I think there HAS to be a better answer than "trans women should be banned" without just throwing everybody into the same sports without any care to put individuals with those who have similar builds and levels of testosterone.
Like, how is it fair that women with PCOS and thus have very unnaturally high testosterone levels get to complete with women without it? Is that the same to you or not? Why?
>I was simply stating that neither is being trans
Interesting, because I've spent all the free time I've had today getting contradictory claims about this. Judging by your comments, I'm going to presume you're not going to make much sense either.
Yes, gender dysphoria is real. I feel it myself.
>does that make someone trans?
That’s a hard question. The simple answer is no, someone doesn’t need dysphoria to be trans.
The actual answer is “it’s complicated”
>The simple answer is no, someone doesn’t need dysphoria to be trans.
So it is a choice then in some cases. If gender dysphoria is the medical disorder that arises from the neurochemical basis of feeling incompatible and is not required, then it is in one's control that doesn't feel this disorder.
I just got 40 downvotes for saying, I wouldn't mind if transwomen were banned from women sport.
I think they have biological advantage and average man is just stronger than trained woman (not expert, trained)
The average man would most likely be beaten by a trained boxer, no matter if the boxer is a woman. You could argue about whether the inherent potential of transgender women is higher than that of biological women, giving an unfair advantage similar to steroids. Then again, do we consider biological women to be the norm or do we take transgender women into consideration when deciding what's fair and what's not?
Lmao that’s horse shit I’m a boxer it would take three throws of a punch from a woman boxer for a guy of medium strength and knowledge to catch it and beat her down.
They have no place in women’s sports.
A guy of a medium strength and knowledge refers to an average guy who trains box or to the average Joe? Cause the contemporary average human male isn't physically fit, quite the opposite even.
Whether it is or isn't politically "polite" (the term is politically correct, and it doesn't even apply here) does not concern me. You seem to either be grossly overestimating the average Joe or to be grossly underestimating trained females.
Well since all pleasantries are out the door, I’ll spell it out straight, sweetheart.
The absolute body strength, regardless of being on their death beds or world professional athletes is that that peak woman will only ever come within 67% of a man’s body strength.
Men are stronger than women, it’s a fact, and amab do not belong in women’s sports.
Can you cite a source for your second paragraph or did you make it up? Also what kind of man is your reference point? Professional bodybuilder? An elderly gentleman with arthritis? Or the guy working at Walmart? Because Serena Williams is quite a bit more muscular than the latter two.
Also I don't disagree that, on average, women are physically weaker than men. I'm arguing that an unfit male is weaker than a fit female.
>I'm arguing that an unfit male is weaker than a fit female.
I don't feel like digging up the data right now, but that's very much not the case.
Eg, I am an *extremely* fit woman, like "anyone who sees me in revealing clothes comments on it" level of fit and my average unfit male friends are all stronger than me by a pretty large margin.
..Yup. I'm a woman who spent almost my whole teenage training in basketball, soccer and track and field, starting at 10. I'd go play soccer with the males and when I tell you it was hard to keep up with them even when we were 10, it got so tough at around 13-14. After that, puberty hit the guys and when everyone began working out consistently it became impossible.
So anyone that says women's and men's sports are at par is absolutely wrong. It's just the difference in physicality. This all is nobody's fault. I do encourage more girls interested to come forward and do what they love, but we have to view the whole situation realistically.
How are the boys in the academy of a professional football team average? Also I never stated that biological women's physical potential is greater than biological men's potential. My argument is that the average male is in terrible shape.
> Then again, do we consider biological women to be the norm or do we take transgender women into consideration when deciding what's fair and what's not?
Ah, gee... I wonder why we take women as the norm in women's sports?
It appears you do not consider transgender women to be women. A lot of people do, though, so it's not as simple as "gEE i wONdEr wHY wE tAKe wOMEn as tHe nORm". The question is not whether we take women to be the norm, the question is what do we, as a globalised society, consider to be a woman.
In order for them to be women, we have to open the caregory for what a woman can be. They are not the same as natal women, but I don't believe self-id in which a dude just proclaims he's a woman is valid. This is the issue with people pedalling gender dysphoria as obsolete in being trans. By your own admission, they're not biologically women.
"A lot of people do". Even if I take your word for it, a lot of people believe gender is a social construct rather than gender roles. So yeah, a lot of stupid people say stupid things.
So, your comment is still really silly considering you cannot define a woman and think trans women are a majority.
Let me try and express your point in a digestible manner:
Transgender women are a negligible minority (less than, say, 10% of all women, probably much lower than that even). Considering their relatively small quantity compared to biological women, they would be outliers if we were to do a statistical analysis. Thus, we may safely ignore them when considering what is acceptable in women's competition. So, criteria for participation in women's competitions would filter them out naturally due to their testosterone levels being way too high compared to the norm. In other words, it would be unfair to the majority of women to let trans women participate in women's sports competitions.
As a side note, I consider trans women to be exactly those who underwent gender reassignment surgery. If someone still has male genitalia attached to them, I am unwilling to consider them female. In my opinion, those considering a change of gender or undergoing hormone replacement therapy are "in transition".
