[petejh]

But trans women on hormone therapy are not physiologically the same as cis men, so that's kind of irrelevant here.

How close (or not) they are physiologically to cis women in athletic terms is what's under debate, but they certainly have substantial disadvantages compared to cis men.

But have substantial advantages over cis women, going by the weight of evidence.

Your focus is on the individual. But what's being debated is how great an advantage an average trans woman in a population of athletes* has over a cis woman in a population of athletes*.

Sporting regulations have to apply at the level of all participants, not individuals, or they become nonsensical. That makes them unfair on an individual level for some people, but fair on average. Underlying that is a debate about the purpose of sport.

Sport (in the context of this debate) is a physical challenge with equality of opportunity (via laws), that generates an outcome of winners and losers as a by-product of their athletic attributes and skill. Professional sport is probably a very poor place to look for equality of outcome!




* Which brings selection bias because the average professional athlete isn't the average man/woman, physiologically. And in sports where fine margins bring big consequences, this matters more than the non-athlete/no sporting population.

[abarro81]

But we're not talking about populations, we're talking about individual athletes. No-one competes as a population.

This has the nonsensical implication, as I said, that if I as a cis woman am tall, I am not at an unfair advantage, but if a trans woman is the same height as me, then she is.

I think this is where most of the differences in opinion come from. I would strongly argue that we are talking about populations, because that's how categories work. This is what others like Pete and Stu have pointed out above, in slightly different words. It all falls into this same bucket of going from being the 80% percentile to the 99% percentile or whatever.

You seem to be saying that trans woman x who's 5'11 (or has lung capacity of Y, or whichever attribute we use) isn't at an advantage because that value falls within the range seen for female athletes. But that ignores the fact that trans woman x would have been 5'5 and have lung capacity <Y if they were born a female. Janja is probably genetically predisposed to being better at rock climbing than me, but that doesn't make it fair for me to compete in the female category.

You could argue for categories based on some enormous assessment of how likely you are to be good at a sport instead of something simple like sex - it would be a coherent solution to much of this in many ways, but it would be unworkable and I don't think it would be that interesting or inspiring to watch the world's 100th fastest man (number picked arbitrarily - I've not looked it up) competing against the world's fastest woman.

[Potash]

Nobody has outlined possibly another perspective.

Transwomen are women and as a consequence their inclusion in competitive women's sport cannot disadvantage women any more than the inclusion of stronger than average women or taller than average women.

Women's bodies fall on a spectrum from petite and pre-equipped with traditionally female genitalia to large, muscular and equipped with what were seen as traditionally male genitalia. This variation does not make women's sport unfair any more than any other inter-group variation such as height, weight or skill. No hormone treatment required.

[slab_happy]

I'm learning a lot from this thread but this strikes me as missing the point. No one is suggesting anyone is transitioning for competitive advantage unless they're a moron.

Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there suggesting exactly that.

Not anyone in this thread, I hasten to say, but they are certainly out there! And it really doesn't help with enabling the wider debate (not the one taking place here) to be carried out in a sensitive and thoughtful way.

But that wasn't the point I was aiming to make.

webbo seemed to be assuming that trans women on hormone therapy are physiologically equivalent to cis men (apologies if I'm misreading), and I was pointing out that we know this is very much not the case.

[petejh]

Nobody has outlined possibly another perspective.

Transwomen are women and as a consequence their inclusion in competitive women's sport cannot disadvantage women any more than the inclusion of stronger than average women or taller than average women.

Women's bodies fall on a spectrum from petite and pre-equipped with traditionally female genitalia to large, muscular and equipped with what were seen as traditionally male genitalia. This variation does not make women's sport unfair any more than any other inter-group variation such as height, weight or skill. No hormone treatment required.

It's one interpretation. It's based on placing the greater value on gender identity over other physical attributes.

