would put some money towards actually studying this.

 

[ShanDog]

It's hard to make the argument with "it seems obvious" then say "men" when we are talking about trans women. kirsti and others have given us a lot of info on the effects of transitioning on physical size, muscle mass and so on.

I just haven't seen anything to back up the safety aspect. You would think with the billionaires backing the anti-trans fad that they would put some money towards actually studying this.

I am talking about men. The reference to trans women was the point that followed that.

 

[Chief]

I am talking about men. The reference to trans women was the point that followed that.

OK I am going to have to trace the thread back as I have missed some turn in the convo.

 

[Chief]

I skimmed a para but it doesn't really change much.

Nobody is saying men with zero transitioning should compete against women, are they?

 

[faible]

Honestly does it matter if a trans woman who is meeting the requirements of the sport to compete is dominating?

Well yes, if there was a systematic dominance (e.g. what would happen if you simply let men compete against women without any limitations) then it would suggest the requirements are inappropriate for mitigating the known biological gap(s) between performance.

There's a point where sport is about participation like at the community level, and there's a point where it's about performance like at the professional level. There's a grey area somewhere in the middle there where it's a bit of both, and there's a huge disparity between athletes capabilities at one end versus another.

There's also the issue that kirsti has raised many times where the requirements for transgender women to reduce their testosterone levels for performance mitigation purposes appears to reduce the levels to an unhealthily low level, that has other flow-on impacts on the long-term health of the athlete that really haven't been addressed.

 

[Gethelred]

I skimmed a para but it doesn't really change much.

Nobody is saying men with zero transitioning should compete against women, are they?

Think that's part of the problem; one side of this debate is pointing to a research void saying that trans women's participation in sport isn't studied with adequate depth, while the other is pointing at male's well established physical advantages over women and treating that as a valid extrapolation.

If someone wants to have that conversation - is the extrapolation of physical advantage between trans women and men valid scientifically - then have it. But until that conversation is had/settled, the argument goes in circles.

 

[ShanDog]

I skimmed a para but it doesn't really change much.

Nobody is saying men with zero transitioning should compete against women, are they?

No, of course not. Let me rephrase - in the absence of studies that look at injuries associated with transwomen playing contact sports against females, I think it would be reasonable to assume that the rate of injuries we could expect would be the same as what we'd see from biological males and females playing against each other, except reduced slightly to reflect the effects of cross-sex hormones etc after transition.

 

[Bloods86]

Except I'm pointing to actual evidence of things that are, in fact, things. I.e. you don't put limitations on trans levels of testosterone etc if you don't acknowledge there is in fact a physiological advantage that males who have gone through puberty have over females. So you can accuse me of hand-waving things away, but it's actually more akin to pointing towards something instead.

You've made blanket statements for all sports, assumed that all restrictions in place are credible, and not taken into account different sports, different effects of transitioning. Proclaimed it as concrete evidence, but at the signs of pushback, without offering much yourself, others are just hand-waving things away apparently. Even though this thread has been over the same things before.

 

[ShanDog]

You've made blanket statements for all sports, assumed that all restrictions in place are credible, and not taken into account different sports, different effects of transitioning. Proclaimed it as concrete evidence, but at the signs of pushback, without offering much yourself, others are just hand-waving things away apparently. Even though this thread has been over the same things before.

No, that's not it at all. I am merely pointing out that the requirement - in any shape or form - for governing bodies to place restrictions on transwomen is ipso facto evidence that females and transwomen have different physiological characteristics. Do you suggest otherwise?

Also, I couldn't give less of a shit if this thread has been over this ground before. It has zero bearing on the conversation right now. Feel free to ignore it if that grinds your gears.

 

[Gethelred]

No, of course not. Let me rephrase - in the absence of studies that look at injuries associated with transwomen playing contact sports against females, I think it would be reasonable to assume that the rate of injuries we could expect would be the same as what we'd see from biological males and females playing against each other, except reduced slightly to reflect the effects of cross-sex hormones etc after transition.

Why do you think that's a reasonable assumption? Do you have sufficient evidence to suggest the reduction in performance/power is only slight?

 

[ShanDog]

Why do you think that's a reasonable assumption? Do you have sufficient evidence to suggest the reduction in performance/power is only slight?

It's early (as is the theme for most of this stuff) but yes, I think there's enough evidence to say, right now, that the drugs and effects of post-puberty transition do not fully bridge the performance gap between men and women. They certainly don't reduce the size of a person enough to bring average sizes of men and women to parity either.

 

[Bloods86]

No, that's not it at all. I am merely pointing out that the requirement - in any shape or form - for governing bodies to place restrictions on transwomen is ipso facto evidence that females and transwomen have different physiological characteristics. Do you suggest otherwise?

Also, I couldn't give less of a s**t if this thread has been over this ground before. It has zero bearing on the conversation right now. Feel free to ignore it if that grinds your gears.

I'm critiquing your approach to the conversation as much as anything. You've made blanket claims. You've said some at least aren't taking things seriously, despite not putting much behind your claims, and not recognising past content, so how would you actually know?

 

[ShanDog]

I'm critiquing your approach to the conversation as much as anything. You've made blanket claims. You've said some at least aren't taking things seriously, despite not putting much behind your claims, and not recognising past content, so how would you actually know?

I'm not being dragged into making this conversation about me.

 

[Gethelred]

It's early (as is the theme for most of this stuff) but yes, I think there's enough evidence to say, right now, that the drugs and effects of post-puberty transition do not fully bridge the performance gap between men and women. They certainly don't reduce the size of a person enough to bring average sizes of men and women to parity either.

