Should Transgender Athletes compete in sports?

[Augustus]

Are you assuming "biologically male" a "trans woman" are equivalent?

Under current rules, in order to compete, trans women have to bring their testosterone levels into the typical female range. Once that's done, it's unclear whether there's any advantage at all; some studies suggest that trans athletes are at a decided disadvantage in some sports:

On Transgender athletes and performance advantages | The Science of Sport

The article basically says there isn't enough evidence as it's not been thoroughly studied.

We also know that the benefits of PEDs remain long after people stop taking them, so simply lowering T doesn't = no advantage.

Studies on elite athletic performance are very difficult due to small sample size, the difficulty of isolating variables, the wide variability in individual responses to the same thing, differences between athletic disciplines, the fact that elite athletes generally have more pressing things to do than take part in a study, etc.

A few years ago, the following nonsense was published.

Lance Armstrong's drug of choice, EPO, 'doesn't work', scientists claim

In the first study of its kind, scientists challenged a group of 48 cyclists to tackle a series of challenges, including the infamous Mont Ventoux ascent, which often forms part of the Tour.

Half had been given eight weekly injections of EPO, a drug that promotes red blood cell production with the aim of increasing delivery of oxygen to the muscles, while the other half took a dummy.

But after the gruelling 21.5km climb - which was preceded by a 110km cycle for good measure - the average results of the two groups showed no difference whatsoever.

The scientists behind the trial, which is published in the Lancet, say athletes are “naive” about the benefits of illicit substances such as EPO, but that myths about their effectiveness go unchallenged in the murky world of doping.

Lance Armstrong's drug of choice, EPO, 'doesn't work', scientists claim

Study:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhae/article/PIIS2352-3026(17)30105-9/fulltext


If a study fails to find a performance advantage from something that so obviously improves performance as EPO then we have a problem [see times decrease based on EPO availability, and increase when the first doping test comes in, also numerous elite cyclists who took it while closely monitoring their performance and understood it was impossible to win without taking it]

PEDs give a useful analogy as to what can be assumed where there is an absence of scientific evidence.

Lance Armstrong was very obviously doping, not with the benefit of hindsight, but at the time because he underwent a magical mid-career transformation. Magical mid-career transformations that are too good to be true are (almost) always doping.

We already have examples of non-elite athletes winning women's elite competitions post-transition, and We know that the benefits of PEDs remain long after people stop taking them so can't say 'lower T = no advantage So we have to choose what is more likely:

a) She suddenly turned into an elite athlete
b) She was doping
c) She was gaining a relative performance advantage from being born with male anatomy

It's almost certainly b or c (or both).

If you flip a coin 49 times and it comes up heads, what are the odds the next one is heads? Some might say 50/50, but it's close to 100%. You have no evidence the game is rigged, but the results make it almost certain.

A non-elite athlete suddenly beating elite athletes (or a lower/mid-tier elite athlete suddenly consistently beating top-tier elite athletes) is always going to be far less plausible than the alternatives.

For example, people talk about a 'new era' for cycling in the light of doping scandals, biological passports, etc. Some people will say 'no evidence of cheating', but, just as it was with Armstrong, et al., it is perfectly obvious from results that the sport is still rife with doping (magical transformations, speeds as fast as during the EPO era, etc).

I elite sport, the proof is usually in the pudding regardless of whether or not it has been proved in a lab.

 

[Mock Turtle]

But Caster Semenya isn't trans; she just has naturally higher-than-typical levels of testosterone. I really don't see what's different between her case and Michael Phelps, whose body naturally produces lower-than-typical levels of lactic acid.

... or rather, I know exactly how they're different, but it has nothing to do with fairness or athletic performance: a woman with elevated levels of testosterone goes against traditional gender norms, but a man with reduced levels of lactic acid doesn't.

Probably a bad example by me but she is intersex (being XY), and some of the athletes she competes against (or might have competed against) have probably voiced their concerns. As I mentioned, it's the results that count, and if someone is competing with an apparent unfair advantage then perhaps they should consider why they are competing. Is it morally or ethically right to do so?

Caster Semenya ran on 'unfair platform,' says ex-Olympian Sharron Davies - CNN

 

[Augustus]

However, the factors I listed for categories are also the factors that are regularly brought up as the major reasons for this performance difference, i.e. weight, height and muscle mass. So yes, you would certainly see a lot more men in the highest weight range but that doesn't necessarily imply male domination among all categories.

You can't accurately measure muscle mass though which rules it out and height and weight divisions would all be entirely male as they have at least a 10% performance advantage. In many sports the difference between the best of the best and the average pro is maybe 2-3%

Also people want to watch the football world cup, Wimbledon, etc. not the under 180cm and 80kg world cup and the Wimbledon 160-175cm under 65kg championship.

If you started having 5 or 6 divisions them many sporting events would become unfeasible logistically.