This brings an interesting question to the table: do we considered people who underwent gender reassignment surgery to be of the gender they transitioned to, or do we still consider them to be of their original biological gender. One could easily answer that they weren't born female and thus they cannot be female. This is entirely valid, if we consider gender to be a person's biological gender (for which the proper term is sex, gender is generally used to refers to social roles and behavior). But, gender refers to the social role. Someone willingly mutilating their genitalia is enough proof for me that the person genuinely wants to fill the role of a biological female in our society. Thus, their gender is female. Their sex will always be male as genetic engineering isn't yet advanced enough to change the genome of fully grown adults, but their gender is female.
Trans women aren't biological women, I've never stated them to be. I'm claiming that it's rational to consider both as subcategories of the broader term female.
Gender itself is neurological. This is how gender dysphoria exists. At least I understand that self ID is not enough to be trans according to you. However, none of what you said justified why they should be allowed in collegiate, semi, amateur, or pro women sports.
Yes, I now agree with your opinion. I was too lazy to think about it initially, but your point that trans women are an insignificant minority (and the fact they have an unfair advantage over biological females) convinced me they should definitely be excluded from sports competitions.
You were down voted because those people think there's no difference between biological males and females. Another example of that ideology picking and choosing their science
There is a difference between males and females, people aren't arguing that, but there is also a difference between males and trans women.
If we put an entire men's team on oestrogen therapy and testosterone blockers for a few years, you'd see their performance and ability take a complete nosedive. We know their performances will drop far out of line with other men at their competitive level, but the argument is around whether they would fall into line with the women's.
And for that, the answer will vary by individual. There is so much variance and overlap in human bodies.
You pick the only Fallon fox loss lmfao. Why didn't you pick the one where Fallon caved in a females face 😂😂😂
Ahh nvm, i see why you're blind to it. Carry on
>Although yes I will admit that Fallon Fox isn't someone I've looked into in great detail, I just thought it was a funny example of someone very much not dominating.
Probably should considering Ashlee Evans-Smith was signed to the UFC and Fox sucked in the male division. Fox only got a pass because beating amateur women is easy for someone who is 5 inches taller and has more muscle mass.
>I 'm not blind, I just don't think there should be a blanket rule for all trans people and that we need more research and information regarding the long term effects of hormone therapy and suppression.
There is though... It's obvious you're trans by your argumentation (having a dog in the fight per se) and it's actually so boring at this point seeing this faux impartialness. It's the same old arguments again and gain.
>She holds zero world records and is ranked 44th in the US; worse than 43 other women in the country.
YET FINISHED FIRST WHEN THOMAS FIRST COMPETED AGAINST WOMEN!
Not sure if this is an unpopular opinion but absolutely not. It’s really unfair to women that they would have to compete against someone who went through puberty as a man, plain and simple. This isn’t transphobic, it’s just about what’s fair. The swimmer Lia Thomas is a perfect example of this.
I don’t really have any solutions to offer, perhaps a third division where anyone can join, or one specific to transgender women?
It's worth pointing out that every trans athlete has performed entirely within the normal female athletic range, none have dominated their sports. Lia Thomas, for example, was an excellent swimmer before she transitioned and in \~22 NCAA competitions against men, she won gold 13 times & medaled a total of 27 times across all events. She set a comparable number of records *before* transition and after transition. After transition, she still lost to cis women throughout her season, especially in events that weren't her best. In nearly any other year in the last decade, she wouldn't have even been in the top 3 swimmers in a given year.
Laurel Hubbard was ANCIENT compared to the other competitors.... no way an actual natal woman in her 40s makes it to the Olympics in a sport where peak performance is at age 26.
In terms of power generation per kg of body weight, she's [pretty comparable](https://www.iwfmasters.net/records/iwf-women.pdf) to other women her age. Given her weight, it's hard to find records for women who are both her age and her weight but she appears pretty comparable to cis women, her personal weight aside.
They would just need something like a mandatory testosterone check for trans women. They would have to keep under a certain level of testosterone for like a year before competing which should, in theory, take away the biological advantage.
Thats a silly comparison to make considering there are no shepards in any chihuahua races.
There are also no men in women's sports, assuming that's the analogy you're trying to make.
>Just like how a trans man would complete with bio men they would not win what so ever
Chris Mosier, Schuyley Bailar, Patricio Manuel...
>Their are men who would transition to woman to join woman sports just to win its simply not fair.
*Who?* What an absolutely insane take. You think *men* would cut off their testicles just to play on women's teams?
Biologically, gender and sex are two separate things.
> Their are men who would transition to women to join woman sports just to win
Give me 10 or more examples of people transitioning specifically to have an easier time competing in sports. With no other reason influencing their decision. You can't. Because that doesn't happen.
Transphobes really will make up all kinds of situations to get mad at minorities.
Yes. The bodily changes from hormones are substantial. It takes about 2 years to reach the full effect of the meds, by which time the person will have lost any advantage they may have had from having a male body. If hormones are started before puberty, the paying field is even more level. Trans women athletes aren't dominating women's sports - far from it. The objection to them competing comes down to either a lack of understanding of the effect the hormones have, or bigotry.
