LGBTAIitp Part 60: Still Going Strong

[TaiLiu]

I saw that article as well. The title is misleading though, as only 2 of those actually involve records, and both are national. The rest are just a list of transwomen who won (or in some cases just qualified for) an event.

Honestly, if anything, it looks like transwomen are statistically underrepresented in athletic accomplishments.

Oh, is that so? I admit that I don't really know the different between records and winning an event.

Yeah, I think so, too. Though I don't have the stats to do the calculations. The whole uproar about trans women in sports is just transmisogyny and transphobia. Even if trans women were overrepresented in sports (and that's not the case)... Like, whatever. Good for trans women. It doesn't mean that it's unfair to cis women.

[Lissou]

Does anyone know what, if any, athletic records are held by transwomen?

It seems like I see an article every day calling for a ban in transpeople in sports because trans men are "shattering all the records" but if I follow up on any of the specifics they mention it is always something like "held a school record in a single event for a few months".

Obviously the whole thing is just a politicized scare tactic, but I am really curious what the actual truth is behind it?

Not many, I believe, if any. Not that this scare tactic isn't new. Some sports only decided to have a separate category for women after a woman won and the men got upset by it. One member of a minority winning an event (while other members of that mminority aren't performing nearly as well) then it being used to complain about unfair advantages is something that has happened before. Including with people with disabilities, if I recall there were talks about how a prostetic leg was an unfair advantage to a runner because it wouldn't get sore. Nevermind that it also didn't have calf muscles, among other things. People get very annoyed when they don't win despite their advantages.

Honestly, if anything, it looks like transwomen are statistically underrepresented in athletic accomplishments.

That is accurate

[Rynjin]

Even if trans women were overrepresented in sports (and that's not the case)... Like, whatever. Good for trans women. It doesn't mean that it's unfair to cis women.

Ehhh, no. If it was actually true, it would be an indicator that there WAS some kind of inherent advantage that trans women had. That would mean it would be very unfair to cis women. Cis women already get excluded from men's sports leagues*, getting excluded from women's sports leagues as well would not be a good thing.

The key words there would be "if it's actually true" though, which from what I recall the research appears to indicate is not the case, and in fact the opposite; trans women are on average less athletic than cis women. I'll have to see if I can find the study I read a couple of days ago to that effect.

Edit: I actually think it's the one posted right above me.

*By performance, in many cases, not by ruleset. Eg. the NBA does allow mixed gender teams, but it's extremely rare that a woman hits the performance metrics needed, especially since the game fundamentally changed in the 70s to favor taller players overwhelmingly. I think the last time a woman was in the NBA was the 60s.

[Talakeal]

Ehhh, no. If it was actually true, it would be an indicator that there WAS some kind of inherent advantage that trans women had. That would mean it would be very unfair to cis women. Cis women already get excluded from men's sports leagues*, getting excluded from women's sports leagues as well would not be a good thing.

The key words there would be "if it's actually true" though, which from what I recall the research appears to indicate is not the case, and in fact the opposite; trans women are on average less athletic than cis women. I'll have to see if I can find the study I read a couple of days ago to that effect.

Edit: I actually think it's the one posted right above me.

*By performance, in many cases, not by ruleset. Eg. the NBA does allow mixed gender teams, but it's extremely rare that a woman hits the performance metrics needed, especially since the game fundamentally changed in the 70s to favor taller players overwhelmingly. I think the last time a woman was in the NBA was the 60s.

That's a whole other can of worms that I personally don't envy anyone for having to figure out.

IMO there aren't enough transpeople for women being excluded to be a problem on a systemic level, if there were, then maybe there might be some merit to having separate trans / intersex divisions, but as is its just not feasible and, like most anti LGBTQ laws, just a solution in search of a problem.

Of course, on an individual level it's possible that a given trans person could get a spot over a given cis person. But is that really any more of a problem than say, a short cis person losing a spot on the team to a taller cis person?

[Rynjin]

That's a whole other can of worms that I personally don't envy anyone for having to figure out.

IMO there aren't enough transpeople for women being excluded to be a problem on a systemic level, if there were, then maybe there might be some merit to having separate trans / intersex divisions, but as is its just not feasible and, like most anti LGBTQ laws, just a solution in search of a problem.

Of course, on an individual level it's possible that a given trans person could get a spot over a given cis person. But is that really any more of a problem than say, a short cis person losing a spot on the team to a taller cis person?

