Transgender

[ShanDog]

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 well-mannered adults when discussing it, PARTICULARLY when disagreeing. This equally applies across the whole site.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

Yes, i gathered that.

 

[owen87]

A good summary.

The only thing I take issue with is your comparison between the men's and women's WR and extrapolating that across post puberty testosterone blocking trans athletes, because of necessity their performance is more likely to be in line with female gender achievement, and well below cis men.

I've also added a study to the OP, which features further discussion.

My point was that when comparing elite athletes who (presumably) are representative of similar levels of talent, development and training, the gap between men and women is 2-3 times larger than the gap between African and non-African runners.

So whilst there is a very real argument that if you're not of East African descent you'll never win a major marathon no matter how hard you work, the gap is significantly smaller than it is between biological men and biological women. Assuming my maths is right it's ~ 4.5% between a 2:01 and a 2:06 where you see the top-end non-Africans, and ~ 11% (2:01 vs 2:14) between Men and Women's times, of which that 2:14 is an absolute outlier of a record. I think 13% was the sex performance gap measured in the athletics studies from memory?

Paula Radcliffe's 2:15 was from memory the biggest outlier of any sporting world record already, so to lower than is something incredibly special (or erm, chemically aided).

There's a few confounding factors that apply to swimming as distinct from running as well, perhaps there is a real argument that the male skeletal structure post-puberty is an insurmountable performance advantage even when testosterone is reduced, but without them releasing the data we really don't know.

 

[Gethelred]

Yes, i gathered that.

Well? Are you done or aren't you?

If not, I redirect you to the questions you are unable/unwilling to contemplate:

But that's the thing; you've not enunciated an argument. You've not demonstrated anything resembling an opposing point of view. I cannot agree to disagree, because you've not actually disagreed. You've spent this entire conversation running away.

Just to help you, these are the questions I'd like an answer to, if we're to agree to disagree:

 

[ShanDog]

I think sport's priority for fairness should be subsumed by society's need to be inclusive whenever they come into conflict.

This seems to be the only statement that I find questionable. It's a nice sentiment, but any blanket 'rule' will always bring about unforeseen issues, and is no guarantee that the result will be the most ethical or moral outcome - even when it's a nice sentiment like yours there.

Bringing things back, if the rule segregating marathon running is a racist policy but a rule segregating post-puberty trans from competing within their gender isn't transphobic, why is that so?

It may well be transphobic. However, that's not a reason to automatically abandon it. Even if I accept the argument that it is transphobic on face value, it's still a value judgement to be made. It sounds ridiculous to say that but we discriminate all the time and in all facets of society. It's a necessary function for anything of any complexity to have any order or system to it. So as you said, the sports can choose where they draw their lines, and even if those lines come at the expense of trans inclusion for reasons that they believe are ethically and morally justified, then we might have to live with the fact that the rules are in some part or wholly transphobic.

No doubt that each sport will have different considerations, as they are all unique. As an example, I was chatting to a friend about this yesterday and we were running through many of the popular sports as a thought experiment and making judgements about whether there should be any restriction, and I actually found myself not really being able to justify banning transwomen in AFLW. Given the nature of the sport requiring players of all different sizes and athletic profiles, it stands to reason that there should not be any sex-based segregation. I'd put one caveat on that - if it could be determined with reasonable confidence that the retained physiological differences in transwomen (increased mass, bone density etc) increased the risk of injury to cis women, then perhaps there would be a case to argue. However, I just can't see that being possible to quantify.

To me, the AFLW example is one where you can justify not banning trans women from competing in the female comp. However, given the individual competitive nature of swimming and the extreme reliance on physiological capability, I can understand why swimming has drawn the line where they have. As you said, each sport needs to draw the line somewhere.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

Well? Are you done or aren't you?

If not, I redirect you to the questions you are unable/unwilling to contemplate:

I'm done with my conversation with you specifically. Thanks

 

[Gethelred]

This seems to be the only statement that I find questionable. It's a nice sentiment, but any blanket 'rule' will always bring about unforeseen issues, and is no guarantee that the result will be the most ethical or moral outcome - even when it's a nice sentiment like yours there.