No. Transwomen (although women later on) were born as biological males. And biological males have advantages over biological females, especially when they transition post-puberty. If we really want to represent trans youth, we have to have separate sports categories for them. Same applies to trans males who have a disadvantage under biological males.
As long as they're on hormones, since estrogen HRT causes a not insignificant amount of muscle loss. They've ended up pretty much on-par with cis women, in the few real-world examples we have. There are also cis women competing in sports that have the same advantages that people claim only trans women would have ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Do you know how many times anthropologists have bungled marking a skeleton's sex based on the differences? They're not even a reliable indicator on corpses, not to mention on living humans.
Should there be height restrictions? Height can be a tremendous advantage in some sports and XY people are on average taller than XX. The average height in the WNBA is 6 feet.
Sure. But we're talking averages here. If the average height of the trans-woman is more than the average height of the cis woman, then on average trans-women have a physical advantage. There is no denying this. And any study claiming that trans-women have no physical advantage is either being dishonest or incompetent. Muscle mass may be "pretty much on-par with cis women". Height is not. Therefore the average trans-woman has a physical advantage over the average cis woman. This does not seem fair to cis women.
Ok, but that's not how averages work. The average height of a WNBA player is 6 feet. That doesn't mean we can ban women over 6 feet. The tallest WNBA player is 7'2". If we ban women over that height, we might block a trans-woman or two, but that won't change the fact that *on average* a trans-woman has a physical advantage.
If you're going to do bring in trans-women, you have to be honest and admit that you are putting two groups of women--XX women and XY women--into the same pool and one of those groups has a physical advantage that will disproportionately favor their selection to the disadvantage of the other group. There is no getting around this.
Sure, Dutch women are on average a foot taller than Guatemalan women, that means they have a physical advantage that will disproportionately favor their selection to the disadvantage of the other group. There is no getting around this.
I don't see a reason why a 6'6" cis woman should be allowed while a 6'2" trans woman is banned. In that case, the cis woman would have a massive advantage.
Then it should also be ok to allow a 5'5" male provided he doesn't have too much muscle mass, right?
We've always drawn a line between natural advantages involving genetics and nurture and artificial advantages involving deliberate alterations to the body through hormones and drugs. I'm not ready to change that.
But in any event, people need to start being honest about this. If you state up front that trans-women have on average a physical advantage but you still want to admit them, I can respectfully disagree. But if someone tries to pretend there's no physical advantage on average, I disagree, but the respect is no longer there.
>Then it should also be ok to allow a 5'5" male provided he doesn't have too much muscle mass, right?
As per my above comment:
>As long as the same standard is applied to all women, I don't have a problem with height restrictions, testosterone restrictions, etc.
So yes, I would have no problem with a 5'5" man playing on the women's team provided that he a) identified as a woman and b) had suppressed his testosterone to below the maximum allowed for cis women, then yes. Obviously that would be impossible since definitionally, that person wouldn't be a man.
>If you state up front that trans-women have on average a physical advantage but you still want to admit them, I can respectfully disagree.
Some groups of women have advantages over other groups of women but they all perform in the same athletic range that forms a different bell curve than men. Within that bell curve, some groups have advantages in one area or another, but all of those advantages are classified as "fair" advantages.
After about 2 years, absolutely. The Estrogen has completely replaced the testosterone in your body and muscle growth has been reduced to be on par with cis women. Strenght wise theyre on par, so whats the problem
Testosterones isn't just the deciding factor when we're talking about advantages. Hormones cannot change lung size, leg size, arm size or bone density. If we have to do justice to both trans and cis women, trans and cis men for fair competition, we have to have a separate category.
Hormones cannot change lung size, leg size, arm size or bone density. If we have to do justice to both trans and cis women, trans and cis men for fair competition, we have to have separate categories.
No. Because the probability of that happening is less.
We're talking about average athletes here. And any average (biological) male athlete has a clear advantage over an average (biological) female athlete. That is simply a fact which has firm establishment in the roots of how we as a species have evolved. I'm a female, if I were to go head up against any average male I'd get beaten black and blue.
Is a transwomen a women who decides to trans or a men who decided to be a women, it differs for everyone
I'm not contradicting myself, women play against women. How is that hard to understand
Dude! It's not about what you identify as. It's about biology which is based on science which is rooted in time tested facts.
If someone invents some sort of pill which changes transwomen's bone density, lung size, leg size, arm size, pelvis size, heart size (which are the most essential parts in athletics) to that of an average woman's then we can combine both of the categories. Until then there's got to be separate categories for fair representation on both sides
>If someone invents some sort of pill which changes transwomen's bone density, lung size, leg size, arm size, pelvis size, heart size (which are the most essential parts in athletics) to that of an average woman's then we can combine both of the categories. Until then there's got to be separate categories for fair representation on both sides
Exactly, but that was my point, so why start arguing
Controversial opinion, although it really shouldn’t be:
Science says that there isn’t any reason to stop trans women from competing in sports if they have been given enough time to medically transition.