Despite the issue with trans and intersex women which are complex scientifically and ethically, I don't think there is an alternative to sex-based divisions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Probably a bad example by me but she is intersex (being XY), and some of the athletes she competes against (or might have competed against) have probably voiced their concerns.

I think that the issue of intersexuality is really only relevant in that it's a clear demonstration that the "genetic sex = physiological sex = gender, and there are exactly two of each" crowd's worldview isn't based in reality.

As I mentioned, it's the results that count, and if someone is competing with an apparent unfair advantage then perhaps they should consider why they are competing. Is it morally or ethically right to do so?

"Results count" in what way? A lot of the criticism I've seen of Semenya has been rooted in some pretty brazen sexism: "she performs so well that she can't be a real woman. Women are supposed to be inferior, so if she's not inferior, she's not a woman."

 

[Erebus]

You can't accurately measure muscle mass though which rules it out and height and weight divisions would all be entirely male as they have at least a 10% performance advantage. In many sports the difference between the best of the best and the average pro is maybe 2-3%

I take your point about measuring muscle mass as the most accurate means are also the most impractical. The rest, I'm somewhat sceptical of though. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong here but in my own reading on the subject, that roughly 10% difference was calculated by pitting men against women without grouping them by body type. Again, the factors I described were typically brought up as the conclusions as to why the performance gap existed, not as a component of a study itself. To the best of my knowledge, there has been little to no research on performance between men and women of equivalent size.

Also people want to watch the football world cup, Wimbledon, etc. not the under 180cm and 80kg world cup and the Wimbledon 160-175cm under 65kg championship.

If you started having 5 or 6 divisions them many sporting events would become unfeasible logistically.

Ahh, now this is where I think you have a very valid point. Sport is a commercial enterprise and I'd wager your average viewer has little interest in the issues we've been discussing. A simple gender divide is certainly the easiest way of doing things and there's not much incentive for the people organizing and televising events to make the issue more complex. The hard truth is that from a purely business point of view, the inclusion of trans people is little more than a PR issue.

I know that the gender divide isn't going anywhere. I've found it an interesting topic to discuss with you but I'm fully aware that our thoughts on the matter are of absolutely no consequence to the people who actually make the rules.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Could've fooled me.

I do not know hoe expresing an opinion can be seen as hate.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I do not know hoe expresing an opinion can be seen as hate.

In that case, here's an opinion: I think your posts in this thread have been transphobic garbage.

 

[Augustus]

I take your point about measuring muscle mass as the most accurate means are also the most impractical. The rest, I'm somewhat sceptical of though. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong here but in my own reading on the subject, that roughly 10% difference was calculated by pitting men against women without grouping them by body type. Again, the factors I described were typically brought up as the conclusions as to why the performance gap existed, not as a component of a study itself. To the best of my knowledge, there has been little to no research on performance between men and women of equivalent size.

There are many differences beside size and muscle mass that may play a role: muscle composition, body shape, body fat, anatomy, internal organs, bone density, pelvis shape and probably some things we aren't yet aware of.

I've no idea how much any of these matter, but it would be surprising if they didn't have some effect.

And while I take your point that differences at specific weights might be a bit less, it's unlikely to be enough to allow women to compete on a remotely similar level.

For example, the 100m record for a 13 year old boy would have won silver in the last Olympics women's 100m.

Elaine Thompson who won that final in 10.71s is a similar size (5'7, 57kg) to Lalu Zohri (5'9, 60kg) who won the men's U20 world champs in 10.03s.

(It's also worth noting that if you are the Olympic 100m champion, you're probably doping).

Manny Pacquiao started his pro boxing career at 49kg. He could have put on 2kg and still fought in the lowest woman's weight class at the Olympics.

Never mind winning, women probably wouldn't make the top 100, and maybe not even the top 1000.

I know that the gender divide isn't going anywhere. I've found it an interesting topic to discuss with you but I'm fully aware that our thoughts on the matter are of absolutely no consequence to the people who actually make the rules.

Speak for yourself, I reckon there are few more influential thought leaders at the International Olympic Committee than 'that chap Augustus, you know, the one off the internet'

 

[Twilight Hue]

Sometimes one video is worth a thousand words........

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

In that case, here's an opinion: I think your posts in this thread have been transphobic garbage.

Thank you for the clarification.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

A real vagina is a place for babies to be born. You can cut a hole in a man's body and cal it a vagina but it is not and he is still a man. You could also attach a tale but that would not make him a dog.

