Fairness and transgender athletes

[Revoltingest]

It's very real as people can suffer life-changing injuries.

Has this been a problem of statistical significance?

In general, transwomen probably retain advantages indefinitely, but they certainly retain their larger body size which is the main problem in these sports as they have violent collisions.

Transition lessens those advantages.
But there is another issue with my approach....
The stage reached in transition should be considered
because someone just beginning could have a great
advantage over someone fully transitioned.

Cycling.
You race in large numbers over 200km with people attacking and trying to break away from the peloton. Knowing who you may have to respond to is essential.
Also, given following someone is such an advantage, if someone from the trans category broke away and was followed by someone from the women's category, the latter would gain a significant advantage compared to those she is competing against.
But even athletics, you need to respond to what others do in a split second.

Has this been a significant problem in any races?
Again, we can theorize what might happen, but
what mattes is what does happen.

Compare the performance of men and women at any high skill sport that requires athletic ability. That's very empirical.

What empirical comparisons have you seen?

The track has 8 lanes. You can't have more finalists.

Races are run in multiple heats already.
If a heat is added, this would be a de minimis issue.

It doesn't exist as it was your hypothetical solution. I was explaining the problems that may occur if it did exist.

You proposed that specific scenario in your post.
It struck me as extreme, & not of the real world.

 

[Augustus]

Has this been a problem of statistical significance?

Yes, World Rugby studied it extensively in conjunction with scientific experts and banned transwomen as a result.

What empirical comparisons have you seen?

Just watch the sports, you will see it.

But if you need metrics for some reason, men will outperform women on every single one.

For example, in cricket men, can bowl 20 mph faster than women (100mph v 80) which is a massive difference.

Races are run in multiple heats already.
If a heat is added, this would be a de minimis issue.

Someone still misses the final though because someone deemed to have an unfair advantage knocks her out.

If transwomen have an advantage and don't count in the women's category, best to give them their own class. Otherwise if there was only 1 transwoman, she would get the gold just by turning up.

You proposed that specific scenario in your post.
It struck me as extreme, & not of the real world.

Given the increasing acceptance and possibility of gender transition, the numbers will almost certainly increase. But it doesn't matter if it is 6th or 2nd, it devalues women's sport to have the champion not winning the race and having people argue over who is the "real" champion.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, World Rugby studied it extensively in conjunction with scientific experts and banned transwomen as a result.

Banning all trans women seems excessive.

Just watch the sports, you will see it.

Alas, I don't watch sports.

But if you need metrics for some reason, men will outperform women on every single one.

For example, in cricket men, can bowl 20 mph faster than women (100mph v 80) which is a massive difference.



Someone still misses the final though because someone deemed to have an unfair advantage knocks her out.

If transwomen have an advantage and don't count in the women's category, best to give them their own class. Otherwise if there was only 1 transwoman, she would get the gold just by turning up.



Given the increasing acceptance and possibility of gender transition, the numbers will almost certainly increase. But it doesn't matter if it is 6th or 2nd, it devalues women's sport to have the champion not winning the race and having people argue over who is the "real" champion.

We'll see where things head over the coming decades.

 

[Augustus]

Banning all trans women seems excessive.

So they should ignore the empirical evidence in this case and simply accept an increase in life-changing injuries because some people think it "seems excessive"?

Anyway they aren't banned, they can play in the male category.

Alas, I don't watch sports.

I know.

All the terrible solutions come from people who don't watch sports

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There are also competitors who have no problems at all with trans women's participation.

As long as we bar trans athletes, future generations will look back at our sporting records today with an asterisk on them, similar to how we look back on records from when black athletes were excluded, or how we look at the 1980 & 1984 Olympics where a whole bunch of countries boycotted the games.

There will always be the question of how athletes who did well against a limited field of competitors would have done against a fuller, more representative field.

 

[Revoltingest]

So they should ignore the empirical evidence in this case...

You think that follows from my post?
Hmmmm....