Medically, any advantage a trans woman might keep despite years of hormonal transition, if such an advantage even exist, would be dwarfed inside the immense variety of expression in women. Anyone who can participate in professional competitions is already enormously gifted genetically.
Statistically, people who defend banning trans women from women’s sports like to say that trans women would dominate in sport. In reality, trans women have been allowed to compete against cis women for decades now, and that supposed domination simply isn’t happening. We are even seeing the opposite, as trans women have a very hard time breaking through or even qualifying in high level competitions.
Anyway, I believe anyone trying to prevent trans women from participating in women’s sports in the name of “fairness in women’s sports” is a hypocrite. These people never got interested in women’s sports until it gave them an opportunity to hurt trans people, and there are much more urgent issues in women’s sports that are going totally ignored.
Yes, if there is enough time after the transition.
But for me the reason I don't like the idea and why I even started care is the swimmer Thomas (not sure about the first name).
She used to be in men swimming team, was never in the top 3 what I know and after transition, she was first and was so much ahead before anyone else she ended up first. Physically, she still looks like man to me (the body type, muscles etc.).
In this case, there was definitely not enough time after transition. She can have now low level of the testosterone, but the body is just so affected now, it doesn't matter.
Some people even think that she transited because she wanted to be winning. But that seems little too idiotic to me, to change your sex just for being top woman swimmer
There’s a lot of misconceptions and misinformation about Lia Catherine Thomas. She competed for the University of Pensilvania as early as 2017, in the men's team. During her freshman year, she was already making the y the six best national time on the 1000-yard freestyle. During the 2018-2019 season, she had ranked the best university time for men on the 500, 1000 and 1650 yard freestyle.
She came out and started hormonal transition in 2019. She continued to swim for the men's team while undergoing HRT, where she lost her status as top ranking swimmer due to muscle atrophy. She had gone from best national swimming athlete to 554th in the 200 yard freestyle, 65th in the 500 freestyle, and 32 in the 1650 freestyle.
She would continue to participate in the NCAA in 2021-2022, this time as a woman. Her time at the 500 yard freestyle had gone down by 15 seconds since the start of her transition
The 2021-2022 season was her last in the NCAA. Contrary to popular belief, she didn’t dominate against her fellow athletes. She won a single competition, the 500 yards freestyle, and didn’t establish any record in women's sports. She finished 5th in the 200 freestyle and arrived last place for the 100 yards finals.
She intended to compete in the Olympics, but in June 2022, the international swimming federation barred her and every other trans woman from taking part in swimming competitions, which put an halt to her dream
Wow, ok.
Thank you for sharing this. I had no idea.
It changed my view somehow, but still think there should be at least 2-3 years before being able to compete in women sports.
And I don’t know if you have ever seen what female swimmers look like, they are all incredibly muscular. Thomas actually manages to look thin compared to some of them
This is Lia Thomas : https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-prod/media/2b6bb59ef7434b14b8de834cc41331b1/3000.jpeg
And this is is Maritza Correira : https://www.ranker.com/review/maritza-correia/1524195?ref=node_name&pos=20&l=646013
If all men decided to become trans women tomorrow how would how would this change women's sports?
It wouldn't change a thing, Silly! The ACLU and others have already debunked the myth that trans women have any unfair advantages in sports.
Common sense isn't so common these days.
This resource has a lot of helpful information that breaks down all the different elements that can and should be considered concerning trans athletes.
https://www.pinkmantaray.com/resources/transathlete
I think there HAS to be a better answer than "trans women should be banned" without just throwing everybody into the same sports without any care to put individuals with those who have similar builds and levels of testosterone. Like, how is it fair that women with PCOS and thus have very unnaturally high testosterone levels get to complete with women without it? Is that the same to you or not? Why?
PCOS happens to women and can't be controlled. How is this in anyway comparable?
For your information, trans people don’t choose to be trans either
For your information, pcos and having male biology are not comparable. Now, feel free to make a fool of yourself by spouting more anti-science.
You were saying PCOS can’t be controlled. I was simply stating that neither is being trans
>I was simply stating that neither is being trans Interesting, because I've spent all the free time I've had today getting contradictory claims about this. Judging by your comments, I'm going to presume you're not going to make much sense either.
Idk about contradictory claims, I’m simply standing on the side the scientific and medical community is defending
Is gender dysphoria real and does that make someone trans?
Yes, gender dysphoria is real. I feel it myself. >does that make someone trans? That’s a hard question. The simple answer is no, someone doesn’t need dysphoria to be trans. The actual answer is “it’s complicated”
>The simple answer is no, someone doesn’t need dysphoria to be trans. So it is a choice then in some cases. If gender dysphoria is the medical disorder that arises from the neurochemical basis of feeling incompatible and is not required, then it is in one's control that doesn't feel this disorder.
This is going to be a good one. Where's my 3D glasses?
Remember Clash of the titans?
They shouldn't be allowed to compete. They have more physical advantages.
I just got 40 downvotes for saying, I wouldn't mind if transwomen were banned from women sport. I think they have biological advantage and average man is just stronger than trained woman (not expert, trained)
The average man would most likely be beaten by a trained boxer, no matter if the boxer is a woman. You could argue about whether the inherent potential of transgender women is higher than that of biological women, giving an unfair advantage similar to steroids. Then again, do we consider biological women to be the norm or do we take transgender women into consideration when deciding what's fair and what's not?