This is true in the current case, absolutely. I was replying to the hypothetical scenario in which is was proven that transwomen DO overwhelmingly outperform cis women, and TaiLiu's assertion that this would not be unfair to cis women.

That doesn't appear to be the reality we live in, but if it were, it would be unfair, and that would need to be addressed.

Thankfully it currently looks like that is not actually the case and won't need to be solved for. As far as I can tell the general arguments about "bone structure" and the like giving an advantage to trans women are bunk, in that it might be vaguely true but ultimately still falls within the variances of female athletes in general; plenty of cis women in athletics have similar genetic advantages that improve their athleticism, because that's generally the theme with professional athletes. They often are, quite literally, "built differently" in a way that predisposes them to being exceptional at their chosen sport or activity in ways beyond what hard work and practice account for.

[Anonymouswizard]

IMO there aren't enough transpeople for women being excluded to be a problem on a systemic level, if there were, then maybe there might be some merit to having separate trans / intersex divisions, but as is its just not feasible and, like most anti LGBTQ laws, just a solution in search of a problem.

My issue with such a scenario is that women's sport already gets less funding and promotion than male sport, and a third category would get even less. Then again like with people arguing that we should have female and 'open' sport it's really an attempt at trans erasure dressed up as promoting fairness.

[TaiLiu]

Ehhh, no. If it was actually true, it would be an indicator that there WAS some kind of inherent advantage that trans women had. That would mean it would be very unfair to cis women. Cis women already get excluded from men's sports leagues*, getting excluded from women's sports leagues as well would not be a good thing.

The key words there would be "if it's actually true" though, which from what I recall the research appears to indicate is not the case, and in fact the opposite; trans women are on average less athletic than cis women. I'll have to see if I can find the study I read a couple of days ago to that effect.

*By performance, in many cases, not by ruleset. Eg. the NBA does allow mixed gender teams, but it's extremely rare that a woman hits the performance metrics needed, especially since the game fundamentally changed in the 70s to favor taller players overwhelmingly. I think the last time a woman was in the NBA was the 60s.

This is true in the current case, absolutely. I was replying to the hypothetical scenario in which is was proven that transwomen DO overwhelmingly outperform cis women, and TaiLiu's assertion that this would not be unfair to cis women.

That doesn't appear to be the reality we live in, but if it were, it would be unfair, and that would need to be addressed.

Thankfully it currently looks like that is not actually the case and won't need to be solved for. As far as I can tell the general arguments about "bone structure" and the like giving an advantage to trans women are bunk, in that it might be vaguely true but ultimately still falls within the variances of female athletes in general; plenty of cis women in athletics have similar genetic advantages that improve their athleticism, because that's generally the theme with professional athletes. They often are, quite literally, "built differently" in a way that predisposes them to being exceptional at their chosen sport or activity in ways beyond what hard work and practice account for.

I don't think so. If trans women were overrepresented in sports, it doesn't follow that they have some kind of inherent advantage. Other explanations include non-inherent advantages, like better training, or just sheer chance.

Even if there are physical advantages, it's not clear that this would be unfair. Basketball players are famously tall. Gymnasts are famously short. Height is unevenly distributed amongst the world population. Why would it be unfair for the average trans women to be taller (or have bigger bones or whatever) than the average cis women?

More generally, I think transphobes are wrong not only with their facts but also with their reasoning. Some people deny the former but tacitly accept the latter. But they both seem wrong to me. I don't understand it.

[Rynjin]

I don't think so. If trans women were overrepresented in sports, it doesn't follow that they have some kind of inherent advantage. Other explanations include non-inherent advantages, like better training, or just sheer chance.

This line of reasoning open up a whole different can of worms that really diminishes the efforts of cis women in sports, and I don't really want to have that discussion.

Even if there are physical advantages, it's not clear that this would be unfair. Basketball players are famously tall. Gymnasts are famously short. Height is unevenly distributed amongst the world population. Why would it be unfair for the average trans women to be taller (or have bigger bones or whatever) than the average cis women?

More generally, I think transphobes are wrong not only with their facts but also with their reasoning. Some people deny the former but tacitly accept the latter. But they both seem wrong to me. I don't understand it.

Why wouldn't it be unfair? If trans women were "genetically superior at sports", cis women would, again, be largely excluded from professional sports. Should cis women simply not be allowed to compete in sports? That seems to be the argument on paper here but I doubt that is your intended stance.

