Caitlyn Jenner says transgender girls in women’s sports is ‘unfair’

[Subduction Zone]

So you admit it's unfair unless they are started early on hormone treatments.

It would appear to be that way. And though unlikely with the money involved in pro sports there is a chance that a guy could falsely claim to be transgender. This topic could adversely affect woman's sports. A proposed option would be to get rid of gender altogether in sports, but I do not see that as a solution at all. There would be very few sports that women would excel at. It would spell the death of women's athletics.

 

[Augustus]

That's not the first time I heard this, but so far I haven't seen anybody back up that claim with supporting evidence.

From world champions to humbling defeat against Under 15s side... World Cup-winning USA women's team suffer 5-2 loss against Dallas academy boys

USA women's team suffer 5-2 loss to FC Dallas' U-15 boys | Daily Mail Online



World record 100m for u14 boys = 10.4s

INTERNATIONAL AGE RECORDS

World record for women 100m = 10.49s And that was by a ludicrously doped up Florence Griffiths Joyner in the golden age of Cold War steroid abuse. The next best is 10.64 (probably doped too) which only just beats the under 13 boys WR of 10.69.

The fastest undoped women's time is likely slower than that of a 13 year old boy.

Now you see the difference?

 

[Heyo]

I've never heard of anything disqualifying other than doping (or being trans) for advantage. Do you know what sort disqualifying biological advantage there is?

High testosterone levels. They can be natural or a late result of doping. There are more but this I remember off the top of my head.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From world champions to humbling defeat against Under 15s side... World Cup-winning USA women's team suffer 5-2 loss against Dallas academy boys

USA women's team suffer 5-2 loss to FC Dallas' U-15 boys | Daily Mail Online



World record 100m for u14 boys = 10.4s

INTERNATIONAL AGE RECORDS

World record for women 100m = 10.49s And that was by a ludicrously doped up Florence Griffiths Joyner in the golden age of Cold War steroid abuse. The next best is 10.64 (probably doped too) which only just beats the under 13 boys WR of 10.69.

The fastest undoped women's time is likely slower than that of a 13 year old boy.

Now you see the difference?

And let's not forget. Big money is a big part of sports. I don't think that boys are very likely to say that they are trans just to see naked girls, but wave a few million dollars in their face and it is a totally different motivation.

Now I will admit that there are many genuine transwomen that were not able to get hormone blocking medicine at the critical time in their life. I am not sure on how to treat them fairly. No matter what some people are going to be hurt. I would go for the solution that hurt the fewest people and unfortunately that is going to mean banning transwomen that did not go through hormone blocking drugs.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Many sports associations ban women based on testosterone levels in their blood, presumably because they believe testosterone confers an unfair advantage.

Wonder if I would have been banned as a woman with high T.
Certainly not in school sports. They really wanted me for women's wrestling.

 

[Kooky]

From world champions to humbling defeat against Under 15s side... World Cup-winning USA women's team suffer 5-2 loss against Dallas academy boys

USA women's team suffer 5-2 loss to FC Dallas' U-15 boys | Daily Mail Online



World record 100m for u14 boys = 10.4s

INTERNATIONAL AGE RECORDS

World record for women 100m = 10.49s And that was by a ludicrously doped up Florence Griffiths Joyner in the golden age of Cold War steroid abuse. The next best is 10.64 (probably doped too) which only just beats the under 13 boys WR of 10.69.

The fastest undoped women's time is likely slower than that of a 13 year old boy.

Now you see the difference?

Perhaps I phrased my question poorly. I didn't want evidence for women losing to men, I wanted evidence to support that this is in fact the reason why gender divisons exist in most sports.

Of course the division makes sense if we assume that any woman would be athletically inferior to men.

 

[Augustus]

Many sports associations ban women based on testosterone levels in their blood, presumably because they believe testosterone confers an unfair advantage.

If you are interested on T difference among females/males and T differences between them:

https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/1372928761109352456

Here’s another example of an extremely poor reading of a concept related to testosterone and male sports advantages. Here a scientist takes the admittedly poor research by World Athletics to conclude that T is not driving most (or all) the male advantage. This is wrong because...

...the necessary comparison here, the crux of the issue, is not whether some females WITHIN the female category have advantages, but the male vs female advantage. As such, trying to find a relationship between T & performance WITHIN men or women is pointless and irrelevant to...
....the discussion. The question is whether the T difference BETWEEN men and women (and specifically, the androgenization driven by T) explains performance differences BETWEEN men and women. And it does. Aside from this, whoever makes this error should be ashamed of their lack of
...insight and application, because the failure to find an association between T & performance WITHIN men or WITHIN women is obvious. That’s because they’re homogenous groups with respect to T’s effects. Women don’t have it, men do. So it behaves like height in the NBA or VO2max
...in elite marathon runners. Neither predicts performance within that narrow, elite group. Why? Because they all already have the attribute. It got them through door, but once “inside” there are many other factors that matter. Only a fool would dismiss the role of the attribute
Aside from this, the expert in that original article makes two more poor errors in only two sentences. First he invokes the “trans athletes aren’t winning everything” argument to suggest no advantage. So poor. Advantage is relative to self, not others. Just like a cyclist with a
...motor wouldn’t always win a bike race, or a doper doesn’t always win a marathon. Their failure doesn’t mean motors and doping don’t provide advantages. The outcome says more about the starting level of the athlete with the advantage than it does about the size of the advantage
And then the final error is the one that says “every sport requires different talents and anatomies for success”. This is perhaps the stupidest assertion of the three. Has this expert not realized that in every sport, 1000s of men outperform the best women? Would he explain this
...as the result of thousands of men having these anatomies and talents, and not a single woman? And might one not wonder why no women have had these qualities in sufficient amounts to match say, the 995th best man? Or the 3000th best? Maybe there’s another attribute, one that is
...vastly different between men and women that causes this, such that we should have a separate category for populations with certain “talents and anatomies” to compete fairly and safely. Honestly, it’s ridiculous, this trident of arguments.