 

[Debater Slayer]

This is simply because most transwomen weren't high level athletes to start with. The fact that a mediocre athlete does not become elite after transitioning is not evidence it is fair. You would still have to be in the top few percent of male athletes pre-transition before you start winning.

So it is the wrong point of comparison. Almost all will be comparatively better post-transition.

Fairness should mean that you are operate at comparatively the same level pre and post transition. So if you are a top 100 male you are a top 100 female. Not that if you were a top 10,000 male you are 'only' a top 100 female.

With the swimmer Lia Thomas, she was maybe top 500 as a male, and top 1 by an absolute mile post-transition (and there is some evidence, based on timing splits, that she is sandbagging to make her margins of victory slightly less ludicrous).

Almost any high level, but sub-elite, male will become elite post-transition.

Is there statistical evidence that trans women who were within a specific percentile of performers pre-transition necessarily become elite athletes upon transitioning?

I think the notion that trans women must perform within the same brackets in men's and women's sports in order to be considered to have no unfair advantage may be unrealistic. A trans woman who was, say, within the top 200 in a men's competition and then jumped to the top 100 in a women's competition wouldn't be ruining the latter any more than, say, Kenyan runners or Egyptian squash players "ruin" the competition by being consistently better than most of their peers at their respective sports.

In my opinion, the best metric to go by when measuring fairness is whether most cis women would have a realistic chance of winning against a trans woman. I agree it would be unfair if a trans woman who scored within the top 500 in men's swimming suddenly set world records in women's swimming, but the vast majority of trans athletes don't lie within this highly extreme region of performance even after transitioning.

The scientific evidence is transwomen retain a large advantage in any sport male puberty brings an advantage.

This goes back to my above points, but beyond that, the subject is still being researched as we speak. We don't have enough conclusive evidence to rule out all trans women in women's sports as having an unfair advantage.

I know.

All the terrible solutions come from people who don't watch sports

I think @Revoltingest's posts here have largely been pretty reasonable because they seem to me focused on data and evidence rather than mere intuition or personal views from watching sports. A person could be a lifelong sport enthusiast and still not know enough about the medical and scientific studies based on which a sporting body could make robust policies for competitions--and at the end of the day, said studies matter the most in this case.

 

[Debater Slayer]

As long as we bar trans athletes, future generations will look back at our sporting records today with an asterisk on them, similar to how we look back on records from when black athletes were excluded, or how we look at the 1980 & 1984 Olympics where a whole bunch of countries boycotted the games.

There will always be the question of how athletes who did well against a limited field of competitors would have done against a fuller, more representative field.

I think that if scientific evidence pointed to an unfair advantage--whereby most cis women would have no actual chance of competing with a trans woman--then it would be reasonable to consider restrictions on trans women's participation in women's sports where they had such an advantage.

As long as sports remain centered around physical feats, I don't see a real way to fully decouple trans people's (or anyone else's) birth sex from their participation in physical sports. Yes, their gender is indeed the one they identify with, but sports are about biology as well. That's where things start getting complicated, especially when a sport is highly physical like MMA or rugby.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Anyway they aren't banned, they can play in the male category.

As I tell people, based on my own observations, it would be unfair for me to compete against women but there is absolutely no way in hell I could compete in the men's league.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Where the main problem lies, is connected to the Progressive movement trying to sell too many social engineering lies as truth. The feminist movement, for example, tried to sell the notion that men and women were equal. But this made no sense in sports, since men are physically different and have more muscularity and aggressive drive. However, one was not allowed to speak the truth, or you were a hater. Men are more likely to commit crime which means they have a propensity to depart from order.

But since not everyone drank the kool-aid, the eventual problem became, how do you keep selling this misinformation, while also benefitting women for their own achievement, without big brother enforcing the lie with regulations, designed to cheat nature, in favor of that lie? There is more glory doing anything on your own, compared to winning by lying and cheating.