[TaiLiu]

This line of reasoning open up a whole different can of worms that really diminishes the efforts of cis women in sports, and I don't really want to have that discussion.

Sure, no problem.

Why wouldn't it be unfair? If trans women were "genetically superior at sports", cis women would, again, be largely excluded from professional sports. Should cis women simply not be allowed to compete in sports? That seems to be the argument on paper here but I doubt that is your intended stance.

I'll clarify my argument.

I think transphobes, at least the ones that bother, generally believe in something like the following:

1. If trans women have biological advantages over cis women, they should be banned from (women's) sports.
2. Trans women have biological advantages over cis women.
3. Therefore, trans women should be banned from (women's) sports.

Many people in favor of trans women in women's sports argue against premise 2 but agree with premise 1. I don't, partly cuz I'm ill-inclined to agree with transmisogynists and partly cuz it contradicts my own beliefs:

1. All women should be allowed in women's sports.
2. If all women should be allowed in women's sports, then it doesn't matter if some female athletes have biological advantages over some other female athletes.
3. Trans women are women.
4. Therefore, trans women should be allowed in women's sports.
5. Therefore, it doesn't matter if some female athletes have biological advantages over some other female athletes.

It's hard for me to understand how to get "cis women shouldn't be allowed to compete in sports" from this argument. Nor is it clear how cis women would be largely excluded from professional sports.

Hope this helps.

[BisectedBrioche]

I think, fundamentally, the entire thing stems from a mindset that the point of sport is specifically so one human above all can be the very best (like no one ever was).

The point of sport is...well...sport. You do it for sport.

The idea of excluding someone from playing sport because they have an unfair advantage is monstrous, not because the reasoning or facts are wrong (which is still very much the case, mind you), but because it's diminishing an entire area of the human experience in service of the very elite levels of competition.

It's like if all of human communication was altered to be in service of spelling bees.

[Anonymouswizard]

I thought the point of sport was to beat up the neighbouring village and punt an inflated pig's bladder through their cemetery's gate.

Or is that just football?

[Talakeal]

Not sure if I can give any examples without running afoul of the politics rule, but I can follow, even if I don't agree with, the logic.

It is a pretty common idea that people who choose to join a group are stealing spots / resources from people who "belong" in the group.

It's hard for me to understand how to get "cis women shouldn't be allowed to compete in sports" from this argument. Nor is it clear how cis women would be largely excluded from professional sports.

I think the idea is that the advantages of transwomen are so great that no ciswomen will be able to "make the team" in a manner similar to how no women are currently in the NBA, let alone actually win any titles / hold any records.

[Liquor Box]

Not many, I believe, if any. Not that this scare tactic isn't new. Some sports only decided to have a separate category for women after a woman won and the men got upset by it.

Which sports? Do you have a source for that?

On the contrary, in most sports there is no men's category at all, only an open category and a women's category - so women can compete with men if they are good enough. But given that they almost always aren't, there's a women's league so they can participate fairly. It's the same as age grades and other non-open grades.

I think, fundamentally, the entire thing stems from a mindset that the point of sport is specifically so one human above all can be the very best (like no one ever was).

The point of sport is...well...sport. You do it for sport.

The idea of excluding someone from playing sport because they have an unfair advantage is monstrous, not because the reasoning or facts are wrong (which is still very much the case, mind you), but because it's diminishing an entire area of the human experience in service of the very elite levels of competition.

Does anyone actually advocate excluding trans-women from sport, or just from women's sport?

It's hard for me to understand how to get "cis women shouldn't be allowed to compete in sports" from this argument. Nor is it clear how cis women would be largely excluded from professional sports.

I don't think the concern is that cis-women would be excluded from sports. As noted above, even if there was no women's league at all, they could still play in the same league as the men do with most sports.

Instead, I think the concern is that women's leagues were set up in recognition that men are on average much more physically capable than women, such that women would tend to perform poorly. This is largely to encourage women to participate (which they do more often when they don't feel that they are disadvantaged relative to those they are competing against), and also to allow recognition of outstanding female competitors (so that Serena Williams can be recognised as the best female tennis player in the world rather than forgotten as the 1000th best player in the world).

If (and I don't know the answer to this) trans-women were advantaged from their male heritage, it may undermine the above to some extent. If trans-woman are advantaged, solving the problem is trickier though.