You could come up with other interpretations, based on elevating other attributes. Here's one:

Dolphins are mammals and as a consequence their inclusion in competitive mammalian swimming events cannot disadvantage other mammals (humans for e.g.) any more than the inclusion of stronger than average or taller than average human mammals.

Mammal's bodies fall on a spectrum from petite and pre-equipped with traditionally female genitalia to large, muscular and equipped with what were seen as traditionally male genitalia. This variation does not make Dolphins participating in mammalian competitive swimming events unfair any more than any other inter-group variation such as height, weight or skill. No hormone treatment required.


Ultimately it comes down to value judgements and trying to understand the purpose of things like sport.

[abarro81]

Nobody has outlined possibly another perspective.

Transwomen are women and as a consequence their inclusion in competitive women's sport cannot disadvantage women any more than the inclusion of stronger than average women or taller than average women.

Women's bodies fall on a spectrum from petite and pre-equipped with traditionally female genitalia to large, muscular and equipped with what were seen as traditionally male genitalia. This variation does not make women's sport unfair any more than any other inter-group variation such as height, weight or skill. No hormone treatment required.

The same argument could very easily be used to say that we shouldn't have female categories in sport full stop - everything should just be an open category. Aside from that, at its extreme that approach allows for self identification with no restrictions. Which is very obviously absurd in a sporting environment (https://www.nationalreview.com/news/male-canadian-powerlifter-breaks-womens-bench-press-record-in-protest-against-trans-inclusion-policy/). So basically, nobody outlined it because it's dumb 

[slab_happy]

Fine, so let's revisit this when we have more data. But no evidence of retained advantage beyond three years is not evidence that there is no retained advantage.

Agreed, I'm not saying it is.

the second is that it is possibly one of the reasons that trans athletes have historically underperformed - we have a more accepting culture now of celebrating people's differences and a less obsessive focus on 'passing', meaning trans women hopefully feel under less social pressure to try to conform to feminine norms and try to minimise certain male characteristics.

But then you have the "heads I win, tails you lose" situation where we want trans women to feel less social pressure and to be able to push their physical limits as athletes -- but whenever they do so and succeed in sports in any way, it's taken as evidence against them, that they shouldn't be allowed to compete (or should only be allowed to compete in the men's category, where they'll be severely disadvantaged).

As someone with a disability (autism), I'm rather familiar with the situation where any time I really push my limits to do something (however severe the cost to me), it's then taken as evidence that my disability's not really real, and I'm just not trying hard enough the rest of the time.

It's an awful position to be in, to feel that anything you succeed at will be used against you.

I'm also positive towards trans participation in grassroots or community sport, where competition and excellence isn't really the point of the thing (as long as safety isn't an issue).

Yeah, at the very least you need much, MUCH looser rules there. Not least because expecting casual, amateur players to start submitting exact data on their testosterone levels over time is absurd.

I have an acquaintance who's blazingly furious that culture wars rule changes might potentially mean she loses several of her team-mates off her amateur women's ice hockey team, and feels very reasonably that this has fuck-all to do with supporting grassroots women's sports.

[Potash]

Aside from that, at its extreme that approach allows for self identification with no restrictions. Which is very obviously absurd in a sporting environment

Sport, at its heart, is highly unfair. The short and the weak are unable to compete on a level playing field with the strong and able. Why is absurd that one subset of the population cannot compete equally. This is the very defining characteristic of sport.

[abarro81]

Why is absurd that one subset of the population cannot compete equally.

You'll have to edit the typo in that bit for me to respond - it could easily be a typo in either direction!

That way of thinking is fine, but can only lead to one single open category in all sports - no male/female, no weight classes, no para competitions. I can see a coherent position to argue for that, but no coherent argument for keeping categories while turning them into a joke which is why self-identification in sports is absurd.

[JulieM]

But then you have the "heads I win, tails you lose" situation where we want trans women to feel less social pressure and to be able to push their physical limits as athletes -- but whenever they do so and succeed in sports in any way, it's taken as evidence against them, that they shouldn't be allowed to compete (or should only be allowed to compete in the men's category, where they'll be severely disadvantaged).

