all 60 comments

[–]MarkTwainiac 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The Olympics' current transgender policy doesn't require a man go through any "treatments and procedures" to compete in women's events under the current "transgender policy." A male athlete is eligible to compete in women's Olympics under the following two conditions:

2.1. The athlete has declared that her gender identity is female. The declaration cannot be changed, for sporting purposes, for a minimum of four years.

2.2. The athlete must demonstrate that her total testosterone level in serum has been below 10 nmol/L for at least 12 months prior to her first competition (with the requirement for any longer period to be based on a confidential case-by-case evaluation, considering whether or not 12 months is a sufficient length of time to minimize any advantage in women’s competition).

Note that declaration about gender identity doesn't have to be legally-binding one. Nor does it have to be backed up by official ID documents like passport. A man's "female gender identity" also need be declared "for sporting purposes" only.

Plus, he has to intend to keep it, or say he plans to keep it, for only four years - years that don't have to be consecutive, nor do they have to coincide with, occur around the time as, the male athlete is competing in women's Olympics. A man could say he had a "female gender identity" for several years when he was a little boy so that time should count toward the four years total, or he intends to declare a female identity when he's 60 to 64, so that should do the trick. There's not going to be any verification or even an attempt to verify - it's all on the honor system, so who could tell if he's being truthful or bullshitting?

Note also that there's no requirement that the male athlete be taking estrogen or any T suppressants. The 10 nmol/L limit for testosterone is within what World Athletics considers the normal male range - 7.7-29.0 nmol/L - so it would be easy for a lot of guys to meet that condition without taking any drugs. Many guys have T of that level naturally.

[–]FlanJam[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

"for sporting purposes" sounds so bizarre lol. Can I identify as male for business purposes? I would prefer to be on the male end of the wage gap lmao.

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I first came across the idea that some people adopt an opposite-sex gender identity mainly or exclusively "for sporting purposes" in the Caster Semenya case.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

they do!

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That part.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The NCAA, the governing body for college/university sports in the US, allows males who supposedly identify as the opposite sex to compete in women's sports without requiring them to provide any ID documents or other evidence that their claimed identity is sincere. Nor does it require males to lower their T to any particular level.

The NCAA policy says only that a male must have taken medication to lower his testosterone in the 12 months prior to beginning to compete in women's sports. Not take medication for 12 months, just to take medication in the preceding 12 months. A man would be in compliance with the NCAA policy is he took a single estrogen pill during the 12 months prior to his first women's event. The NCAA doesn't check T levels or require that athletes provide lab work of their own. Coz no one would ever lie, presumably.

In many states in the US, teenage high school boys in the throes of puberty or well past it are allowed to compete in girls HS sports without taking any medication to lower their T. That's the case in Connecticut, where two strapping male teenagers, Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood, ran in - and dominated in - girls sprints starting when they were 15, without either of them taking any T suppressants or cross-sex hormones. Their attorney revealed in court in 2020 that Miller and Yearwood did finally start taking "gender affirming hormones" of some sort, but by then the two athletes were already 18 and their HS track careers were finished.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don’t even think we should be able to compete in sports. But if one did you lose the appeal to dignity and fairness for the marginalized arguments.

Also that dude needs a doctor because if his t is that low naturally either he’s lost his testes or he has some real medical problems. If it’s not natural no guy would do that so it seems a pretty pointless question.

[–]FlanJam[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If it’s not natural no guy would do that so it seems a pretty pointless question.

Well yeah its not a question pertaining to real life, but rather a hypothetical to probe people's reasoning. I wanted to see how QT justifies their beliefs, because I think almost any answer to this will require biting a bullet of some sort.

But if you don't think transwomen should compete then I guess this whole hypothetical falls apart lol

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (51 children)

Uhhm. Yeah sure. Not sure how or why a man would undertake these procedures and the whole thing seems kinda far fetched but sure. If someone meets the requirements to compete they can compete.