Black-and-white literalness is fine, I suppose. I rather think that the experience of being a human entails a bit more than just the body parts -- and I'm not even religious!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Perhaps you need to get out and see the planet

I took both photos, and superimposed some actual white on one, actual black on the other, so that we can see that what I said is true. Melanin is a brown pigment, and quite be quite dark brown, but is still not black, which is the absence of any colour. Our nomenclature notwithstanding, no human is actually black or white.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Genetically and chromosomally, the person in question is still their birth sex. Their body may have been altered to better resemble the sex that the individual desires to be, and societally they may be treated as a member of that sex, but sex reassignment surgery doesn't fully make the transition. Anybody who goes through male or female puberty cannot reverse that process; all they can do is go through what is called a "second puberty" via hormone therapy which can imperfectly obscure their natural puberty and give them some secondary sex characteristics of the sex that they are transitioning to, but this can also cause some health problems, including muscular atrophy and bone problems, and probably a lot of other things I'm not aware of. A biological male is always a biological male, and a biological female is always a biological female. Our medical technology may be good, but it's not that good.

It's strange how we change our perspective when we're trying to secure the answer we want. So, do you view people only genetically and chomosomally? I don't. I try to get a sense of who they are as "people," as human beings with more than just their genes and their body parts, trying to experience life to their best of their abilities in whatever circumstances they find themselves.

I don't insist that the woman with the prosthetic leg is a one-legged woman, and as these things get better, it will be harder for the rest of us to detect, which gives her a chance to go through life just like the rest of us, without other aid, and without standing out in a crowd. I think that's a good thing.

And if a person must go through life feeling as if they (the person that they genuinely feel themselves to be, for whatever reason -- though it be beyond my ability to fully understand) don't belong in the body they have, why would I insist that if they can get some assistance in transitioning to one in which they feel genuinely more comfortable? Or why would I insist that, now that they've done so, they're still "not authentic?" What do I gain by doing so?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I took both photos, and superimposed some actual white on one, actual black on the other, so that we can see that what I said is true. Melanin is a brown pigment, and quite be quite dark brown, but is still not black, which is the absence of any colour. Our nomenclature notwithstanding, no human is actually black or white.

If I use both of my God given eyes one appears white and one appears black enough said.

 

[Shad]

According to The Daily Signal which is a conservative journalist website, biological males who are transgender competing in women's sports create an unfair advantage for born females. Hormonal treatments aside, allowing transgender women who were born male, to compete in what they call "natural female" (I'm paraphrasing here) competition sets a precedent of creating an environment where there is backlash if transgender women become successful. Citing Martina Navratilova, the first openly gay female tennis player felt that any criticism of trans athletes competing would bully others into be silent. According to the article, "Navratilova bluntly called the practice of allowing biologically male athletes to compete in women’s sports “insane” and said “it’s cheating" (Source).

It would appear that the debate concerning trans athletes competing is not necessarily their identity per se rather its a question about fairness. According to Outsports.com:

"It’s easy to understand why. Sports rules and regulations exist to create a “fair” playing field for competitors. Olympic rules regulate the use of performance-enhancing drugs. NCAA rules tell teams how much they team can practice, and how often. NFL rules outline parameters to make sure a defensive back doesn’t get an “unfair” advantage over a receiver. Even mixed martial arts, which seems to the casual observer to be a clash of anarchy, has rules.

Without rules to govern fairness, we don’t have sports." -Source

The argument continues:

"In a world where we’re told that men are always more athletic, stronger and faster than women, that’s what they see. Someone perceived as being “once a man” can’t possibly be on an equal playing field with women. At least, that’s how the thinking of a lot of people goes.

Yet having an honest conversation about the fairness of trans women in sports mandates a conversation about the concept of fairness itself, and the different ways it can be applied to sports and life."

Thoughts?

Create a open bracket. Everyone knows what they are getting into rather than being forced

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think that the issue of intersexuality is really only relevant in that it's a clear demonstration that the "genetic sex = physiological sex = gender, and there are exactly two of each" crowd's worldview isn't based in reality.


"Results count" in what way? A lot of the criticism I've seen of Semenya has been rooted in some pretty brazen sexism: "she performs so well that she can't be a real woman. Women are supposed to be inferior, so if she's not inferior, she's not a woman."

It seems to me that if one has an unfair advantage, like using drugs or competing in events where one should really be competing with others of similar ability, then that should be taken into consideration. And where the margin of winning is often so large in many cases - as it seemed to be with Semenya - then perhaps we have to deal with the issue (which the authorities tried to impose on Semenya but she refused to take the necessary drugs). And perhaps we should question the motivations of such individuals. As I said, it is a complex issue, but trying to account for all the variations is probably going to make it even more complicated. Witness the various categories in the Paralympics.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It seems to me that if one has an unfair advantage, like using drugs or competing in events where one should really be competing with others of similar ability, then that should be taken into consideration. And where the margin of winning is often so large in many cases - as it seemed to be with Semenya - then perhaps we have to deal with the issue (which the authorities tried to impose on Semenya but she refused to take the necessary drugs). And perhaps we should question the motivations of such individuals. As I said, it is a complex issue, but trying to account for all the variations is probably going to make it even more complicated. Witness the various categories in the Paralympics.