 

[Augustus]

Perhaps I phrased my question poorly. I didn't want evidence for women losing to men, I wanted evidence to support that this is in fact the reason why gender divisons exist in most sports.

Of course the division makes sense if we assume that any woman would be athletically inferior to men.

Why do you think the divisions exist if not to give women a chance to compete?

They don't exist in some sport like equestrianism where elite women can compete on even terms with elite men.

 

[Kooky]

...the necessary comparison here, the crux of the issue, is not whether some females WITHIN the female category have advantages, but the male vs female advantage. [...]

Yes, the crux of the issue is that these people do not see trans women as women.

 

[Kooky]

Why do you think the divisions exist if not to give women a chance to compete?

They don't exist in some sport like equestrianism where elite women can compete on even terms with elite men.

EDIT: I know that most people assume women to be inferior to men in sports. I would have liked to see supporting evidence that this was the reason why women's divisions were created in the first place.

But I suppose such would be nigh impossible to come by.

 

[Augustus]

Yes, the crux of the issue is that these people do not see trans women as women.

No, this is completely untrue. You are simply engaging in dishonest bigoteering.

No point in engaging in bad faith discussion with people who simply wish to assert their own moral superiority by misrepresenting others.

 

[Kooky]

No, this is completely untrue. You are simply engaging in dishonest bigoteering.

If trans women were women, then the issue would be about T levels within women's divisions, but you very emphatically noted the contrary in your post:

...the necessary comparison here, the crux of the issue, is not whether some females WITHIN the female category have advantages, but the male vs female advantage. As such, trying to find a relationship between T & performance WITHIN men or women is pointless and irrelevant to...
....the discussion. The question is whether the T difference BETWEEN men and women (and specifically, the androgenization driven by T) explains performance differences BETWEEN men and women. And it does. Aside from this, whoever makes this error should be ashamed of their lack of
...insight and application, because the failure to find an association between T & performance WITHIN men or WITHIN women is obvious. That’s because they’re homogenous groups with respect to T’s effects. Women don’t have it, men do. [...]

 

[Augustus]

Then why "men vs women"?

Because, in context, people acting in good faith can work out the meaning of words without resorting to misrepresentation and bigoteering.

You can believe transwomen should be treated as women socially, but also believe that they should not be able to compete in the women;s category of elite sports as they retain too great an advantage from being born with a typically male body (or whatever your preferred term is)

 

[Kooky]

Because, in context, people acting in good faith can work out the meaning of words without resorting to misrepresentation and bigoteering.

You can believe transwomen should be treated as women socially, but also believe that they should not be able to compete in the women;s category of elite sports as they retain too great an advantage from being born with a typically male body (or whatever your preferred term is)

You assume that transition is uniform enough to be able to categorize every trans female athlete's body as "male" without any supporting evidence that this is so, or even without a working definition of what constitutes a "male" as opposed to a "female" body.

Your entire argument rests on the foundational premise that trans women are distinct from cis women at a fundamental, essential level.

EDIT: Actually, scratch that, the foundation for your argument is that trans female bodies are indistinguishable from cis male bodies.

 

[Kooky]

It's the old "trans women are men in dresses" trope, reheated for a new audience.

 

[Augustus]

You assume that transition is uniform enough to be able to categorize every trans female athlete's body as "male" without any supporting evidence that this is so, or even without a working definition of what constitutes a "male" as opposed to a "female" body.

Your entire argument rests on the foundational premise that trans women are distinct from cis women at a fundamental, essential level.

EDIT: Actually, scratch that, the foundation for your argument is that trans female bodies are indistinguishable from cis male bodies.

As I said, there is no point in engaging in bad faith discussion with bigoteers who simply wish to assert their own moral superiority by misrepresenting others in the most obvious and egregious manner.

Not sure if these misrepresentations are strawcismen or strawtranswomen though

 

[Twilight Hue]

"bio women"? As opposed to what, robot ladies?

Oh man. Robot ladies will win hands down.

Better, faster, stronger, and they don't need to dope up. OK, maybe oil or some kind of lubricant....

 

[Kooky]

As I said, there is no point in engaging in bad faith discussion with bigoteers who simply wish to assert their own moral superiority by misrepresenting others in the most obvious and egregious manner

And yet you continue to engage in these shows of performative offense. Is there a point to these theatrics?

 

[We Never Know]

I seen a picture last week but cant find it now. It was a picture of a group of Arnold Schwarzenegger sized guys dressed as females with the caption "2021 female weight lifting team".

Found it. Its humor.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If you disagree why don't we see transgender relating to being male's playing in the NFL?

Er, there's not that many trans men to start with and we also tend to be very short on average. Of course we're not going to be in the NFL. One of us may some day, though. There are tall trans men and trans men who enjoy bodybuilding and strength training. We are on male levels of testosterone, you know. We can build muscles like a cis male. It's really testosterone and its effects that are the crux of this debate, anyway.