[–]BiologyIsReal 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (31 children)

If you think this question is far fetched, then tell us how we can differentiate between a "true trans woman" and a "cis man. If questioning someone's "identity" is "transphobic", how can you reject mediocre "cis" male athletes who "just" want an easy win from competing in women's sports? As far as I can see, you can't, which means that by allowing any trans identified male in women's categories you are open it to any male who want to play there regardless of how he identifies.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (30 children)

Your comment doesn't really make a ton of sense to me. What does me thinking that the hypothetical is far fetched to do with how someone identifies?

I'm not opening it to any male who wants an easy win. I'm opening it to anyone who meets the requirements for fair competition regardless of personal beliefs. Unless you consider sports to be about more than a fair competition - which I don't.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

You don’t see how to many women, things like sports teams and clubs are about more than competition? They are about social connections, team building, fitness, and a place where they can simply be without men commenting.

[–]ZveroboyAlinaIs clownfish a clown or a fish? 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In USA it is about scholarships as well.

Sports is also a good way for women to learn how to be more assertive, because society is not teaching women to act like that. A lot of female CEO's and high management have sports background.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Yes, sports teams and clubs are often about more than competition, but in advancing this POV let's not underestimate that for many girls and women competition and winning are of paramount importance.

I'm wary of overemphasizing the importance of collegiality, fitness, feeling good and other non-competitive aspects of sports for girls and women because the idea that girls and women mainly or solely value and do sports for the social connections, team building, fitness, personal satisfaction, etc, can be used against us to argue that therefore girls and women women won't or shouldn't mind if all the prizes and records girls' and women's sports start going to males. Since girls and women weren't in sports to score, win and set records anyways, the typical spiel goes, what's it to them if none of them are on the podium or record books any more?

Also, lots of sports are more about individual performance than about team performance - and many sports are primarily pursued and practiced on an individual basis, not a through teams. People who do track & field, swim, dive, ski, tennis, golf, surf, lift weights, endurance sports and so on often train and compete mainly as individuals. They might be on teams theoretically, or in certain situations, and they might participate in certain team events (like track or swim relays). But unlike in soccer, basketball, field hockey, baseball, softball etc, people in a lot of sports often are mainly in it for themselves.

Moreover, in sports that are mainly about individual accomplishments, a lot of the strongest social bonds and greatest comradery occur between competitors who are each other's main rivals. Like with the boxers Joe Louis and Max Schmeling. One of the aspects I found so intriguing and exciting about women's pro tennis back in the day was the intense rivalry between Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert on the court, and their close friendship and support for one another off the court.

Finally, even when athletes are in team sports, certain individuals on teams always stand out and get the most attention and focus. Megan Rapinoe of the USA national women's soccer team. Sue Bird and Brittney Griner of the WNBA. Tom Brady of the Patriots. Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle, Roger Maris, Derek Jeter of the NY Yankees.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Idk that bringing it up at all is over emphasis but cheers.

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I didn't mean to imply that bringing it up is overemphasis. Sorry for giving that impression. I'm not at my best right now.

But IRL and in online convos about this, including on sports sites, a point that often gets made to justify allowing trans-identified males AND males with DSDs like Caster Semenya to invade and win in women's sports is that girls and women don't care that much about winning, setting records and getting sports glory in the first place coz due to our (supposedly) naturally less competitive, cut-throat and ambitious nature, we do sports for other reasons. Also, because it's supposedly in our nature to take our lumps and lose with grace. Whereas for males - even ones who claim to be women - winning, setting records and getting glory are supposedly essential for their mental wellbeing. Or so the reasoning goes.

To this way of thinking, depriving girls and women of the chance to win, place or get in the record books - no big deal coz those things don't really matter to us; we supposedly do sports just to be sociable, and most of us are happy sitting on the bench or being bumped off the roster altogether. But to deprive a Caster Semenya or Ragehell McKinnon of the chance to win, place and get in the record books is grossly unfair, a moral outrage and major human rights violation!

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes I know but they asked what else women might get from sports teams besides sating a desire to compete so..

[–]adungitit 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

a point that often gets made to justify allowing trans-identified males AND males with DSDs like Caster Semenya to invade and win in women's sports is that girls and women don't care that much about winning, setting records and getting sports glory in the first place coz due to our (supposedly) naturally less competitive, cut-throat and ambitious nature, we do sports for other reasons.

