Trans women in sports

[Auroras In Ice]

Even if we take the advantage thing to be true (which is shaky and especially so among trans women who are on hormone therapies), that's kinda just how sports operate in general.

Notice a certain pattern of physiological advantage among basketball players that get them ahead? Hmmmm.

It's also the case in athletics that the top performers are often genetic freaks in some way that gives them big inborn physiological advantages over their competitors. A lot of competitive swimmers have abnormal lung capacity or bloodflow differences that allow their bodies to expend oxygen more efficiently. In other sports, abnormal fast-twitch/slow-twitch muscle fiber ratios give athletes big advantages. Biology is incredibly complex, and athletics is a combination of inborn physical advantage coupled with extensive training.

Speaking of training, funding goes a long way in producing top athletes. Women's sports receive far less funding and so the training is not the same quality as men's. This plays a role in the outcomes when you compare men and women athletes. Not to lay right in the chalk outline of stereotypes, but the Canadian women's Olympic hockey team is a source of national pride almost as much as the men's team. They have historically been vastly more well-funded and well-trained compared to women's teams across the globe. Check the performance in the games over the years. Beating their opponents by ridiculous margins like 21-0 (a 6-0 would normally be considered blowouts). In fact, some of the star women's team players actually train with the men (NHL level players) and one of our national heroes, Haley Wickenheiser, actually captained men's hockey teams across Europe. IIRC, she also helped train male players in many places, too. All this to point out that there's many other factors beyond raw physiological advantages that play into the performance differences between men and women in sports. You can't assume that the baseline performance that's immediately apparent between men and women is some reflection of a natural state. When given similar training, that gap can close significantly.

Oddly enough, amidst all of this trans hysteria and bickering over gender in sports, I've never once come across anyone bitching about Hayley Wickenheiser training with the men, training them, or heading men's teams. Even the hardened culture warrior defenders of women's sports in Canada have a blind eye to this and still hold her as a hero, Nor do I hear this culture-war bullshit directed at trans-men in sports. This entire discourse is centered around trans-women. This is because it has nothing to do with sports, biology, training, performance, or anything like that. It's all disingenuous fluff. It's about regulating and enforcing femininity.

[jimmy jazz]

That article was attempting to make that point, though. If you aren't then no issue.

However the bit you just highlighted is irrelevant and doesn't address what I posted above (and the one about having a higher percentage of fat mass, lower fat-free mass, and weaker handgrip strength compared to cisgender men isn't the point and is an unfair comparison, unless that's just a typo).

Muscle gained through male puberty is only one aspect of it, and decreasing it to the level of a cis woman in most cases isn't all cases, it has to be all cases or it wouldn't be fair.

I wasn't using doping as an argument against trans athletes BTW, I was using it as an example of how I would be better than I am now with an unfair advantage.

You can say that it's only become an issue since the anti-trans political movement began, which may be true in part but it may also be true that there are just more trans people now and more in sport so it was going to get addressed at some point.

[jimmy jazz]

Even if we take the advantage thing to be true (which is shaky and especially so among trans women who are on hormone therapies), that's kinda just how sports operate in general.

No it's whether it's fair or not.

[Auroras In Ice]

No it's whether it's fair or not.

My entire point is that there's very little that's "fair" in sports and those who excel in sports almost always have factors that give them significant advantages over their competition beyond their trained skills, whether they are biological or otherwise. Sex differences probably account for very little of those unfair biological advantages. Sports is dominated by outliers and exceptions, so even trying to pull the discourse to advantages and disadvantages based on averages makes no sense. This hyperfocus and hysteria surrounding trans-women specifically overlooks all of that. Considering trans people on the whole are a tiny portion of the population with a tiny portion of trans people who have any interest in sports let alone competing in them, we are talking a remarkably tiny number of people. All this fuss over that!? I've seen no evidence that there's actually been some massive increase of trans people in sports that is somehow separate from the large politically motivated relentless targeting of trans people in all aspects of their lives. It would be a hell of a coincidence if this apparently urgent "need" for trans people in sports to become a major topic of international discourse just so happened to align with the weaponization of transphobia.

Also, I was weighing into the general conversation topic with my thoughts, not necessarily as a direct rebuttal to you. This seems to be a pattern, so going forward if I am responding to you directly and specifically I will quote you just to keep things clear.

[Trollheart]

I think the thing is that it's cumulative. First you have trans people being accused of grooming children, then you have trans people being banned from bathrooms based on their assigned sex or their chosen one (they don't seem to be able to make up their minds), then trans people banned from participation in groups (I mean, come on! Policing private groups? What is this, Nazi Ge- sorry) and now they're being targeted - again - in sports, even though there are, count 'em, THIRTY trans people out of a population of many millions even taking part in sports, on all levels. It's just yet another thing, and I see it this way:

At the top of a mountain some transphobes gather. Discontented with how they're legally unable to hate trans people they kick some stones down the side. A small avalanche occurs, one trans woman is injured. Transphones see a light bulb over their heads. They wait till more trans women are on the hill, perhaps skiing, perhaps not, and make sure there are more of their own people at the top. They then dislodge the biggest rocks they can and the small avalanche becomes a much bigger one, injuring many more trans women and even killing some. Tranphobes exult, trans women ask why they're not welcome on the mountain, and what it is to these transphobes?

In essence, the transphobia avalanche that has started hurts only those at the bottom, who are of course trans women, while those at the top just keep making it worse and more serious.