Oh, don't get me wrong; absolutes are absolutely dumb. No rule should be so inflexible it has no scenario in which it cannot/should not be broken should the consequences be injustice/worse overall.

Having said that, the fact that sport is an entertainment phenomenon and not a life/death thing - well, anymore - should mitigate the issue some.

If society has a need to provide inclusion, and sport stands in the way of that, it's sport that should be changed.

It may well be transphobic. However, that's not a reason to automatically abandon it. Even if I accept the argument that it is transphobic on face value, it's still a value judgement to be made. It sounds ridiculous to say that but we discriminate all the time and in all facets of society. It's a necessary function for anything of any complexity to have any order or system to it. So as you said, the sports can choose where they draw their lines, and even if those lines come at the expense of trans inclusion for reasons that they believe are ethically and morally justified, then we might have to live with the fact that the rules are in some part or wholly transphobic.

No doubt that each sport will have different considerations, as they are all unique. As an example, I was chatting to a friend about this yesterday and we were running through many of the popular sports as a thought experiment and making judgements about whether there should be any restriction, and I actually found myself not really being able to justify banning transwomen in AFLW. Given the nature of the sport requiring players of all different sizes and athletic profiles, it stands to reason that there should not be any sex-based segregation. I'd put one caveat on that - if it could be determined with reasonable confidence that the retained physiological differences in transwomen (increased mass, bone density etc) increased the risk of injury to cis women, then perhaps there would be a case to argue. However, I just can't see that being possible to quantify.

To me, the AFLW example is one where you can justify not banning trans women from competing in the female comp. However, given the individual competitive nature of swimming and the extreme reliance on physiological capability, I can understand why swimming has drawn the line where they have. As you said, each sport needs to draw the line somewhere.

You wield the notion that discrimination can be legal like a zweihander, as though it's not been acknowledged. We're quite obviously talking about legal discrimination, and whether this should be considered legal or illegal. As I said before, where do you draw the line?

This is what that question is intended to draw out.

If it's transphobic, then why is it allowed to stand? Either you value sport's right to fairness over a trans person or the community's right to be included. I do not see how the latter can be prioritized over the former.

 

[Gethelred]

I'm done with my conversation with you specifically. Thanks

It's fine to take your hands from your ears sometimes, you know. I'm not always standing behind you, waiting to inundate you with various realities for which you aren't ready.

Sometimes, it's just the sweet call of morning birds. Honest.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

FINA's ruling is about protecting the future of the sport, not just the now.

Here's a hypothetical:

Say you have a 6ft 6, 24 year old male swimmer in his prime who is determined to win medals at his pet event (50m and 100m freestyle). He constantly makes the final in World Championships and Olympics but realistically he will never win a medal because there are other competitors that are consistently better than him.

This individual happens to be of rather questionable character (take that human piece of garbage Pusey who recently claimed he is trans as an example) and decides that if he was to claim he is trans and go through the current hormone transitioning process in place, he could win those medals he always wanted competing against the women.

Now, the way society is these days, you could never dare question someone who says they are trans.

This athlete spends the next two years going through the hormone replacement process and returns to compete against the women with all the benefits that come with having been a 6ft 6 male that has gone through puberty and benefited from 12+ years of training as a male. Benefits such as longer arms and legs, bigger hands and feet, greater heart and lung capacity and greater muscle and bone density than what would be considered to be in the normal range for a biological female.

"She" goes on to smash all of the women's 50m and 100m records and at the end of her career, having won all the medals she wanted, goes to ground and privately ceases to continue with the transitioning process.

Is this something we could be comfortable with?

 

[Chief]

(take that human piece of garbage Pusey who recently claimed he is trans as an example)

You would have universal agreement here.

Now, the way society is these days, you could never dare question someone who says they are trans.

So why this /\ ?

 

[Better Loosen Up]

You would have universal agreement here.

So why this /\ ?

Certainly seems that way. Has Pusey been refused treatment?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Exactly, if FINA didn't do something womens events would become a joke. They are some of the best events in the Olympics we don't need to wreck them. The olive branch was given, start doing it before puberty and then you are welcome to compete at the elite level. We need to protect the elite sport, and FINA have despite the whinging from some parts. Least in the majority the vote went through and we have protected swimming. You'd assume all the other Olympic sports will follow suit.