Christ, I don't follow anything sports-related, but I'm not at all surprised that these points would get made and probably with people legitimately not even realising how misogynistic they're being. Trans activism is so full of these gross bioessentialist arguments that are all of a sudden getting feminists on board who I feel just a decade ago would've been at your throat if you implied a female brain made women meek and submissive.

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I imagine trans rights activists do see that, which is why they want to use women's sports for gender validation.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

So your point is that women need spaces away from men. Women's sports currently is such a place which would be taken away if you let trans women compete. Okay sure. But this isn't an argument exclusively to sports. We can apply the same logic to women's fitness centers, book clubs Bible study meetings or whatever. I agree that places like these should exist. Hell im helping to create such a space currently. I simply consider these secondary in a highly competitive environment where fairness should be the primary metric.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Ok, but if we go by the testosterone metrics for example, a guy can have all the advantages of male puberty but be considered a fair competition to a five foot tall woman in lifting if he took one dose of estrogen in his lifetime.

Separating sports by testosterone in one blood test is clearly not fair. Allowing anyone who has the advantages of male puberty to compete against someone who has not, regardless of whether he now has high testosterone is not fair.

Nature did not make competition between men and women fair. Sex separation gave some level of fairness.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Okay. So the current rules aren't fair. If we established rules that were fair - eg the male would have to be In a lower weight class as well - and the playing fields were equal, would you allow males to compete with females?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nope. Sexual dimorphism wasn’t fair in giving men more strength. The playing fields are not equal. That’s my issue. They won’t be equal no matter what hypothetical is made up.

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You keep making statements showing that you assume the current requirements are fair, and thus anyone who "meets the requirements" is participating in and advancing "fair competition."

It's like you're unaware that history is riddled with regulations that are unfair and laws that are unjust. Doing what's right isn't the same as following the rules; often doing the right thing means challenging, protesting, going beyond and defying the rules.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

What does fairness in competition have to do with revolutionary thought in a historical context? If you think the current rules aren't fair then work to get them changed and start changing them on the levels you can.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

What does fairness in competition have to do with revolutionary thought in a historical context?

Huh? I have no idea what you mean by "revolutionary thought" here.

"Fairness in competition" is the concept you keep referring to with your repeated mention of "fair competition." You keep making statements that give the impression you believe that if someone follows the current rules, then fair competition is guaranteed. Which is like saying that since laws only require that employers pay a minimum wage, adhere to certain minimum safety standards and follow X,Y and Z regulations, then paying that wage, adhering to those standards and following those regs constitutes compensating, safeguarding and treating all employees fairly. But many people would say that fairness means paying employees at least a living wage or, ideally, what they're worth, endeavoring to make employees as safe as possible, and providing a plethora of benefits and amenities.

I am working to get the rules in sports changed, BTW. But that's not the issue at hand here. This is a debate dub. The issue is whether QT can make a case that the current rules allowing males to use claims of being trans to compete in female sports are fair. You keep suggesting/insisting they are fair, but without explaining how and why - and without revealing what you mean by "fair," a word that seems to mean something different to you than to me and some other posters.

Fair in your view seems to stop at first definition given by Oxford, "in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate," and not to include the additional meaning that comes next, "just or appropriate in the circumstances."

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It seems like you're misunderstanding me. I'm assuming - for the sake of the argument - that the rules are fair and that if they are not that fair rules can be found. I should have made that clearer. I honestly don't know enough to judge wether the current set of rules are fair.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The people with expertise in sports, sports medicine/science and sports regulation who've looked into this issue extensively say that there is no fair way to allow males to compete in girls' and women's sports. As Ross Tucker of Science of Sport has pointed out, the aims of fairness in sport here are in direct conflict with the aim of "inclusion" for any males in the female category. Including males in female sports automatically puts female participants at a competitive disadvantage ranging from 10-12% in running to 50% in weightlifting to 160% in events that involve throwing or punching. Including males in female sports also excludes females not just from placing, winning and entering record books - it excludes female people from trying out, qualifying and participating in the first place. Moreover, if the sport is a contact sport like rugby, wrestling, boxing, MMA, roller derby, or hockey - or it could involve contact and collisions like basketball, soccer and baseball - allowing males to play/compete against females puts the females at risk of injury and death.