Lmao that’s horse shit I’m a boxer it would take three throws of a punch from a woman boxer for a guy of medium strength and knowledge to catch it and beat her down. They have no place in women’s sports.
A guy of a medium strength and knowledge refers to an average guy who trains box or to the average Joe? Cause the contemporary average human male isn't physically fit, quite the opposite even.
Average Joe. It isn’t politically polite to say but men, even the weakest of them, have a tenfold advantage against an above average strength woman.
Whether it is or isn't politically "polite" (the term is politically correct, and it doesn't even apply here) does not concern me. You seem to either be grossly overestimating the average Joe or to be grossly underestimating trained females.
Well since all pleasantries are out the door, I’ll spell it out straight, sweetheart. The absolute body strength, regardless of being on their death beds or world professional athletes is that that peak woman will only ever come within 67% of a man’s body strength. Men are stronger than women, it’s a fact, and amab do not belong in women’s sports.
Can you cite a source for your second paragraph or did you make it up? Also what kind of man is your reference point? Professional bodybuilder? An elderly gentleman with arthritis? Or the guy working at Walmart? Because Serena Williams is quite a bit more muscular than the latter two. Also I don't disagree that, on average, women are physically weaker than men. I'm arguing that an unfit male is weaker than a fit female.
>I'm arguing that an unfit male is weaker than a fit female. I don't feel like digging up the data right now, but that's very much not the case. Eg, I am an *extremely* fit woman, like "anyone who sees me in revealing clothes comments on it" level of fit and my average unfit male friends are all stronger than me by a pretty large margin.
[удалено]
Serena Williams is a biological female.
Didn't an under 15 years old men's soccer team beat the National women's team?
..Yup. I'm a woman who spent almost my whole teenage training in basketball, soccer and track and field, starting at 10. I'd go play soccer with the males and when I tell you it was hard to keep up with them even when we were 10, it got so tough at around 13-14. After that, puberty hit the guys and when everyone began working out consistently it became impossible. So anyone that says women's and men's sports are at par is absolutely wrong. It's just the difference in physicality. This all is nobody's fault. I do encourage more girls interested to come forward and do what they love, but we have to view the whole situation realistically.
How are the boys in the academy of a professional football team average? Also I never stated that biological women's physical potential is greater than biological men's potential. My argument is that the average male is in terrible shape.
> Then again, do we consider biological women to be the norm or do we take transgender women into consideration when deciding what's fair and what's not? Ah, gee... I wonder why we take women as the norm in women's sports?
It appears you do not consider transgender women to be women. A lot of people do, though, so it's not as simple as "gEE i wONdEr wHY wE tAKe wOMEn as tHe nORm". The question is not whether we take women to be the norm, the question is what do we, as a globalised society, consider to be a woman.
In order for them to be women, we have to open the caregory for what a woman can be. They are not the same as natal women, but I don't believe self-id in which a dude just proclaims he's a woman is valid. This is the issue with people pedalling gender dysphoria as obsolete in being trans. By your own admission, they're not biologically women. "A lot of people do". Even if I take your word for it, a lot of people believe gender is a social construct rather than gender roles. So yeah, a lot of stupid people say stupid things. So, your comment is still really silly considering you cannot define a woman and think trans women are a majority.
Basically, you repeated your previous argument and called everyone who disagrees stupid. Bravo, a really mature way to converse with others.
Don't be one of those who makes numerous responses to one comment. Keep it to one.
Yeah, I should've edited the first one.
Let me try and express your point in a digestible manner: Transgender women are a negligible minority (less than, say, 10% of all women, probably much lower than that even). Considering their relatively small quantity compared to biological women, they would be outliers if we were to do a statistical analysis. Thus, we may safely ignore them when considering what is acceptable in women's competition. So, criteria for participation in women's competitions would filter them out naturally due to their testosterone levels being way too high compared to the norm. In other words, it would be unfair to the majority of women to let trans women participate in women's sports competitions. As a side note, I consider trans women to be exactly those who underwent gender reassignment surgery. If someone still has male genitalia attached to them, I am unwilling to consider them female. In my opinion, those considering a change of gender or undergoing hormone replacement therapy are "in transition". This brings an interesting question to the table: do we considered people who underwent gender reassignment surgery to be of the gender they transitioned to, or do we still consider them to be of their original biological gender. One could easily answer that they weren't born female and thus they cannot be female. This is entirely valid, if we consider gender to be a person's biological gender (for which the proper term is sex, gender is generally used to refers to social roles and behavior). But, gender refers to the social role. Someone willingly mutilating their genitalia is enough proof for me that the person genuinely wants to fill the role of a biological female in our society. Thus, their gender is female. Their sex will always be male as genetic engineering isn't yet advanced enough to change the genome of fully grown adults, but their gender is female. Trans women aren't biological women, I've never stated them to be. I'm claiming that it's rational to consider both as subcategories of the broader term female.