Luckily enough women were able to think clearly about differences in men and women and pushed to start for their own leagues, against the misinformation push. But since women were on center stage either way, women were able to make the needed changes based on common sense. Getting rid of the lie was good, with many women able to enjoy the glory of sports under their own wings. This has benefits many little girls.

Now we have the gender propaganda and misinformation with this lie suddenly appearing on center stage; large pilot plant study. The data shows athletic performance was not based on choice of gender, but on birth DNA. The lie still does not want to go away, so we still need to walk on eggshells, instead of face reality. Lying to spare feelings is a short term fix that backfires in the end. It will cause suffering for the Progressive pawns in this lie.

The one thing I do not understand is how can transgender people even compete in any organized sports, since such people are full of drugs designed to enhance the performance of their chosen gender? Aren't performance enhancing drugs taboo in sports? A natural male or female athlete can get disqualified for taking over the counter medicines. This rigged system is needed for the lie, since transgenders should have failed the drug test, imposed on everyone else. When there is a dual standard, assume liars are at work.

Speaking of lies, in professional mens sports, especially basketball, black males disproportionately dominate the sport. Is this due to the conspiracy of black privilege or birth genetics and hard work? When Asians do well on entrance exams into top universities is this due to a conspiracy of Asian privilege or is this based on birth genetics and hard work? The answer is birth genetics and hard work to top this off, and not on a conspiracy. This is an introduction to worse of the Progressive lies; race and the conspiracy of privilege. There is no white privilege but rather whites have a different genetic makeup. This and hard work favors them in certain areas of culture. It is like sports, with not everyone good at all sports, but each person may excel in certain sports.

There are genetic difference among the races. These are not based on conspiracy or privilege but on biology. The white races of Europe had to deal with cooler wether winter, for thousands of years. This is why they have less skin pigment. Winter requires more adaptation skills than does summer. One cannot just gather all years long, but need to learn to save. Over time, and through natural selection, this resulted in more planning and forced innovating skills. Winter is also true for the three main Asian cultures. China, Korea and Japan all have snow. This simple truth would make it much easier to move forward in a rational way, so we can accept people for who they are, without adding all the conspiracy theory lies, used to rig the system and cause division.

You have little kernels of actually interesting stuff here, and factual information. You've packaged it up in a way that appears needlessly divisive and doesn't add much to the topic at hand.

As I said in the OP, please read the linked article if you want to participate in this thread. I'm trying to promote a good faith discussion on a sensitive and complex issue. Your motivations seem entirely different.

Start a thread on racial impact and diversity in basketball if you like. I'm there for it and it's an interesting topic.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I agree that an "open" category might resolve some of these issues, although the process of determining who is appropriate for which category would vary from sport to sport.

Yes, very much so.

I don't take sports as seriously as I once did. I think the idolizing of the "jock culture" has had a somewhat negative effect on the culture overall, particularly when it comes to things like toxic masculinity and bullying.

I think we need to be careful when assessing sports that we are specific with what is good, what is bad, and at what level we are talking.

As a simplistic example, I'm not here defending the common cultural issues prevalent in top line professional males sport. Despite liking it, there are many areas where drastic improvement are required.

I'm involved in junior girls sport, and I very strongly believe that both the team environment I can build in that setting, and the direct relationships fostered between girls, in their community, etc, are extremely positive.
I also think expressions of body positivity for girls...particularly in some cases bigger girls (I'm a basketball coach) can be transformative.

It's a common trope in our culture to portray the big, muscle-headed jock picking on the bookish, intellectual, 98-pound weakling, and I attribute much of this mentality to the glorification and hero-worship associated with major league sports and bigtime athletes. I would also say that it relates to the perceived anti-intellectualism which many people are complaining about. Think of a state like Texas where they reject science, reject evolution, reject vaccines - yet football is practically a state religion.

Or think of a state like Victoria, which had very high levels of vaccine compliance and yet football is much more of a state religion than something we largely ignore...actual religion.

As you yourself have put here, you're dealing with tropes and perceptions.