[Talakeal]

Which sports? Do you have a source for that?

On the contrary, in most sports there is no men's category at all, only an open category and a women's category - so women can compete with men if they are good enough. But given that they almost always aren't, there's a women's league so they can participate fairly. It's the same as age grades and other non-open grades.

There was a long twitter thead about this recently, but I can't find it.

There is a history of women winning in sports (typically in events that require coordination or endurance over raw power, I remember shooting was one) and then the male athletes raising a stink until a separate women's division is created. It has happened on multiple occasions.

Of course, I don't foresee it happening in the sort of sports that are more appealing to the wider culture like Football because size and muscle mass are so important there.



In the USA girls can only play on men's teams if there is no female team. This is at the school level, at the professional level I am sure each league has their own individual policies. AFAICT the olympics is strictly divided by gender and a woman is not allowed to compete in the men's division, and some events are strictly male only.

Does anyone actually advocate excluding trans-women from sport, or just from women's sport?

I know in Texas transmen are required to play on the womens team.

AFAICT it typically starts as a push to ban transwomen from women's divisions.

Then, of course, that raises the question of transmen, intersex individuals, and people with outlying hormone levels, which leads to either outright bans or restricting people to special "intersex" leagues which lack the participation or funding to ever actually get off the ground.

The Olympics, for example, required ciswomen to be on medication to lower their testosterone levels if they get "too high".

[Liquor Box]

There was a long twitter thead about this recently, but I can't find it.

There is a history of women winning in sports (typically in events that require coordination or endurance over raw power, I remember shooting was one) and then the male athletes raising a stink until a separate women's division is created. It has happened on multiple occasions.

Of course, I don't foresee it happening in the sort of sports that are more appealing to the wider culture like Football because size and muscle mass are so important there.

That is very interesting, and I would be very pleased if someone could find a source, so I can read the specifics.

That surprises me, because in sports where men tend to not have any inherent advantages (for Olympic examples, shooting and equestrian) men and women compete together. Sometimes the men win and sometimes the women.

Even in endurance and skill events men tend to outclass women by such an extent that women winning seems unlikely. For example, the men's ironman record is about half an hour quicker than the women's.

In the USA girls can only play on men's teams if there is no female team. This is at the school level, at the professional level I am sure each league has their own individual policies. AFAICT the olympics is strictly divided by gender and a woman is not allowed to compete in the men's division, and some events are strictly male only.
I know in Texas transmen are required to play on the womens team.

AFAICT it typically starts as a push to ban transwomen from women's divisions.

At the professional level, quick google tells me women can play in the NBA (and in fact one has apparently), NFL,
NHL (again one has), MLB, the Tour de France (and they have). I wasn't able to find any sports where women weren't allowed to compete at the top level, although admittedly there may be some.

I find it odd that women (or transmen) are prohibited from competing in sports with men. I find that hard to agree with. I'd be interested in reading the rationale for it.

Then, of course, that raises the question of transmen, intersex individuals, and people with outlying hormone levels, which leads to either outright bans or restricting people to special "intersex" leagues which lack the participation or funding to ever actually get off the ground.

The Olympics, for example, required ciswomen to be on medication to lower their testosterone levels if they get "too high".

Indeed, it is a minefield. Caster Semenya being a very well known example.

[Talakeal]

That surprises me, because in sports where men tend to not have any inherent advantages (for Olympic examples, shooting and equestrian) men and women compete together. Sometimes the men win and sometimes the women.

I remember shooting was one specific example, and afaict the olympics are still split between male and female divisions.

I find it odd that women (or transmen) are prohibited from competing in sports with men. I find that hard to agree with. I'd be interested in reading the rationale for it.

Look up Mack Beggs in Texas.

I assume that is started as an attempt to keep transwomen out of women's sports with unintended consequences because nobody gave a thought to transmen's existence.

[BisectedBrioche]

Does anyone actually advocate excluding trans-women from sport, or just from women's sport?

The two are one and the same.

In a scenario where a trans person is "free" to play with members of their assigned gender at birth, but not their actual gender, they would basically have to out themselves as trans to do so.

Sidenote: Transgender and cisgender (and their abbreviations) are adjectives. No hyphen needed (also "transwoman/transman" with no space is often considered offensive).

[Rynjin]

I think, fundamentally, the entire thing stems from a mindset that the point of sport is specifically so one human above all can be the very best (like no one ever was).