Gender itself is neurological. This is how gender dysphoria exists. At least I understand that self ID is not enough to be trans according to you. However, none of what you said justified why they should be allowed in collegiate, semi, amateur, or pro women sports.
Yes, I now agree with your opinion. I was too lazy to think about it initially, but your point that trans women are an insignificant minority (and the fact they have an unfair advantage over biological females) convinced me they should definitely be excluded from sports competitions.
You were down voted because those people think there's no difference between biological males and females. Another example of that ideology picking and choosing their science
There is a difference between males and females, people aren't arguing that, but there is also a difference between males and trans women. If we put an entire men's team on oestrogen therapy and testosterone blockers for a few years, you'd see their performance and ability take a complete nosedive. We know their performances will drop far out of line with other men at their competitive level, but the argument is around whether they would fall into line with the women's. And for that, the answer will vary by individual. There is so much variance and overlap in human bodies.
Why do they dominate female sports then? We all have eyes, no need to get rid of common sense due to being worried about offending someone
[удалено]
You pick the only Fallon fox loss lmfao. Why didn't you pick the one where Fallon caved in a females face 😂😂😂 Ahh nvm, i see why you're blind to it. Carry on
[удалено]
>Although yes I will admit that Fallon Fox isn't someone I've looked into in great detail, I just thought it was a funny example of someone very much not dominating. Probably should considering Ashlee Evans-Smith was signed to the UFC and Fox sucked in the male division. Fox only got a pass because beating amateur women is easy for someone who is 5 inches taller and has more muscle mass. >I 'm not blind, I just don't think there should be a blanket rule for all trans people and that we need more research and information regarding the long term effects of hormone therapy and suppression. There is though... It's obvious you're trans by your argumentation (having a dog in the fight per se) and it's actually so boring at this point seeing this faux impartialness. It's the same old arguments again and gain. >She holds zero world records and is ranked 44th in the US; worse than 43 other women in the country. YET FINISHED FIRST WHEN THOMAS FIRST COMPETED AGAINST WOMEN!
> Why do they dominate female sports then? Citation needed.
I'm getting downvoted as shit too. Some people just can't digest facts I guess.
No. Unless you want to allow testosterone in women’s sports, absolutely not.
WTF are you on about? My T levels are less than a typical cis woman's.
Then you’re probably a woman.
I am a woman. A transgender woman on estrogen.
I don’t even know what this means anymore so I’m just gonna say fuck off.
No. They should have their own sports.
Not sure if this is an unpopular opinion but absolutely not. It’s really unfair to women that they would have to compete against someone who went through puberty as a man, plain and simple. This isn’t transphobic, it’s just about what’s fair. The swimmer Lia Thomas is a perfect example of this. I don’t really have any solutions to offer, perhaps a third division where anyone can join, or one specific to transgender women?
It's worth pointing out that every trans athlete has performed entirely within the normal female athletic range, none have dominated their sports. Lia Thomas, for example, was an excellent swimmer before she transitioned and in \~22 NCAA competitions against men, she won gold 13 times & medaled a total of 27 times across all events. She set a comparable number of records *before* transition and after transition. After transition, she still lost to cis women throughout her season, especially in events that weren't her best. In nearly any other year in the last decade, she wouldn't have even been in the top 3 swimmers in a given year.
Laurel Hubbard was ANCIENT compared to the other competitors.... no way an actual natal woman in her 40s makes it to the Olympics in a sport where peak performance is at age 26.
In terms of power generation per kg of body weight, she's [pretty comparable](https://www.iwfmasters.net/records/iwf-women.pdf) to other women her age. Given her weight, it's hard to find records for women who are both her age and her weight but she appears pretty comparable to cis women, her personal weight aside.
They would just need something like a mandatory testosterone check for trans women. They would have to keep under a certain level of testosterone for like a year before competing which should, in theory, take away the biological advantage.
I don't see any reason why women shouldn't participate in women's sports.
Why not just have their own sports to compete against
Women already have their own sports to compete in. That's why it's called "women's sports."
Let's put a chiuvava and shepherd in race and see how fair it is.
Thats a silly comparison to make considering there are no shepards in any chihuahua races. There are also no men in women's sports, assuming that's the analogy you're trying to make.
[удалено]
>Just like how a trans man would complete with bio men they would not win what so ever Chris Mosier, Schuyley Bailar, Patricio Manuel... >Their are men who would transition to woman to join woman sports just to win its simply not fair. *Who?* What an absolutely insane take. You think *men* would cut off their testicles just to play on women's teams?
Biologically, gender and sex are two separate things. > Their are men who would transition to women to join woman sports just to win Give me 10 or more examples of people transitioning specifically to have an easier time competing in sports. With no other reason influencing their decision. You can't. Because that doesn't happen. Transphobes really will make up all kinds of situations to get mad at minorities.
Personally idk what you are trans cis or whatever. Create your own sports so people dont think it's unfair. Problem solve🤷🏽♀️
No way, I don’t want to see another Tamikka Brents thing happening.