If you want to make a specific point about (say) college football in Texas and the role it plays in encouraging and reinforcing misdirected hero worship, then honestly, I get it. The combination of educational institutions cheapening their degrees and behavioural standards to get in 'student-athletes' and the level to which sports is used to paper over cracks is something I find pretty upsetting.

But...and I did declare my biases in the OP...I'm working with grassroots female sport. The club I (voluntarily) work at is the largest junior basketball club in the Southern Hemisphere. It partners with another large club to run the largest single junior basketball tournament in the world. Bigger than anything in the States, even. (By participants)

And the culture, community feel, body positivity, and ability of people to participate regardless of ability is pretty amazing.

As a father of three girls, I am frankly ecstatic that they're spending nights during the week, and time over the weekend playing organised and properly supervised basketball. They have friends outside of their school groups, they have increased strength and resiliency, and they have improved physical health, which I firmly believes leads to better mental health outcomes on the median.

Whilst I'd reject ever being a 98 pound weakling, I was an intellectual kid who went to a rough school, and grew up in a working class suburb. I've seen both sides of the role sports can play in helping someone like I was either fit in, or become a target. I'm not ignorant of what you're talking about. But the culture at the very large club I'm involved with is not 'Lord of the Flies'-esque.

Physical education classes seemed more set up to prepare boys for boot camp than anything else. My junior high school P.E. teacher was a former drill instructor in the military.

I think what you're saying is that there should be a strong student welfare and educational component in teaching and coaching kids. And if that's not present, it can be quite harmful. I COMPLETELY agree. I've seen good, and I've seen bad.

If...as I do ..you think sports can be a great positive force, it also means it can be a great negative one. Whereas something that has little impact in a positive sense is also quite probably less dangerous.

I'm not trying to steer away from the topic, but in order to get a handle on this issue, it might be worthwhile to look back and try to determine why these sports became so important and serious in many people's eyes. Meaning no disrespect, but when you say you take sports very seriously, I have to ask: Why? It's just a game, after all.

Life is just a game. Teaching kids, raising kids, and coaching kids all have common elements to me, and all can be done well...or poorly.

I take sports seriously because I think it's impactful for many kids. I've busted a gut this season on my subjectively 'worst' player. It has nothing to do with her becoming a star...or even competent...at basketball.

She has a tricky home life, is on the spectrum, has major self esteem issues, and has been taught by multiple people that failing is bad, and that taking risks can lead to failure.

There is only so much of that...just...crap that's been jammed into her skull that I can help with. But I've known this girl since she was born (albeit somewhat superficially). Coaching her for one season I've been able to get her to see that failing is the only path to improving, and is a normal part of life. And...even more happily...the messaging from her mother (who loves her, but is an anxious type) has changed to celebrating her daughter failing in new and more assertive ways.

She's scored multiple times this season, after having played for 5 seasons without scoring.

Basketball is a vehicle, but the lessons are about life. It is...in my humble opinion...a much better vehicle than religion, and far less harmful. Despite that, I'm okay with people toddling off to church.

(The last is tongue in cheek, but hopefully I've expressed my thoughts for you.)

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You're presumably not aware, but @lewisnotmiller is an Australian I believe.

Ha!! Made me laugh, and is obviously true.

I did try and give @Stevicus a proper answer too, because there were valuable points raised and it's a worthwhile discussion, if slightly tangential.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I was aware that @lewisnotmiller was Australian, although I didn't know they were like Texas football fans - or maybe Indiana basketball fans.

Not quite like them, I think. But sports is a major thing in the part of Australia I live in (Melbourne) and it's not uncommon to hear people here referring to Melbourne as the sporting capital of the world (hyperbollically, but with an element of pride/truth).

That no doubt seems strange to those unfamiliar with Melbourne.
Australian Open tennis - Melbourne.
Formula One Grand Prix - Melbourne.
Boxing Day Cricket Test - Melbourne.
Moto Gp - Melbourne.
AFL Grand Final - Melbourne (I know...not international. But a 100,000 attendee showcase of our sport)

The largest junior basketball tournament in the world (as mentioned) - Melbourne.