The point of sport is...well...sport. You do it for sport.

The idea of excluding someone from playing sport because they have an unfair advantage is monstrous, not because the reasoning or facts are wrong (which is still very much the case, mind you), but because it's diminishing an entire area of the human experience in service of the very elite levels of competition.

Well, yes, but no. The point of professional, competitive sports IS to determine who's the best. That's why we have rules governing the sport. Rules MAKE the sport, because they strive to provide an even playing field. People get hurt otherwise.

General sports you're absolutely correct, but competitive sports very much not.

That's why the question "do trans women have an advantage in women's leagues?" is a valid question to ask. Because if the answer were "yes" further investigation would be needed to determine "how much", and then "what should be done about it?".

I do want to reiterate, again, that all evidence to the first question appears to point to "no", so thankfully the complicated aspects don't come into it. We can pretty definitively point and say that all attempts to exclude trans women from women's sports are discriminatory.

But asking the question in itself (in good faith) was not an issue.

The question of "what about trans women in sports" was never about sports in general, to be clear, but professional sports where the fairness matters. If you're just sporting for fun there's no issue in any case. There's no "diminishing the entire human experience for the very elite", it's defining parameters specifically for those elite levels of competition. What is fair, and what is not?

also "transwoman/transman" with no space is often considered offensive

Do you have any insight on why? I typically separate the trans out just because that's how I see it most commonly written, but being prefixes transwoman/ciswoman etc. should be the technically correct way of writing it. I'm guessing it has something to do with the perception of morphing the word (you are subtly saying "she is a transwoman" and not she is a trans woman), but this is the first time I've seen this sentiment expressed.

I think the idea is that the advantages of transwomen are so great that no ciswomen will be able to "make the team" in a manner similar to how no women are currently in the NBA, let alone actually win any titles / hold any records.

Correct, that's what I mean. In the hypothetical world where trans women are unilaterally superior at sports in the women's category, that would naturally exclude cis women from women's sports in the same way they are naturally excluded from men's/"open" sports currently.

[gomipile]

The question of "what about trans women in sports" was never about sports in general, to be clear, but professional sports where the fairness matters. If you're just sporting for fun there's no issue in any case. There's no "diminishing the entire human experience for the very elite", it's defining parameters specifically for those elite levels of competition. What is fair, and what is not?

Yesterday, a minute ago, are both part of "ever."

Your use of "was never about" is wrong in the context of your paragraph here. Trans athletes are being excluded from non-professional sports. That is, they are being excluded from sports where the sport is not the profession of the athletes, where the athletes are not paid, where the sport is not the job or occupation of the athletes. That's been happening up until today, and yesterday is part of the past. So, it is incorrect to imply that the trans sports debate was never about excluding trans people from non-professional sport.

Do you have any insight on why? I typically separate the trans out just because that's how I see it most commonly written, but being prefixes transwoman/ciswoman etc. should be the technically correct way of writing it. I'm guessing it has something to do with the perception of morphing the word (you are subtly saying "she is a transwoman" and not she is a trans woman), but this is the first time I've seen this sentiment expressed.

Does the "why" change much if the "how" is currently harmful? How "transwoman" is being used is harmful. If you haven't seen that, then pay closer attention, especially to the bigotry in the UK currently and in the past decade or so.

If you were dissatisfied as to the linguistic "why" explanations, would you still use the word despite the "how" of its use being harmful?

[BisectedBrioche]

Do you have any insight on why? I typically separate the trans out just because that's how I see it most commonly written, but being prefixes transwoman/ciswoman etc. should be the technically correct way of writing it. I'm guessing it has something to do with the perception of morphing the word (you are subtly saying "she is a transwoman" and not she is a trans woman), but this is the first time I've seen this sentiment expressed.

You've hit the nail on the head; it used to be innocuous, but certain people do indeed try to take a "she isn't a woman, she's a transwoman" line.

While trans- and cis- are indeed prefixes, in this case they're being used as shorthand for the words transgender and cisgender, not as the prefixes the words happen to use.

Yesterday, a minute ago, are both part of "ever."

Your use of "was never about" is wrong in the context of your paragraph here. Trans athletes are being excluded from non-professional sports. That is, they are being excluded from sports where the sport is not the profession of the athletes, where the athletes are not paid, where the sport is not the job or occupation of the athletes. That's been happening up until today, and yesterday is part of the past. So, it is incorrect to imply that the trans sports debate was never about excluding trans people from non-professional sport.