Since you now admit that you "honestly don't know enough to judge whether the current set of rules are fair," I don't get why you are weighing in on this topic and this thread at all. What do you think you are bringing to the table here?

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I just read the article you quoted. 1st the comparisons are between males with normal hormone levels and females with normal hormone levels. 2nd I've read through the whole article and doesn't say anywhere that no fair rules could possibly exist - even if your phrasing may make that seem different.

Tucker simply argues for exclusion until such rules are found. For both safety and the sake of competition. And who would have guessed that I don't disagree.

What do I bring to the conversation. Not a lot since I don't know if the rules are fair and won't judge on that front. My objective is simply to scout out what GC thinks - one which I have achieved. But the conversation brings a lot to me. By GCs reaction to my initial answer I can get a rough picture of how many are actually interested in fairness and safety while the other does not want males in women's sport full stop.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Huh? I didn't quote an article. I made reference to the extensive, in-depth report that Ross Tucker did for World Rugby and to Tucker's many published works on this topic. These include numerous posts and blog entries on the Science of Sport website made over many years, articles in newspapers such as the Times (of London), the many media interviews he's given, his Twitter feed and, above all, his many podcasts (some of which are only accessible by subscribers).

I can get a rough picture of how many are actually interested in fairness and safety while the other does not want males in women's sport full stop.

Please set forth the scenario and criteria which you think would allow "males in women's sports" whilst preserving fairness and safety for female people.

I don't mean to insult you, but you seem to have little grasp of the differences in physical development of male and female humans not just during and after the puberty of adolescence, but in utero, infancy and early childhood - and all the consequences these differences have for sports performance from the get-go. I get the impression you did not participate in competitive (or other) sports as a kid (as I did), that you haven't ever taught or coached kids/young people in sports (as I have), that you've never raised or been involved in raising children (as I have), and that you don't really follow sports (as I do).

To start to get acquainted with the difference in male and female human sports performance from early childhood, I suggest you look at the different growth size and rate charts used for male and female infants; the junior sports records set by pre-adolescent children in various sports in different countries around the world; and the stats for US kids who had to undergo the annual President's Physical Fitness tests during and after the era of JFK. Also look at what's happened with Little League Baseball since it became open to both sexes in 1974.

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

There is no fair way to let men compete in women's sports. The rules about testosterone levels are just an excuse to allow males to compete against women while pretending they care about fairness. However, there is no scientifical basis for such rules. For example, how do you explain that Laurel Hubbard, a trans identified male who has a gap of several years within his weightlifting carreer, was able to compete at the Olympics for the first time at the age of 43 years old? What matters in sports it's your body, not your "identity". There is simple no reason for trans identified males not to compete against other males or not to create their own leagues. They just want to compete against women because they want "validation" and/or because they are mediocre athletes who could never reach the top leves by competing against males.

The point I was trying to make in my previous comment was there is no a signicative difference between "true transwomen" and "cis men". Both groups are males and, as such, they have an athletic advantage over women. Calling certain males "women" don't change the reality about women's sports being made unisex in order to give trans identified males whathever they want. By allowing males in women's leagues, you're disregarding fairness and male cheaters are bound to exploit this situation.

Here is a long list of other males winning on women's sports.