Majority of the Aussie NBA players over the years have been Victorians.
Meh...there's lots more. Suffice to say, sports is huge here.

Rivalries between teams can also bring out some rabid fans, even at the level of local high schools. The Yankees-Red Sox rivalry is an interesting historical and cultural phenomenon, as well as the Dodgers-Giants rivalry. I think there was even a shooting at a Dodgers-Giants game (not at the game itself, but in the stadium parking lot).

Then there have been post-game riots which have occurred from jubilant fans going berserk because their team won a championship game. So, naturally, that's a good excuse to set fires and turn over automobiles.

That behaviour is anti-social, ridiculous, and somehow excused or expected.
Our grand final has 100,000 people at it, with supporters all mixed in together, and is VERY passionately followed. We don't have these issues, or the hooliganism soccer has suffered from sometimes.

(Of course there is bad behaviour on occassion with any crowd that large...I'm talking about accepted or systemic bad behaviour)

11 of the 18 AFL teams are based in Melbourne or nearby Geelong. So going to the game with mates who followed the other team was completely normal, as was going to games where you didn't follow either team. We are parochial, but what you're describing is anti-social.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes, very much so.



I think we need to be careful when assessing sports that we are specific with what is good, what is bad, and at what level we are talking.

As a simplistic example, I'm not here defending the common cultural issues prevalent in top line professional males sport. Despite liking it, there are many areas where drastic improvement are required.

I'm involved in junior girls sport, and I very strongly believe that both the team environment I can build in that setting, and the direct relationships fostered between girls, in their community, etc, are extremely positive.
I also think expressions of body positivity for girls...particularly in some cases bigger girls (I'm a basketball coach) can be transformative.

In this case, I can see your point. Perhaps it might be somewhat different with girls' sports. But with some men's and boys' sports, it can be treated like war or gladiatorial games.

Or think of a state like Victoria, which had very high levels of vaccine compliance and yet football is much more of a state religion than something we largely ignore...actual religion.

As you yourself have put here, you're dealing with tropes and perceptions.

If you want to make a specific point about (say) college football in Texas and the role it plays in encouraging and reinforcing misdirected hero worship, then honestly, I get it. The combination of educational institutions cheapening their degrees and behavioural standards to get in 'student-athletes' and the level to which sports is used to paper over cracks is something I find pretty upsetting.

But...and I did declare my biases in the OP...I'm working with grassroots female sport. The club I (voluntarily) work at is the largest junior basketball club in the Southern Hemisphere. It partners with another large club to run the largest single junior basketball tournament in the world. Bigger than anything in the States, even. (By participants)

And the culture, community feel, body positivity, and ability of people to participate regardless of ability is pretty amazing.

As a father of three girls, I am frankly ecstatic that they're spending nights during the week, and time over the weekend playing organised and properly supervised basketball. They have friends outside of their school groups, they have increased strength and resiliency, and they have improved physical health, which I firmly believes leads to better mental health outcomes on the median.

Whilst I'd reject ever being a 98 pound weakling, I was an intellectual kid who went to a rough school, and grew up in a working class suburb. I've seen both sides of the role sports can play in helping someone like I was either fit in, or become a target. I'm not ignorant of what you're talking about. But the culture at the very large club I'm involved with is not 'Lord of the Flies'-esque.

I've seen some differences in the sports culture nowadays as opposed to when I was younger, so it may be different to some degree. But the overall culture in the U.S. seems to value athletic achievements over intellectual achievements, to a large extent, and this seems to be somewhat related to the anti-intellectualism which seems to be prevalent these days. I'm not saying there's anything intrinsically wrong with sports or athletic competition, but when it goes beyond an extracurricular recreational activity and turns into some kind of "life or death" contest, where a person's entire self-worth becomes dependent on whether they can hit the ball into the little hole, then that may be taking it a bit too far.