It's even worse than that; recently a trans woman competed in the London marathon. A running event where there is no competition; competitors either finish it or they don't, and are not in any way compared. She was sent death threats and harassed until she returned her certificate.

[Rynjin]

Does the "why" change much if the "how" is currently harmful?

It changes something on my personal end, because understanding is better than blind obedience and allows you to make extrapolations based on context and avoid similar language snafus and implications.

It doesn't change whether I will do [thing] but potentially changes whether or not I do [thing related to thing].

Yesterday, a minute ago, are both part of "ever."

Your use of "was never about" is wrong in the context of your paragraph here. Trans athletes are being excluded from non-professional sports. That is, they are being excluded from sports where the sport is not the profession of the athletes, where the athletes are not paid, where the sport is not the job or occupation of the athletes. That's been happening up until today, and yesterday is part of the past. So, it is incorrect to imply that the trans sports debate was never about excluding trans people from non-professional sport.

Apologies; my meaning was that the discussion TaiLiu and I were having in this thread was never about this.

[TaiLiu]

Not sure if I can give any examples without running afoul of the politics rule, but I can follow, even if I don't agree with, the logic.

It is a pretty common idea that people who choose to join a group are stealing spots / resources from people who "belong" in the group.

Sorry, I'm not sure what logic you're referring to.

I think the idea is that the advantages of transwomen are so great that no ciswomen will be able to "make the team" in a manner similar to how no women are currently in the NBA, let alone actually win any titles / hold any records.

Correct, that's what I mean. In the hypothetical world where trans women are unilaterally superior at sports in the women's category, that would naturally exclude cis women from women's sports in the same way they are naturally excluded from men's/"open" sports currently.

Oh, I see. I should clarify that I was referring to a vaguely plausible "biological advantage" for trans women. "Unilaterally superior at sports" is very different and especially implausible—sports cover a wide range of activities, and it would be strange for transness to somehow make someone better at them in general. So it feels like we're talking about different things.

Does anyone actually advocate excluding trans-women from sport, or just from women's sport?

The two are one and the same.

In a scenario where a trans person is "free" to play with members of their assigned gender at birth, but not their actual gender, they would basically have to out themselves as trans to do so.

Even if someone is out as trans, it's still an awful thing to make them do.

Sidenote: Transgender and cisgender (and their abbreviations) are adjectives. No hyphen needed (also "transwoman/transman" with no space is often considered offensive).

Do you have any insight on why? I typically separate the trans out just because that's how I see it most commonly written, but being prefixes transwoman/ciswoman etc. should be the technically correct way of writing it. I'm guessing it has something to do with the perception of morphing the word (you are subtly saying "she is a transwoman" and not she is a trans woman), but this is the first time I've seen this sentiment expressed.

Does the "why" change much if the "how" is currently harmful? How "transwoman" is being used is harmful. If you haven't seen that, then pay closer attention, especially to the bigotry in the UK currently and in the past decade or so.

If you were dissatisfied as to the linguistic "why" explanations, would you still use the word despite the "how" of its use being harmful?

You've hit the nail on the head; it used to be innocuous, but certain people do indeed try to take a "she isn't a woman, she's a transwoman" line.

While trans- and cis- are indeed prefixes, in this case they're being used as shorthand for the words transgender and cisgender, not as the prefixes the words happen to use.

Yeah, exactly. I see them as adjectives, not prefixes. So it doesn't make sense to connect them. Some trans people do connect the two words. I dislike it being applied to me, much like I dislike XtY terminology, and it can absolutely be used in a transphobic way. But it doesn't feel fundamentally wrong to me.

It's even worse than that; recently a trans woman competed in the London marathon. A running event where there is no competition; competitors either finish it or they don't, and are not in any way compared. She was sent death threats and harassed until she returned her certificate.

Wow. That's awful.

[Rynjin]

Oh, I see. I should clarify that I was referring to a vaguely plausible "biological advantage" for trans women. "Unilaterally superior at sports" is very different and especially implausible—sports cover a wide range of activities, and it would be strange for transness to somehow make someone better at them in general. So it feels like we're talking about different things.

Gotcha, we may have been. I was talking more to the hypothetical advantages that alarmists tend to try and assign to trans women, as "maintaining most of the advantages of being a man while presenting as a woman" or some such.