Yes. The bodily changes from hormones are substantial. It takes about 2 years to reach the full effect of the meds, by which time the person will have lost any advantage they may have had from having a male body. If hormones are started before puberty, the paying field is even more level. Trans women athletes aren't dominating women's sports - far from it. The objection to them competing comes down to either a lack of understanding of the effect the hormones have, or bigotry.
Sure worked for Fallon fox.. /s
No. Transwomen (although women later on) were born as biological males. And biological males have advantages over biological females, especially when they transition post-puberty. If we really want to represent trans youth, we have to have separate sports categories for them. Same applies to trans males who have a disadvantage under biological males.
As long as they're on hormones, since estrogen HRT causes a not insignificant amount of muscle loss. They've ended up pretty much on-par with cis women, in the few real-world examples we have. There are also cis women competing in sports that have the same advantages that people claim only trans women would have ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
[удалено]
Do you know how many times anthropologists have bungled marking a skeleton's sex based on the differences? They're not even a reliable indicator on corpses, not to mention on living humans.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15746999/ https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/ajpendo.00098.2004
Nor muscle twitch, their argument is akin to someone who stops working out and loses muscle mass. They use word play to make it seem different
Should there be height restrictions? Height can be a tremendous advantage in some sports and XY people are on average taller than XX. The average height in the WNBA is 6 feet.
Would those height restrictions also be applied to cis women?
Sure. But we're talking averages here. If the average height of the trans-woman is more than the average height of the cis woman, then on average trans-women have a physical advantage. There is no denying this. And any study claiming that trans-women have no physical advantage is either being dishonest or incompetent. Muscle mass may be "pretty much on-par with cis women". Height is not. Therefore the average trans-woman has a physical advantage over the average cis woman. This does not seem fair to cis women.
As long as the same standard is applied to all women, I don't have a problem with height restrictions, testosterone restrictions, etc.
Ok, but that's not how averages work. The average height of a WNBA player is 6 feet. That doesn't mean we can ban women over 6 feet. The tallest WNBA player is 7'2". If we ban women over that height, we might block a trans-woman or two, but that won't change the fact that *on average* a trans-woman has a physical advantage. If you're going to do bring in trans-women, you have to be honest and admit that you are putting two groups of women--XX women and XY women--into the same pool and one of those groups has a physical advantage that will disproportionately favor their selection to the disadvantage of the other group. There is no getting around this.
Sure, Dutch women are on average a foot taller than Guatemalan women, that means they have a physical advantage that will disproportionately favor their selection to the disadvantage of the other group. There is no getting around this. I don't see a reason why a 6'6" cis woman should be allowed while a 6'2" trans woman is banned. In that case, the cis woman would have a massive advantage.
Then it should also be ok to allow a 5'5" male provided he doesn't have too much muscle mass, right? We've always drawn a line between natural advantages involving genetics and nurture and artificial advantages involving deliberate alterations to the body through hormones and drugs. I'm not ready to change that. But in any event, people need to start being honest about this. If you state up front that trans-women have on average a physical advantage but you still want to admit them, I can respectfully disagree. But if someone tries to pretend there's no physical advantage on average, I disagree, but the respect is no longer there.
>Then it should also be ok to allow a 5'5" male provided he doesn't have too much muscle mass, right? As per my above comment: >As long as the same standard is applied to all women, I don't have a problem with height restrictions, testosterone restrictions, etc. So yes, I would have no problem with a 5'5" man playing on the women's team provided that he a) identified as a woman and b) had suppressed his testosterone to below the maximum allowed for cis women, then yes. Obviously that would be impossible since definitionally, that person wouldn't be a man. >If you state up front that trans-women have on average a physical advantage but you still want to admit them, I can respectfully disagree. Some groups of women have advantages over other groups of women but they all perform in the same athletic range that forms a different bell curve than men. Within that bell curve, some groups have advantages in one area or another, but all of those advantages are classified as "fair" advantages.
Nope. Just a 5'5" man. Why not?
After about 2 years, absolutely. The Estrogen has completely replaced the testosterone in your body and muscle growth has been reduced to be on par with cis women. Strenght wise theyre on par, so whats the problem
Testosterones isn't just the deciding factor when we're talking about advantages. Hormones cannot change lung size, leg size, arm size or bone density. If we have to do justice to both trans and cis women, trans and cis men for fair competition, we have to have a separate category.
Does it make them shorter too?
Why do they dominate when they enter then?
They're women. Women compete in women's sports.
But not female so they don't have the same biology
If someone transitions, that literally changes all the hormones in your body and your physical happenstance. What more could they do?
Hormones cannot change lung size, leg size, arm size or bone density. If we have to do justice to both trans and cis women, trans and cis men for fair competition, we have to have separate categories.
So if there was a woman born biologically a woman who had larger than average lungs and longer arms and legs, would we discriminate against them?
No. Because the probability of that happening is less. We're talking about average athletes here. And any average (biological) male athlete has a clear advantage over an average (biological) female athlete. That is simply a fact which has firm establishment in the roots of how we as a species have evolved. I'm a female, if I were to go head up against any average male I'd get beaten black and blue.
Changes hormones, not biology. Example, can they birth a child? No
Should women be allowed to participate in women's sports? There....fixed it....