Assuming you're correct for the sake of argument and testosterone blockers and having undergone the process of transitioning doesn't allow a person to fully bridge the performance gap without demonstrating precisely where trans performances sits - beyond somewhere between the two - how does that translate to you being able to assume males vs females sport is a valid apples-to-apples comparison to trans women vs woman to the point of exclusion?

 

[ShanDog]

If testosterone blockers and having undergone the process of transitioning doesn't allow a person to fully bridge the performance gap, but without demonstrating precisely where trans performances sits - beyond somewhere in the middle - how does that translate to you being able to assume males vs females sport is a valid apples-to-apples comparison to trans women vs woman to the point of exclusion?

I'm making a prediction with the available evidence at hand. Hypothesising. And yes, it's quite simplistic, but I'm saying that:

(Rate of injuries in women's sport with trans women playing) = (rate of injury in men's vs women's sport) - (proportional performance reduction rate post-transition).

It's obviously not that simple since physics still applies and a - for example - 85kg person colliding with a 65kg person is still going to transfer a significantly greater amount of kinetic energy than the other way around regardless of whether they have taken cross sex hormones.

 

[Chief]

The assumption there is that trans women will usually outweigh cis women in the same sport?

I don't see that the assumption is supported by evidence. Unless you assume that transitioning has negligible effect? We know it has large effects.

I'm in no way up on the stats off the top of my head and I'll leave it to others to produce what is out there, but I can't recall having seen any of it.

 

[Gralin]

It matters if there's an unfair advantage that most people feel shouldn't exist.

that isn't what I asked though, you're assuming an unfair advantage based on physical traits, but that's how all sport works for all competitors to begin with

Yes, it's hard to quantify this. Doesn't mean the conversation shouldn't be hard.

you shouldn't start from the point you are if you can't quantify it though
you're saying men > women therefor trans women > cis women

its a really broad statement that isn't apples for apples

Can you expand on your last two paragraphs? What do you mean by arguments against women and intersex? Is there an example you're thinking of? I'm unsure what you're referring to in your last.

there are many examples, some of which have been covered previously in this thread, I'll try and dig up some stuff around the historical treatment of intersex women in sports and how it impacts all women in sport in negative ways without being based in science

but briefly, genital inspections have a long bad history in womens sports already without the latest push for exlcuding trans women from sports which will just lead to more of this sort of stuff

 

[Gethelred]

I'm making a prediction with the available evidence at hand. Hypothesising. And yes, it's quite simplistic, but I'm saying that:

(Rate of injuries in women's sport with trans women playing) = (rate of injury in men's vs women's sport) - (proportional performance reduction rate post-transition).

It's obviously not that simple since physics still applies and a - for example - 85kg person colliding with a 65kg person is still going to transfer a significantly greater amount of kinetic energy than the other way around regardless of whether they have taken cross sex hormones.

We've had the next argument before - certain team sports like AFL have massive size/weight/power/speed/endurance differences between athletes within single sex competitions, how does a trans athlete which falls within the benchmarks set by other female athletes consititute a safety concern in those sports a statistically anomolous female doesn't? - so suffice to say, I genuinely think waiting until the stats are available is the only real way to ensure we are not being prejudiced.

 

[ShanDog]

that isn't what I asked though, you're assuming an unfair advantage based on physical traits, but that's how all sport works for all competitors to begin with



you shouldn't start from the point you are if you can't quantify it though
you're saying men > women therefor trans women > cis women

its a really broad statement that isn't apples for apples

there are many examples, some of which have been covered previously in this thread, I'll try and dig up some stuff around the historical treatment of intersex women in sports and how it impacts all women in sport in negative ways without being based in science

but briefly, genital inspections have a long bad history in womens sports already without the latest push for exlcuding trans women from sports which will just lead to more of this sort of stuff

We've had the next argument before - certain team sports like AFL have massive size/weight/power/speed/endurance differences between athletes within single sex competitions, how does a trans athlete which falls within the benchmarks set by other female athletes consititute a safety concern in those sports a statistically anomolous female doesn't? - so suffice to say, I genuinely think waiting until the stats are available is the only real way to ensure we are not being prejudiced.

I'll answer both here since they are contain roughly the same talking points.

I am well aware that AFL is an example of a sport where there are people of all different sizes. I think AFL would actually be one sport where transwomen could compete at the highest levels fairly since there is such a range of body shapes and sizes that play which come with their own advantages and disadvantages. However, there are many sports out there which do not. In those sports, absolute physical ability is the predictor of success, and in that regard, transwomen will generally have an advantage over cis women pound-for-pound or whatever other way you want to put it.

There is no legitimate argument that says 'Sports inherently contains people with physical advantages over others, so why does it matter?'. That's childish. If you think that way, then we should be removing any sex or gender-based segregation from sport altogether. That's your logical endpoint. And if that were to happen, good luck to all the women out there because we'd barely ever see them in the sporting stage again. Tennis, swimming, athletics, cycling, American football, Australian football, soccer, hockey, MMA... none of them would have a single female playing at anywhere near the top level. No more role models for your daughters, sisters etc to look up to in sport. It's not sexist to point this out, it's reality. That reality is why sex-segregated sport exists, and frankly I find it embarrassing that people are so happy to see females pushed out of the picture.

I don't understand why some people think we should go full steam ahead while we wait for stronger medical evidence on the performance gaps. You don't drive full speed at a brick wall in order to test your new brake pads.