But maybe that's the trade off they have to make...? You should be able to socially and legally transition and be treated with dignity and respect to your identified gender but you can't participate in elite sports as that gender.

You seem to be arguing that it's ok to disadvantage women in sport by allowing people with retained male advantage to compete against them, but that it's not ok to disadvantage trans women athletes by making them compete against men. One side will be disadvantaged and you're making a value judgement that it should be cis women. That's a totally legitimate view to hold but I don't agree with you - I think we should prioritise fair competition for female athletes, then safety and then inclusion.

[JulieM]

Sport, at its heart, is highly unfair. The short and the weak are unable to compete on a level playing field with the strong and able. Why is absurd that one subset of the population cannot compete equally. This is the very defining characteristic of sport.

If we had strength/height classifications for certain sports then it would be totally legitimate to restrict them to people who met those criteria. Do you think it would be OK for a heavyweight boxer to compete against a flyweight? Or for an adult to compete against children?

[User deactivated.]

Do you think it would be OK for a heavyweight boxer to compete against a flyweight?

Going off topic, but this is technically allowed. Whilst the heavyweight cannot compete at flyweight, there are no rules stopping the flyweight from competing at heavyweight. In practice, it is unlikely this would get sanctioned in the UK or USA but i'm sure somewhere would sanction the bout if the right sums of money were exchanged (boxing is corrupt).

[JulieM]

No, that is relevant and a really good point. You can choose to put yourself at a disadvantage but not to put your opponent at a disadvantage. Similarly, AFAIK trans men can choose to compete with women (if they're not undergoing hormone treatment so no unfair advantage) or to compete against men (putting themselves at a disadvantage).

[Potash]

It's a shame there isn't a less wooly categorisation than gender. We could  then use this to subdivide people where innate physical differences were concerned. 

[chickencurry60]

It's a shame there isn't a less wooly categorisation than gender. We could  then use this to subdivide people where innate physical differences were concerned.

Surely the less wooly categorisation is sex based on whether the person has XX or XY chromosomes? Anyone with XX chromosomes is allowed to compete in a protected category and everyone else competes in an Open category.

This doesn't solve the tricky question of inclusion for DSD athletes, but there are far fewer DSD athletes than trans athletes, it's far more nuanced and probably more appropriate to be dealt with on a case by case basis

[joel182]

I'm also positive towards trans participation in grassroots or community sport, where competition and excellence isn't really the point of the thing (as long as safety isn't an issue).

Yeah, at the very least you need much, MUCH looser rules there. Not least because expecting casual, amateur players to start submitting exact data on their testosterone levels over time is absurd.

I have an acquaintance who's blazingly furious that culture wars rule changes might potentially mean she loses several of her team-mates off her amateur women's ice hockey team, and feels very reasonably that this has fuck-all to do with supporting grassroots women's sports.

Raises a bunch of interesting questions about why we do competitive sport to begin with, which I think yields very different answers depending on what level you are talking about, from amateur sport (mostly about fun?) to professional sport (mostly money?) to Olympic sport (mostly international relations?).

And then that raises what to me is an even more complicated question - why have a women's category to begin with? Which seems to require a good answer to the first question to begin to tackle properly!

[Oldmanmatt]

I'm also positive towards trans participation in grassroots or community sport, where competition and excellence isn't really the point of the thing (as long as safety isn't an issue).

Yeah, at the very least you need much, MUCH looser rules there. Not least because expecting casual, amateur players to start submitting exact data on their testosterone levels over time is absurd.

I have an acquaintance who's blazingly furious that culture wars rule changes might potentially mean she loses several of her team-mates off her amateur women's ice hockey team, and feels very reasonably that this has fuck-all to do with supporting grassroots women's sports.