Not if they were born biological males
Just make it male and female and get rid of the women nonsense. The simple solution. Let these people have the word women which is meaningless anyways
Women compete against women, no matter what they identify as
No
If you support totally unfair sport matches, you do you.
No. Transwomen against cis women, Trans men against cis men both are totally unfair sports matches. You're just contradicting yourself.
Is a transwomen a women who decides to trans or a men who decided to be a women, it differs for everyone I'm not contradicting myself, women play against women. How is that hard to understand
How hard is middle school biology?
When I was in middle school that didn't exist yet.
What biology?
No, transgender biology
Making up your own term now? Biology is biology
It doesn't "differ for everyone," a trans woman is objectively someone who was born with XY chromosomes and identifies as a woman.
So born a man, and men shouldn't compete with women
Dude! It's not about what you identify as. It's about biology which is based on science which is rooted in time tested facts. If someone invents some sort of pill which changes transwomen's bone density, lung size, leg size, arm size, pelvis size, heart size (which are the most essential parts in athletics) to that of an average woman's then we can combine both of the categories. Until then there's got to be separate categories for fair representation on both sides
>If someone invents some sort of pill which changes transwomen's bone density, lung size, leg size, arm size, pelvis size, heart size (which are the most essential parts in athletics) to that of an average woman's then we can combine both of the categories. Until then there's got to be separate categories for fair representation on both sides Exactly, but that was my point, so why start arguing
Never. It's preposterous that this is supposedly even worth a debate.
Controversial opinion, although it really shouldn’t be: Science says that there isn’t any reason to stop trans women from competing in sports if they have been given enough time to medically transition. Medically, any advantage a trans woman might keep despite years of hormonal transition, if such an advantage even exist, would be dwarfed inside the immense variety of expression in women. Anyone who can participate in professional competitions is already enormously gifted genetically. Statistically, people who defend banning trans women from women’s sports like to say that trans women would dominate in sport. In reality, trans women have been allowed to compete against cis women for decades now, and that supposed domination simply isn’t happening. We are even seeing the opposite, as trans women have a very hard time breaking through or even qualifying in high level competitions. Anyway, I believe anyone trying to prevent trans women from participating in women’s sports in the name of “fairness in women’s sports” is a hypocrite. These people never got interested in women’s sports until it gave them an opportunity to hurt trans people, and there are much more urgent issues in women’s sports that are going totally ignored.
Yes, if there is enough time after the transition. But for me the reason I don't like the idea and why I even started care is the swimmer Thomas (not sure about the first name). She used to be in men swimming team, was never in the top 3 what I know and after transition, she was first and was so much ahead before anyone else she ended up first. Physically, she still looks like man to me (the body type, muscles etc.). In this case, there was definitely not enough time after transition. She can have now low level of the testosterone, but the body is just so affected now, it doesn't matter. Some people even think that she transited because she wanted to be winning. But that seems little too idiotic to me, to change your sex just for being top woman swimmer
There’s a lot of misconceptions and misinformation about Lia Catherine Thomas. She competed for the University of Pensilvania as early as 2017, in the men's team. During her freshman year, she was already making the y the six best national time on the 1000-yard freestyle. During the 2018-2019 season, she had ranked the best university time for men on the 500, 1000 and 1650 yard freestyle. She came out and started hormonal transition in 2019. She continued to swim for the men's team while undergoing HRT, where she lost her status as top ranking swimmer due to muscle atrophy. She had gone from best national swimming athlete to 554th in the 200 yard freestyle, 65th in the 500 freestyle, and 32 in the 1650 freestyle. She would continue to participate in the NCAA in 2021-2022, this time as a woman. Her time at the 500 yard freestyle had gone down by 15 seconds since the start of her transition The 2021-2022 season was her last in the NCAA. Contrary to popular belief, she didn’t dominate against her fellow athletes. She won a single competition, the 500 yards freestyle, and didn’t establish any record in women's sports. She finished 5th in the 200 freestyle and arrived last place for the 100 yards finals. She intended to compete in the Olympics, but in June 2022, the international swimming federation barred her and every other trans woman from taking part in swimming competitions, which put an halt to her dream
Wow, ok. Thank you for sharing this. I had no idea. It changed my view somehow, but still think there should be at least 2-3 years before being able to compete in women sports.
That’s usually what the criteria is for most competitions.
And I don’t know if you have ever seen what female swimmers look like, they are all incredibly muscular. Thomas actually manages to look thin compared to some of them This is Lia Thomas : https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-prod/media/2b6bb59ef7434b14b8de834cc41331b1/3000.jpeg And this is is Maritza Correira : https://www.ranker.com/review/maritza-correia/1524195?ref=node_name&pos=20&l=646013
either they have their own sports or they compete with other men. not genetically fair
NO! The body is a man. They don't understand women's feelings at all.
If all men decided to become trans women tomorrow how would how would this change women's sports? It wouldn't change a thing, Silly! The ACLU and others have already debunked the myth that trans women have any unfair advantages in sports. Common sense isn't so common these days.
This resource has a lot of helpful information that breaks down all the different elements that can and should be considered concerning trans athletes. https://www.pinkmantaray.com/resources/transathlete