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think trans-identified males want to compete against women for other reasons beyond validation and the fact that they are mediocre and can't cut it in elite sports in their own sex category. I think many of them hate women and want to dominate, defeat and demoralize us. I think many are extremely covetous too; as a result, they want to take what belongs to women and have it for themselves.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I mean we agree. There is not significant difference between men and trans women assuming equal levels of fitness, hormones etc. Where we disagree is your premise that no fair ruleset does exist to let trans women compete with cis women. It's a premise that I personally consider extremely unlikely. You could for example control the trans women's weight class based on how far they went through male puberty. Weight is directly related to strength. Other competitions may control for other factors to ensure fair competition.

trans identified male


Anyways. Even the article you send me states that hormone levels do not fully remove a competitive advantage. Fully is implies that at least a part of the advantage is removed. The other part could be controlled via other factors. Otherwise the source is clearly biased and I don't have the time to pick apart the examples since even for the trans women who lost you may alledge that they lost on purpose - like you did for Hubbard already.

[–]BiologyIsReal 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

For someone who admits not to know much about this topic, you surely make a lot of assumptions. You assume the current rules are fair. You assume even if they weren't fair, surely there must be a fair way to allow males in women's sports. Why do you think sports were seggregated by sex in the first place? Even sports that have a weight category, like box or weightlifting, are seggregated by sex. Men have an athletic advantage over women because of their sex. Higher levels of testosterone are a great part of why, but they are not the full picture. You've to consider other factors like height, skeleton, heart and lung sizes, etctera. Moreover, it doesn't matter if an adult male lowers his testosterone levels for a year to compete, this doesn't overide the effects that testosterone already had over his body.

Sports are about bodies, not "identity". There is not reason why trans identified males cannot compete with men. If for whatever reason they really do not want to compete with men who don't identify as "trans", they are free to create their own categories just like women created theirs. Either way, women do not own any male any spot in women's sports.

I didn't say Hubbard lost on purpose. In my thread about the Olympics I said he may have, but whether he did or not it's irrelevant. He already proved his male advantage by qualifying for the Olympics for the first time despite his age and circunstances. What you're not understanding is that when GC say trans identified males have an unfair advantage over women we don't mean that any male will defeat all women every time under any condition. We mean that males competing against women will perform far better in comparison that if they competed against fellow males (also, in contact sports, the presence of males increases the risk for female athletes's safety). That was the point of the article I linked: mediocre male athletes suddenly doing much better after "transition". If you read the stories of male athletes competing in women's sports you'll find that many of them fall within the following categories: males who are new to sport and become a rising star; males who struggled in the men's categories, but are much more successful once swicht categories; middle age males who compete against much younger women.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

So you're saying women's sports are for women because women created it and stuff. Most of the other factors could be controlled by weight and maybe some other factors. I imagine something like a score for every athlete depending on their physical capabilities. You could then sort athletes based into brackets based on these scores.

So yeah. Hubbard proves that the current rules are bad and need to be changed. That's not something we need to debate over. The more interesting question is: if actually fair rules were implemented: should trans women and cis men following these rules be allowed to compete against women? And should they be excluded from such a competition until these rules are found?

[–]ZveroboyAlinaIs clownfish a clown or a fish? 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You could then sort athletes based into brackets based on these scores.

There already such scores.

Thing is if remove sex, then in categories for "best women" we will also get "retired men after 50s" or "mediocre top 10 000 men". It is just unfair for women and is not giving equal opportunities for women, as "after 50s" or "mediocre top 10 000" women have nowhere to go like men. It will be just men taking women's places, and women gaining absolutely nothing from it. Men would not suffer from this either, only benefit.

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Like I said upthread, you seem to have little grasp of the differences in physical development of male and female humans not just during and after the puberty of adolescence, but in utero, infancy and early childhood - and all the consequences these differences have for sports performance from the get-go.

At six months, the hearts and crucial left ventricles of baby boys are 6-8% larger and stronger than those of baby girls. During the adolescence of puberty, boys' hearts grow to the point that they will be 25-38% larger than the hearts of girls and women of the same height and body weight. Males have much larger lungs and lung capacity; longer and stronger bones; skeletons that are shaped entirely differently to female skeletons; narrower pelvises, which affect how the every part of their lower bodies move from the hip sockets and femurs down to the toes and soles of the feet; bigger and differently shaped hands and feet; much greater grip strength; faster twitch fibers; quicker response and recovery time, etc. How do you control for those sorts of advantages?