So it's just another thing trans people have to deal with, and they're surely getting tired, and scared, of it, and wonder what's next: legislation to prevent trans people voting? It's not a slipperly slope - we're long past that. Now, it's a headlong plunge over the precipice, and all the guard rails have been removed, because transphobes don't see the need for them.

[jimmy jazz]

@Auroras In Ice do you think we should get rid of age categories, weight categories in contact sports and sex categories altogether? Categories make it as fair as possible. People can be different sizes and developments in age at youth level but the fairest way to have competition is to have age groups, weight divisions and sex categories. Also groups for disabilities. If you don't agree with getting rid of all categories then you're not being consistent.

Also as I mentioned before, whether it's 30 people or 30,000 people it doesn't matter. How many people do you think train to get into the Olympics? Millions? How many actually compete? Thousands. Ben Johnson won gold in the 100m, what you're saying is equivalent to arguing he should have been allowed to keep his medal because he's only one sprinter.

And OK re: quoting.

[Key]

No it's whether it's fair or not.

Fairness in sports? 

[Lexi of the Dawn]

Another excellent article on the subject that touches on some good points I've not seen brought up yet.

[Jwb]

Are we talking about trans kids here?

As said, there are going to be upset people whatever the rules are. If they only banned trans women who had gone through puberty as males, you'd have them saying its discriminatory. If they allow trans women to compete in women's sports, cis women say it's discriminatory and unfair on the cis women in those sports. If they ban trans women from women's sports we get this.

This has to be sorted out in the fairest way possible. Unfortunately it's just a really difficult problem to sort.

is it the fairest way possible,  though? Seems like the entire issue is framed around specifically protecting cis women from having to compete against trans women.  The question is always framed: should trans women be allowed to play in women's sports? It seems like the more basic question is, do they have the right to play sports at all?

Yes,  in the men's league,  right? But what if,  hypothetically,  they're not competitive in the men's league. Or let's say maybe they might face severe harassment,  which I don't know who could possibly doubt? Pretty much the same exact reason they created women's sports in the first place.  It's DEI to it's core.  We cared so much about women being able to compete,  that we made them a league. So a few gold medals go to trans women and you actually have to get dunked on from time to time.  Vs trans people are just iced out as a category from competing. Which is actually worse?

[jimmy jazz]

The first one is worse, because it then defeats the entire purpose of sport and the option to create a trans league is there just as it was to create leagues for cis women.

[Lexi of the Dawn]

The first one is worse, because it then defeats the entire purpose of sport and the option to create a trans league is there just as it was to create leagues for cis women.

Not actually an option considering how microscopically few trans women athletes there are. We're talking like, double digits in total, not even just per sport. In the US there are around 10 professional trans women athletes. There's probably not enough trans women football players in the UK for more than one team, let alone a league.

[jimmy jazz]

Not actually an option considering how microscopically few trans women athletes there are. We're talking like, double digits in total, not even just per sport. In the US there are around 10 professional trans women athletes. There's probably not enough trans women football players in the UK for more than one team, let alone a league.

It is an option, sport exists outside of professionalism. Amateur and semi pro would be a lot more. And at the moment there are comparatively small numbers,but with trans teams and leagues that would actually create more opportunities and more space.

[Trollheart]

Ah, then the question has to be asked: would you have advocated setting up black leagues back in the 1960s? Same argument, really, especially if you're talking about basketball, where black men and women seem to enjoy a clear advantage due to their height. If you start splitting up sports based on those sort of criteria, we'd never have had Thierry Henry or Paul McGrath playing in the Premier League, and the English game would definitely have suffered as a result. I don't feel that's a proper solution, and anyway, as pointed out - PROFESSIONALLY AND AMATEUR there are just 30 trans athletes in all of England, and 30 less in Scotland. Ever heard of a zero-a-side team?

[Jwb]

The first one is worse, because it then defeats the entire purpose of sport and the option to create a trans league is there just as it was to create leagues for cis women.

I don't think the numbers support the idea of a trans league.  Can you specify how it is that it defeats the purpose of the sport?

[jimmy jazz]

Ah, then the question has to be asked: would you have advocated setting up black leagues back in the 1960s? Same argument, really, especially if you're talking about basketball, where black men and women seem to enjoy a clear advantage due to their height. If you start splitting up sports based on those sort of criteria, we'd never have had Thierry Henry or Paul McGrath playing in the Premier League, and the English game would definitely have suffered as a result. I don't feel that's a proper solution, and anyway, as pointed out - PROFESSIONALLY AND AMATEUR there are just 30 trans athletes in all of England, and 30 less in Scotland. Ever heard of a zero-a-side team?

Eh? Henry and McGrath played in the men's systems. Its only the same argument if you want the trans women to play in the men's leagues. That's not what we're discussing.

There will be a lot more than 30 trans athletes in England. That number of 30 is ones who are registered with organisations or something along those lines. You cannot honestly believe there are only 30 people who play sports out of the entire trans population in England (hundreds of thousands of people).

I don't think the numbers support the idea of a trans league.  Can you specify how it is that it defeats the purpose of the sport?

Might not even necessarily need a league, could have a cup or another format. Plus trans people who don't currently play sport could take it up. It would create those spaces.

At every level other than having a kick about up the park, football is physical competition, if we're going to ignore that "a few gold medals go to trans women and you're going to get dunked from time to time" then it's no longer a competition, the integrity of it is gone and we're essentially running a rigged competition.