Which advantages are fair and which are unfair?

I've mentioned this several times now, but nobody has engaged with it: there are other athletes who also have innate characteristics that give them advantages over other athletes. Why should Castor Semenya have to take drugs to reduce her testosterone levels if, say, Michael Phelps didn't have to take drugs to increase his lactic acid levels?

Should we tell male equestrian riders whose height and weight is below the typical range for men "sorry - you have an unfair advantage. You aren't allowed to ride against other men"?

It seems to me that when we're talling about an athlete's inborn traits, there's a telling divide: people only ask if those traits give the athlete an unfair advantage when we're talking about a woman.

Michael Phelps? Oh, he's a "born swimmer." He's destined to outshine other swimmers. Good for him! Castor Semenya? Oh, she's "not a real woman." She'd outshine other runners. This has to be stopped.

Inherent in all of it is this idea of female inferiority: if you perform well enough, you can't be a real woman.

Meanwhile, by the "all that matters is the genitalia you're born with" crowd as well as those who care about gender identity, she is a real woman.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Which advantages are fair and which are unfair?

I've mentioned this several times now, but nobody has engaged with it: there are other athletes who also have innate characteristics that give them advantages over other athletes. Why should Castor Semenya have to take drugs to reduce her testosterone levels if, say, Michael Phelps didn't have to take drugs to increase his lactic acid levels?

I'm hardly in a position to address this but the appropriate regulating authority appears to have formed a conclusion - presumably to make competition as fair as possible. And in Semenya's case it seems to be about reducing the testosterone level away from that being normal for adult males and into that for females. And again, I'm not in a position to know if this is appropriate.

Should we tell male equestrian riders whose height and weight is below the typical range for men "sorry - you have an unfair advantage. You aren't allowed to ride against other men"?

It seems to me that when we're talling about an athlete's inborn traits, there's a telling divide: people only ask if those traits give the athlete an unfair advantage when we're talking about a woman.

Michael Phelps? Oh, he's a "born swimmer." He's destined to outshine other swimmers. Good for him! Castor Semenya? Oh, she's "not a real woman." She'd outshine other runners. This has to be stopped.

Inherent in all of it is this idea of female inferiority: if you perform well enough, you can't be a real woman.

Meanwhile, by the "all that matters is the genitalia you're born with" crowd as well as those who care about gender identity, she is a real woman.

Perhaps you are right here, about it affecting females mostly, but I suppose it would given that males tend to have advantages in most areas entailing physical prowess, such that any female displaying such characteristics tends to have an advantage.

I don't know where we draw the line. But I think it often does involve ethics - as in pursuing a career where one knows one might have an unfair advantage over others rather than success being obtained the usual way - hard work (and often much money).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm hardly in a position to address this but the appropriate regulating authority appears to have formed a conclusion - presumably to make competition as fair as possible. And in Semenya's case it seems to be about reducing the testosterone level away from that being normal for adult males and into that for females. And again, I'm not in a position to know if this is appropriate.

How is it fair? Are there any other cases where a person's natural physical advantages are required to nullify those advantages with drugs?

Trans athletes are a different matter. While I'm not sure trans women should be required to lower their testosterone to be able to compete; however;

- it's generally accepted that an athlete with a medical condition is allowed to be treated for their medical condition.
- gender dysphoria is a bit unique in that leaving the condition untreated might create performance advantages.
- there have been cases in the past (Russian weightlifters in the 80s, IIRC) where cis male athletes were forced to undergo gender reassignment surgery by an oppressive regime so that they would compete as women.

... but Castor Semenya isn't trans.

Perhaps you are right here, about it affecting females mostly,

Not mostly; exclusively.

but I suppose it would given that males tend to have advantages in most areas entailing physical prowess, such that any female displaying such characteristics tends to have an advantage.

Physical characteristics give advantages. This is true across athletic sport. Why are we only singling out physical characteristics of trans people - or of cis women who don't adhere to gender norms - as "unfair?"

I don't know where we draw the line. But I think it often does involve ethics - as in pursuing a career where one knows one might have an unfair advantage over others rather than success being obtained the usual way - hard work (and often much money).

Every athlete competing at the Olympic level has put in tremendous hard work to get there.

 

[Koldo]

Are you assuming "biologically male" a "trans woman" are equivalent?

Under current rules, in order to compete, trans women have to bring their testosterone levels into the typical female range. Once that's done, it's unclear whether there's any advantage at all; some studies suggest that trans athletes are at a decided disadvantage in some sports:

On Transgender athletes and performance advantages | The Science of Sport

They can have a clear advantage in many sports though.
As an example, I can cite Tiffany, a transwoman volleyball athlete. She became a top tier athlete after transitioning.