There are thousands of ways that the bodies of male and female humans are different to one another. These differences give female humans some super powers. We can conceive, grow and give birth to new human beings, and we can provide human babies with breast milk that meets all their nutritional needs and provides them with immune benefits too, enabling them not just to survive but to thrive. Females have greater immunity than males, more endurance, and longer natural lifespans. But when it comes to sports, the same physical characteristics that give us super powers in reproduction and some other ways put us at a disadvantage compared to males. A huge disadvantage.

Also, the repeated claims that you've made about body weight don't hold up. Persons of the same body weight are not necessarily equally matched in strength or sports ability. The bodies of men and women who weigh exactly the same will still be different to one another in thousands of other ways. Also, the one time in many women's lives that we weigh the same as the men in our lives is when we are in the final phase of pregnancy.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

same body height and weight

Weightlifting records.

Female 81-89 kg category: record is 293 kg total. Heaviest female weight category except "superweight".

Male 51-59 kg category: record is 294 kg total. Lightest male weight category, except "underweight".

I will just leave it here.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

How you gonna make a system where everyone has to have a DEXA scan and regular weigh ins just so men can play against women when the sexed system works fine? What is the actual fault with the sexed system? It disallows men who identify as women? That’s not a problem. Why change it and make ridiculous requirements under the guise of fairness when there’s a system in place that has worked well enough since it’s inception right until a handful of blokes got their knickers twisted over it?

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Just made a comment right about it:


To "equate" there would be "best women" against "lowest category of men". Or "best women" against "30 years as retired men". And so on. As someone said - it is just unfair to women.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh yeah, real equal competition there. You’re five foot tall and 90 pounds mam? That puts you squarely in the 11 year old boy division congratulations!

[–]FlanJam[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Yeah it is far fetched, its a hypothetical to see people's reasoning. I guess its kinda like a reductio ad absurdum (I think I'm using that correctly).

So you say he should be allowed? You are okay with men (not transwoman, but man identifying males) in women's sports? Don't you find that inappropriate, to allow men into women's hard-fought-for sports leagues?

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Isn't that just arguing semantics? Kinda lame tbh. I personally consider sports to be about fair competition not identity. So think anyone should be eligible to compete if the competition stays fair. So if a person fulfills all requirements to compete fairly why shouldn't they enter?

Would it still be "women's hard-fought-for sports leagues? No. But that doesn't matter from a purely competitive viewpoint.

[–]Spikygrasspod 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

You say it's fair for a person to compete if they meet the requirements, but the question is: what should the requirements be? What categories are supposed to exist in sports, and why? It's not "lame" to pose hypothetical scenarios; it's a very useful way of figuring out what priorities someone places on different values, and for clarifying their positions when they seem ambiguous or inconsistent.

If sporting organisations wish to protect purely non physical identity categories, why do they have testosterone or other physical requirements? And why should we have separate sporting categories for personal identities at all?

These are questions worth asking because there are good reasons to have male and female sporting categories. Allowing males to compete in the women's category contradicts the purpose of the women's category, and adding a testosterone requirement is a useless papering over of this contradiction. There is no coherent principle or reasoning behind these rules, and the hypotheticals are designed to reveal this.

[–]FlanJam[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm glad someone understands lol

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

That's a different question from the originally proposed hypothetical thou. Which is why I consider it pretty lame. Because the answer is simply: if they are fair then the man should be able to compete. If the rules aren't then they shouldn't.

You say there are good reasons to have men's and women's sports categories. I don't see any beyond creating a competitive environment with a simple divider. If you have other good reasons I'm always open for input.

[–]Spikygrasspod 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It's not lame, the questions are designed to probe your ideas of fairness in sport, and of what defines men and women.