I think what you're saying is that there should be a strong student welfare and educational component in teaching and coaching kids. And if that's not present, it can be quite harmful. I COMPLETELY agree. I've seen good,candy I've seen bad.

If...as I do ..you think sports can be a great positive force, it also means it can be a great negative one. Whereas something that has little impact in a positive sense is also quite probably less dangerous.

I was thinking more in terms of the structure and original purpose of some organized sports and how P.E. classes and athletic leagues became an integral part of public education. It's become so firmly rooted in our culture that participation in sports has, for all practical purposes, become a human right no less important than any other human right. That's why this has become such a hotly debated topic these days, since the rights of trans people are recognized, yet people are trying to find a balance so that other people's rights aren't trampled in the process.

But it's also about fair competition and winning, and in our culture, "winning is everything." That seems to be where the crux of the debate is, not so much in the participation itself, but whether the competition is fairly organized.

Life is just a game. Teaching kids, raising kids, and coaching kids all have common elements to me, and all can be done well...or poorly.

I take sports seriously because I think it's impactful for many kids. I've busted a gut this season on my subjectively 'worst' player. It has nothing to do with her becoming a star...or even competent...at basketball.

She has a tricky home life, is on the spectrum, has major self esteem issues, and has been taught by multiple people that failing is bad, and that taking risks can lead to failure.

There is only so much of that...just...crap that's been jammed into her skull that I can help with. But I've known this girl since she was born (albeit somewhat superficially). Coaching her for one season I've been able to get her to see that failing is the only path to improving, and us a normal part of life. And...even more happily...the messaging from her mother (who loves her, but is an anxious type) has changed to celebrating her daughter failing in new and more assertive ways.

She's scored multiple times this season, after having played for 5 seasons without scoring.

Basketball is a vehicle, but the lessons are about life. It is...in my humble opinion...a much better vehicle than religion, and far less harmful. Despite that, I'm okay with people toddling off to church.

(The last is tongue in cheek, but hopefully I've expressed my thoughts for you.)

You make your points quite well, and I can't help but agree with the idea that sports participation can be beneficial overall.

Going through the learning process certainly entails life lessons, although, at least in the sports world, it's also very outcome-oriented and its importance is measured in the final scores and standings.

That's where much of the debate seems to be, at least in terms of how seriously it's taken, since it seems to focus on high school and college level sports where there are serious competitors who might be hoping for scholarships, possibly the Olympics or maybe even professional level sports. There could be big money involved - someone's career plans or potential livelihood might be tied in to sports - and that seems to be the main focus of the debate, as I've observed it.

Even in the Olympics, I remember back in the Cold War era when it was commonly believed that the women athletes from Soviet Bloc countries were taking male hormones to get an advantage over the competition. They also took sports very seriously, at least on that basis, in trying to showcase their athletic abilities in world competition.

So, I guess I'm wondering about the focus of the debate, whether it's about the right to participate in sports overall, taking into consideration the beneficial aspects and the life lessons and the personal growth. Or whether it's about the right to have fair competition and a fair chance at winning in an athletic competition where winning is everything (and can even entail financial gain or loss).

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I am female cisgender, and in my youth played softball and volleyball. It wouldn't have bothered me at all if a transgender female was on the team. I'm kind of baffled by the whole kerfluffle.

Fair enough.
One of my daughter's would be the same. The other (out of the two playing basketball) would be the same unless she no longer has a place in representative basketball due to the presence of someone she believed had an unfair advantage.

That wouldn't mean 'transgender' per se. My daughter's could give a crap about any of this and basically their generation seems to assume every person has a unique sexual and gender identity. Still...if she had to face kids five years older and lost her spot, she'd be unhappy. If she had to face kids who'd recently transitioned and could run and jump higher than others, and were taller...same thing.

What were your thoughts on the article?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In this case, I can see your point. Perhaps it might be somewhat different with girls' sports. But with some men's and boys' sports, it can be treated like war or gladiatorial games.