So in this hypothetical world where trans women lost zero muscle mass etc. post-transition, a trans woman and a cis woman of equal skill would be naturally "unequal". That dovetails into the idea that came up later that men are typically better suited to a lot of sports at the top level; football, basketball, wrestling, etc. There's an inherent physicality to a lot of these sports that creates a general imbalance.

It's an uncomfortable topic because it's a touchy one, and comes with baked in misconceptions that need to be addressed. Some deluded men will say "men are physically superior, no woman could beat a man at [sport]", which is where you get absurd things like 60% or whatever of men in a certain poll said they could take a game in a set off of Serena Williams, which is extremely silly.

But it's also worth noting that it is still a fact that women athletes in a lot of sports struggle to meet the same performance metrics as their male counterparts, hence the mostly segregated leagues.

It's easiest to judge this objectively in asynchronous sports, or however you'd like to call them. I dunno if there's a particular title. But sports where people are competing for a record rather than direct head-to-head competition. Stuff like sprinting, for example. The men's 100 meter dash record is 9.58 seconds, while the women's is 10.49, for instance. The latter has stood since 1988, and is equivalent to the men's record from 1911.

There's an inherent gap at the very highest levels that seemingly cannot be overcome by training and skill, and "the wall" for women athletes comes much sooner in a lot of sports. The exception is primarily "sports" which I'd classify more as skill-games; billiards, shooting, bowling, etc. which to my knowledge don't have any particular sex or gender-based gap in performance

So in the hypothetical world where trans women retained all or even a significant portion of that statistically-higher-on-average physicality, it would present issues with fairness.

[Liquor Box]

I remember shooting was one specific example, and afaict the olympics are still split between male and female divisions.

I stand corrected.

The two are one and the same.

In a scenario where a trans person is "free" to play with members of their assigned gender at birth, but not their actual gender, they would basically have to out themselves as trans to do so.

Sidenote: Transgender and cisgender (and their abbreviations) are adjectives. No hyphen needed (also "transwoman/transman" with no space is often considered offensive).

This isn't a complete exclusion because of course some people choose to be out and play sports (all the ones people talk about). But I accept your point that it does create a barrier and would probably reduce trans participation.

I do want to reiterate, again, that all evidence to the first question appears to point to "no", so thankfully the complicated aspects don't come into it. We can pretty definitively point and say that all attempts to exclude trans women from women's sports are discriminatory.

When you say this about the first question, what is the no in relation to? Is it in relation to trans women who have have complied with the standards sporting bodies put trans women to (such as having levels or testosterone below a specified level for x years prior to the event)? Or is it in relation to people who identify as women but have not physically transitioned from their male bodies? (correct me if I'm wrong, but either person would be considered a trans woman?)

If it's the former, than that suggests that sporting bodies have pretty much got it right.

It's even worse than that; recently a trans woman competed in the London marathon. A running event where there is no competition; competitors either finish it or they don't, and are not in any way compared. She was sent death threats and harassed until she returned her certificate.

Competitors in the London Marathon are indeed compared, and winning is very presitigious. Still awful that a person received death threats though.

[Anymage]

If it's the former, than that suggests that sporting bodies have pretty much got it right.

That's one of the big things that highlights how nonsense this all is. If actual sporting bodies wanted to discuss how they'd handle trans/intersex/etc folks that'd be one thing. (E.G: when in their life they started HRT, since early vs. late starts can have noticeable impacts on long term development.) Instead the discussion comes from people with no real standing, who jump right into broad brush essentialism, and who don't have a history of talking about fairness in sports when it isn't way to veil their transphobia.

Incidentally, I can't remember the last time I've ever seen someone playing the "but what about women's sports..." card who followed that up by arguing that trans women were still women who deserved to be seen as such in every other context. The fact that it always gets spun as "trans women are interlopers in women's spaces" instead of "this is a small case where a pressing interest overrides the general rule of treating people how they identify" is super telling, even if we were to grant that all trans women had an unfair advantage over cis women.

Competitors in the London Marathon are indeed compared, and winning is very presitigious. Still awful that a person received death threats though.