 

[chopflop]

So trans men vs trans women then?

There is no such thing Gralin. It's men or women

 

[Chief]

Certainly seems that way. Has Pusey been refused treatment?

My point is, you claim that transitioning people could never be questioned. Therefore it's a real risk that a male could transition JUST for the sporting rewards.

In the same post you gave an example of a person who has been questioned, if not outright mocked, for his dishonesty in claiming to be trans.

Now, given the science is far from settled that a transitioning male retains a great deal of advantage, if any, after an extended period of transitioning, operations, hormone therapy etc, what does it matter if he's doing it for the rewards given that there is little to no advantage and so the rewards aren't likely to materialise?

 

[the_interloper]

Call me crazy but I'd be surprised if someone transitioned purely to win medals, maybe I'm naive.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

My point is, you claim that transitioning people could never be questioned. Therefore it's a real risk that a male could transition JUST for the sporting rewards.

In the same post you gave an example of a person who has been questioned, if not outright mocked, for his dishonesty in claiming to be trans.

Now, given the science is far from settled that a transitioning male retains a great deal of advantage, if any, after an extended period of transitioning, operations, hormone therapy etc, what does it matter if he's doing it for the rewards given that there is little to no advantage and so the rewards aren't likely to materialise?

We might be able to question it but who is ultimately going to say "sorry, we do not accept that you are trans"?

 

[Better Loosen Up]

Call me crazy but I'd be surprised if someone transitioned purely to win medals, maybe I'm naive.

I would be equally surprised but there's nothing to say it would never happen.

 

[Chief]

We might be able to question it but who is ultimately going to say "sorry, we do not accept that you are trans"?

What does it matter, in the end?

Your premise is that, no matter the post-transition period and treatment, they retain a definite advantage.

 

[owen87]

We might be able to question it but who is ultimately going to say "sorry, we do not accept that you are trans"?

I suppose conversely to that, if they've ticked all the required boxes by reducing testosterone levels for the requisite time-period along with all the side effects that entails, does it matter?

 

[Chief]

the gap between men and women is 2-3 times larger than the gap between African and non-African runners.

What does that have to do with trans women, though?

 

[Better Loosen Up]

My point is, you claim that transitioning people could never be questioned. Therefore it's a real risk that a male could transition JUST for the sporting rewards.

In the same post you gave an example of a person who has been questioned, if not outright mocked, for his dishonesty in claiming to be trans.

Now, given the science is far from settled that a transitioning male retains a great deal of advantage, if any, after an extended period of transitioning, operations, hormone therapy etc, what does it matter if he's doing it for the rewards given that there is little to no advantage and so the rewards aren't likely to materialise?

Does hormone replacement therapy shorten your arms and legs, decrease the size of your hands and feet, decrease the capacity of your lungs and heart that have developed during male puberty? These are all physical traits that are extremely beneficial when it comes to competitive swimming.

 

[owen87]

What does that have to do with trans women, though?

Was part of a reply in a chain following Gethelred's comment;

Would it be fairer to segment olympic marathon running to exclude Kenyans? Could people develop the same arguments used against Trans athletes to try to exclude Kenyans, or is that a racist policy?

Where does the line get drawn for you?

 

[the_interloper]

What does that have to do with trans women, though?

Yeah I've made a similar point earlier in the thread I believe.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Does hormone replacement therapy shorten your arms and legs, decrease the size of your hands and feet, decrease the capacity of your lungs and heart that have developed during male puberty? These are all physical traits that are extremely beneficial when it comes to competitive swimming.

That is why they have brought in before puberty rule which is a good thing, if they want it so much they have to do it before puberty so the advantages are not so obvious. Everyone should calm down a bit and wait for the new category which might I just say will run fine like every other swimming category.

 

[owen87]

That is why they have brought in before puberty rule which is a good thing, if they want it so much they have to do it before puberty so the advantages are not so obvious. Everyone should calm down a bit and wait for the new category which might I just say will run fine like every other swimming category.

But isn't this whole thing coming up because the swimming categories haven't been running just fine?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

But isn't this whole thing coming up because the swimming categories haven't been running just fine?

The women one had been compromised. It isn’t after this ruling. Everything else is running more than fine.