The reason to have men's and women's categories (when I say men and women, I mean adult male and female people) is that men have a large systematic average advantage in almost every sports category. If there were only an open category, men would win virtually everything, except maybe some ultra endurance events and a couple of other things where speed and strength aren't important. There are benefits to women when they can compete in sports: it boosts confidence; it is good for health; sporting excellence is an achievement in its own right; we are committed to enabling women to take part in the same aspects of public life that men enjoy; and some people make a career out of it. We should encourage girls and women in sports, and celebrate when they achieve excellence. However, excellence simply looks different for women because our bodies are a compromise between athletic performance and the ability to bear children (whether we choose to or not). A category just for women means that they can compete without the likelihood of being so dramatically outclassed by men that they are at risk of injury (in contact sports), or that they have no reasonable chance of winning anything. Splitting sports by sex doubles the number of people who can profitably compete, just as splitting boxing or weightlifting into weight classes increases the number of people who can sensibly compete in those sports. Unlike weight classes, however, women are also from a socially disadvantaged class, whom many people like myself desire to see especially encouraged in public life. Virtually all the people who benefit from sports being split into sex categories are women and girls, and virtually all the people who would suffer from sports being mixed sex are also women and girls. Why the flip would we want to take away those benefits from women and girls?

I'll answer the thought experiment for you, because you seem unwilling to commit to any principles or definitions: It's always unfair for men/males to compete in the women's category, regardless of their gender identity. Low testosterone rules are worse than useless, because they create the illusion of objectivity around the women's category while eroding its original, actually useful meaning.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

And here is where we disagree. I make two assumptions for the sake of argument. 1) that the current rules are fair and that if they aren't 2) a fair set of rules exists and can be implemented. And under these assumptions I think it's fairly reasonable to let a man and a trans women compete against cis women as long as they follow the guidelines.

When you're talking about mixed sports you're always assuming that there is no possible set of rules to effectively level the playing field. Only under that assumption can you reach the conclusion you have for our little thought experiment.

[–]Spikygrasspod 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Assuming the current rules are fair is begging the question, because the question is whether the current rules are fair. The hypothetical given by the original poster is designed to reveal this.

I don't see how fair rules could be devised for mixed sex sports (at least those involving strength or speed), because men's advantages are multiple and relate to various body parts and systems: size, body fat percentage, joint thickness, q-angle, lean mass, metabolic ability to utilise glycogen vs fat, explosive power, tendon and ligament stiffness (important for transferring force), upper body strength, heart size, lung size, bone strength. And those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. There are undoubtedly others. We don't know all of them because we don't study women athletes adequately, and because there is always more complexity to uncover about the human body.

Trying to make rules so men can compete with women seems like a losing proposition to me, but I wouldn't be against trying it, as long as women's sports remain intact as well (that is, if women could decide to compete against other women or against small men with high body fat, thinner bones, etc.). What I am against is the elimination of the women-only categories with a very badly designed testosterone rule which makes zero sense either from a physical perspective or a gender identity perspective.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not sure if it is. The way I read the question it was setting up the premise that QT assumes these rules are fair. Then proposes the question if it would be fair for men to compete under the same rules. So to me it seems to be designed to spot hypocrisy in QT ranks and highlight those focusing on identity over competitive sports.

I mean so we're against the same thing. I don't think trans women competing in women's sports currently is fair. But I don't think it can never be. I also admit that I don't know enough about the subject to suggest an accurate ruleset. I don't have any formal education in sports and my only experience comes from HEMA.

[–]Spikygrasspod 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The way I read it, it's meant to reveal the silliness and unfairness of the testosterone rule. The sports organisations seemingly can't decide if their categories are about gender identities or bodies. They're letting in male people who identify as women, only if they meet some arbitrary rule that in no way accounts for the differences between male and female bodies. It should be clear that allowing males with feminine gender identities to compete with women is unfair because of the systematic average advantage of males (which is barely touched by testosterone rules), but a lot of people seem to suppress their knowledge of sex differences when prompted to focus on gender identity, so the question is meant to probe whether people really think that low testosterone equalises male advantage and makes it fair for males to compete alongside female athletes. It doesn't.

You don't need formal education in sports to get an inkling of the differences between male and female bodies. If you're interested in learning a tiny bit about female physiology I can recommend Stacy Simms' Ted talk "women are not small men" about women's training needs. Or you could read Caroline Criado-Perez's book Invisible Women--in particular the chapter on sports and medical research (or rather, the lack thereof) on women.