Almost 50,000 people finished the London marathon last year. By the time you get into triple digit placings, it's only prestigious insofar as you get bragging rights among friends. Even if the gal in question came in closer to the cis male average than the cis female average, I seriously doubt anybody would pay attention to a cis woman with an identical time

[BisectedBrioche]

Almost 50,000 people finished the London marathon last year. By the time you get into triple digit placings, it's only prestigious insofar as you get bragging rights among friends. Even if the gal in question came in closer to the cis male average than the cis female average, I seriously doubt anybody would pay attention to a cis woman with an identical time

And even then, the only thing that matters is individual times; there are no group competitions, so what gender a runner's classified is moot.

Side Note: Many trans men and women and nonbinary people compete in the London Marathon, and have done so for some time. The woman in question just happened to be visibly, and openly, trans and easily targeted.

[Liquor Box]

That's one of the big things that highlights how nonsense this all is. If actual sporting bodies wanted to discuss how they'd handle trans/intersex/etc folks that'd be one thing. (E.G: when in their life they started HRT, since early vs. late starts can have noticeable impacts on long term development.) Instead the discussion comes from people with no real standing, who jump right into broad brush essentialism, and who don't have a history of talking about fairness in sports when it isn't way to veil their transphobia.

Incidentally, I can't remember the last time I've ever seen someone playing the "but what about women's sports..." card who followed that up by arguing that trans women were still women who deserved to be seen as such in every other context. The fact that it always gets spun as "trans women are interlopers in women's spaces" instead of "this is a small case where a pressing interest overrides the general rule of treating people how they identify" is super telling, even if we were to grant that all trans women had an unfair advantage over cis women.

I mean every topic has uninformed people discussing it, and that is the hot topic in women's sports at the moment. If they are uninformed, surely it is best to point out their errors in their arguments, rather than make it about them as a person and their motives (which you can only ever guess at)?

Sporting bodies do discuss how they handle trans/intersex etc. Not publicly, but they do and it leads to the rules they have put in place. If those rules are working such that trans women don't have an advantage (as Rynjin seemed to say), then perhaps they have the rules right? What do you think?

Almost 50,000 people finished the London marathon last year. By the time you get into triple digit placings, it's only prestigious insofar as you get bragging rights among friends. Even if the gal in question came in closer to the cis male average than the cis female average, I seriously doubt anybody would pay attention to a cis woman with an identical time

Sure, I said I didn't think it was right to attack the runner like they did. It's for whoever runs the marathon to decide whether this person could compete as a woman. I just wanted to point out that it is competitive.

[Talakeal]

Sorry, I'm not sure what logic you're referring to.

Sorry if I am being vague, but again specific examples are likely to go against forum rules.

Immigrants. Vagrants / Nomads. Refugees. Religious converts. People who marry into a family / tribe. Heck, even people who transfer in from different schools, teams, or departments.

There is a human tendency to view these newcomers as outsiders who are not "really" part of the group they are joining and stealing space and or resources for the people who already "belong" to the group.

Obviously its not a universal, but it is a shockingly common viewpoint.

[Rynjin]

Sporting bodies do discuss how they handle trans/intersex etc. Not publicly, but they do and it leads to the rules they have put in place. If those rules are working such that trans women don't have an advantage (as Rynjin seemed to say), then perhaps they have the rules right? What do you think?

I think a little more research needs to be done, because I think the research that's out mostly seems to say that trans women are proportionally under-represented in sports, and typically perform at or below the cis woman average. It remains to be seen WHY exactly this is; it could be just a generalized demographical disinterest in sports making trans athletes (when they're allowed to compete at all) fairly rare, but I feel like the "good" - if you can call it that - part of the general trans outrage is that if a trans woman (or women) meeting the standards already set had been blowing out records, even as a one-off fluke, we'd hear about it.

Everything I know of so far is similar to the marathon story that's being discussed. The trans woman athlete has a showing that is maybe kinda on the upper end of the record for cis women (but merely average or even below average for a male) and people blow it out of proportion.

[Lissou]

Which sports? Do you have a source for that?

I don't remember all of them, but there has to be a list somewhere. It's something I know has happened although it's not necessarily common. There is an example that happened in my lifetime: Zhang Shan winning the gold medal in skeet shooting in 1992:

This event had been mixed, open to both men and women, since it was introduced to the olympics in 1968. Zhang Shan's 1992 gold was the first medal won by a woman in this mixed event. The International Shooting Union consequently barred women from the 1996 Atlanta games. For the 2000 Sydney games, the International Olympic committee allowed women again, but only in segregated competition.