I've seen some differences in the sports culture nowadays as opposed to when I was younger, so it may be different to some degree. But the overall culture in the U.S. seems to value athletic achievements over intellectual achievements, to a large extent, and this seems to be somewhat related to the anti-intellectualism which seems to be prevalent these days. I'm not saying there's anything intrinsically wrong with sports or athletic competition, but when it goes beyond an extracurricular recreational activity and turns into some kind of "life or death" contest, where a person's entire self-worth becomes dependent on whether they can hit the ball into the little hole, then that may be taking it a bit too far.



I was thinking more in terms of the structure and original purpose of some organized sports and how P.E. classes and athletic leagues became an integral part of public education. It's become so firmly rooted in our culture that participation in sports has, for all practical purposes, become a human right no less important than any other human right. That's why this has become such a hotly debated topic these days, since the rights of trans people are recognized, yet people are trying to find a balance so that other people's rights aren't trampled in the process.

But it's also about fair competition and winning, and in our culture, "winning is everything." That seems to be where the crux of the debate is, not so much in the participation itself, but whether the competition is fairly organized.



You make your points quite well, and I can't help but agree with the idea that sports participation can be beneficial overall.

Going through the learning process certainly entails life lessons, although, at least in the sports world, it's also very outcome-oriented and its importance is measured in the final scores and standings.

That's where much of the debate seems to be, at least in terms of how seriously it's taken, since it seems to focus on high school and college level sports where there are serious competitors who might be hoping for scholarships, possibly the Olympics or maybe even professional level sports. There could be big money involved - someone's career plans or potential livelihood might be tied in to sports - and that seems to be the main focus of the debate, as I've observed it.

Even in the Olympics, I remember back in the Cold War era when it was commonly believed that the women athletes from Soviet Bloc countries were taking male hormones to get an advantage over the competition. They also took sports very seriously, at least on that basis, in trying to showcase their athletic abilities in world competition.

So, I guess I'm wondering about the focus of the debate, whether it's about the right to participate in sports overall, taking into consideration the beneficial aspects and the life lessons and the personal growth. Or whether it's about the right to have fair competition and a fair chance at winning in an athletic competition where winning is everything (and can even entail financial gain or loss).

Thanks for the thoughtful and detailed responses. I'm not going to try and answer them, because I have no answers for this...just me working through the issues. And your contribution here helps.

The one other aspect I'd add to your list is safety, particularly in certain high-impact sports. There are ways this can be dealt with, but it's another focus point.
Rugby is the simple example here, where size and strength disparity is already a recognised issue at the junior boys level.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The only solution?
Goodness gracious you've much confidence.
I see a better way.
Let all compete as they identify.
But results, eg, records, classifications, are
separate for trans & non-trans athletes.
This gives no unfair (whatever that means)
advantage to anyone in the record books.
Yet it's maximally inclusive regarding gender.

All 'solutions' are going to be situational, and yours works for some sports, I think.
Not gonna work for basketball.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So let trans athletes compete in men's sports based on phenotype and not genotype. Both trans men and transwomen would probably have greater muscle than females in general.

what i also find interesting is the idea of intersexed people in this mix. being trans is more similar to intersexed than an absolute male or female.

I think the point here is to make it 'open' rather than 'mens', and let anyone compete regardless of anything.

But still have reserved female competitions where entrance is limited where sports-appropriate by criteria set for that sport.

 

[Revoltingest]

All 'solutions' are going to be situational, and yours works for some sports, I think.
Not gonna work for basketball.

We might see...if government ever listens to me.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In a team sport that's more skill dependent, such an
advantage could go unnoticed. It appears much more
of an issue with individual sports, eg, track, swimming.

Hmmmm...I can't really agree with this. Of course it could go unnoticed (blood doping can also go unnoticed) but that doesn't mean it's not impactful. And for basketball the combination of height, strength and co-ordination would matter, regardless of it being a skilled sport. And Rugby...eeesh...it could be dangerous.