I mean, maybe, theoretically you could make some rules to totally negate the average advantage of males against females in sports. But then you have another problem. Even though women perform worse at, say, weightlifting than men (with some exceptions), we recognise excellence in women's weightlifting by comparing them to other women. Or take boxing. While the heavyweight champions may be the best, we still recognise excellence in the lightweight categories, too. But a man who competes at the same level as the top female athletes is not an excellent sportswoman, he's a less excellent sportsman. For example, women have on average 8 or 10 percent more bodyfat than men, and that holds for athletes as well as mere mortals. It's absolutely necessary from a health perspective, but an athletic disadvantage because it decreases the power to weight ratio, which is crucial for speed and power. Now imagine we make weight classes based on bodyfat percentage. If your average elite male sprinter has, say, 7% bodyfat and the average female elite sprinter has 14% (just guessing, doesn't matter exactly), what would you make of a male sprinter who has 14% bodyfat and competes with the women? Would he be an example of excellence in that category (let's call it the 14% category)? Or is he a non-elite sprinter? I'm going to say it's the latter. Same for all the other aspects of male advantage. If you found a shorter, weaker, fatter male athlete with lower upper body strength, thinner bones, more flexible ligaments etc... would you say 'here's an example of excellence amongst women-and-some-men!' ? Personally, I don't think so. You'd see at least some excellent women (by which I mean they're the top of that category) being displaced by non-excellent men.

[–]FlanJam[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Isn't that just arguing semantics?

Do you think the difference between transwomen and men-who-take-hormones is semantics?

So if a person fulfills all requirements to compete fairly why shouldn't they enter?

Idk, I'm not giving an opinion I'm just asking questions. I think this scenario is a tricky spot for QT because they'll have to concede something no matter how they answer. So I'm curious how they will reason thru it.

Would it still be "women's hard-fought-for sports leagues? No. But that doesn't matter from a purely competitive viewpoint.

So it would be the end of women's sports? Doesn't that sound kinda bad to you?

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Do you think the difference between transwomen and men-who-take-hormones is semantics?

From a competitive standpoint in regards to physical sports? Yes.

So it would be the end of women's sports? Doesn't that sound kinda bad to you?

No, because it wouldn't remove any place where women could compete fairly. But it seems like you consider sport to be more than just that. If so then please explain to me what sport is to you.

[–]FlanJam[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Thanks for playing along with the hypothetical, I think this is the point that a bullet needs to be bit. Which is, men's and women's sports no longer exist. Instead we have a high testosterone category, and a low testosterone category. And athletes are allowed to undergo hormone treatments to participate in whatever category they want. Perhaps that's a bullet some QT would be willing to bite, but to me it sounds bizarre. At that point, why doesn't every athlete take hormones to reach the optimal, maximum allowable testosterone level? I feel like if everyone is taking hormones, it kinda goes against the spirit of sporting competitions.

If so then please explain to me what sport is to you.

I'm not a huge sports person, but I guess I'd consider it a competition of skill, physical ability, and sportsmanship (or something like that).

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Honestly maybe I'm that rare QT person that's willing to bite that bullet. If eg a trans man could compete fairly with other cis men then why shouldn't he. And I think this should go both ways.

I'd say because testosterone /lack their of does a lot with your body and if you sorted ppl by T levels taking t wouldn't even give a competitive advantage. But that's where I don't know enough about sports to judge a competitors mindset

[–]adungitit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You do know there are men with naturally lower testosterone and slimmer body builds, right? And there are even femboys who still identify as male who take oestrogen.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

How does that connect to my point thou?

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You...literally said that you don't know why a man would do things like have lower testosterone or take oestrogen while still identifying as male. I'm kinda baffled that you're acting dumb over this?

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

While still identifying as a man. Subtle difference. And yeah I don't get why someone would nuke their testo and take estrogen while doing so. Not doubting there may be a few counter examples because anecdotes are like fetishes. If you don't think there is someone like that there definitely is.

[–]adungitit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Again, plenty of femboys do exactly that. That's simply a fact.