Raises a bunch of interesting questions about why we do competitive sport to begin with, which I think yields very different answers depending on what level you are talking about, from amateur sport (mostly about fun?) to professional sport (mostly money?) to Olympic sport (mostly international relations?).

And then that raises what to me is an even more complicated question - why have a women's category to begin with? Which seems to require a good answer to the first question to begin to tackle properly!

They’ll try and break you for that last paragraph.

For me it rings true in a analogous area of women’s (and trans people’s) increasing acceptance and obtaining the rights and respect due to them, that is integration into the military.
I was lucky enough to be involved at the dissolution of the WRNS and they’re absorption into the RN and the opening of all roles. This coincided with decriminalisation of alternative sexualities in the armed forces, as well.
I worked with and trained many young women entering a previously exclusively male world.
Many of those women were wholly unprepared, by life, for those roles. Society generally raised girls differently to boys (still does, but I’ll come back to that) and they entered at a physical disadvantage.
Now, we have women who have passed P company and the All Arms Commando course ( I admit, it makes me smile that I have now worked with a Commando named Daisy) and they are physically and mentally on a par with their peers. To a very large extent, as I see in my own children, they have grown up differently from previous generations. Being “muscular” is more acceptable, being more interested in traditionally male pursuits, is more accepted. From what I can see, this will only improve, despite the mainstream school system doing all it can to prevent it (my youngest plays football for JPL, two youth pioneer league clubs, as a striker, but isn’t allowed to play football in PE at school. Girls do Netball and Hockey. Only).
The worlds best (whatever) athlete, will always be the one with just the right genetic mix of weight, height, strength etc and just the right opportunity and social environment for whatever they excel in. Sooner or later that combination will appear in somebody without a penis. It probably already exists and the “opportunity and social environment” are still suppressing it.
Of course, more men (simplified for clarity) will possess the best genetic mix for (say) the Hundred Meters, than women, but I’d bet there are potential candidates out there ( a bit like the hypothetical piano sauvant, who lives and dies in a remote rice paddy, never seeing a piano).

[Oldmanmatt]

I'm also positive towards trans participation in grassroots or community sport, where competition and excellence isn't really the point of the thing (as long as safety isn't an issue).

Yeah, at the very least you need much, MUCH looser rules there. Not least because expecting casual, amateur players to start submitting exact data on their testosterone levels over time is absurd.

I have an acquaintance who's blazingly furious that culture wars rule changes might potentially mean she loses several of her team-mates off her amateur women's ice hockey team, and feels very reasonably that this has fuck-all to do with supporting grassroots women's sports.

Raises a bunch of interesting questions about why we do competitive sport to begin with, which I think yields very different answers depending on what level you are talking about, from amateur sport (mostly about fun?) to professional sport (mostly money?) to Olympic sport (mostly international relations?).

And then that raises what to me is an even more complicated question - why have a women's category to begin with? Which seems to require a good answer to the first question to begin to tackle properly!

They’ll try and break you for that last paragraph.

For me it rings true in a analogous area of women’s (and trans people’s) increasing acceptance and obtaining the rights and respect due to them, that is integration into the military.
I was lucky enough to be involved at the dissolution of the WRNS and they’re absorption into the RN and the opening of all roles. This coincided with decriminalisation of alternative sexualities in the armed forces, as well.
I worked with and trained many young women entering a previously exclusively male world.
Many of those women were wholly unprepared, by life, for those roles. Society generally raised girls differently to boys (still does, but I’ll come back to that) and they entered at a physical disadvantage.
Now, we have women who have passed P company and the All Arms Commando course ( I admit, it makes me smile that I have now worked with a Commando named Daisy) and they are physically and mentally on a par with their peers. To a very large extent, as I see in my own children, they have grown up differently from previous generations. Being “muscular” is more acceptable, being more interested in traditionally male pursuits, is more accepted. From what I can see, this will only improve, despite the mainstream school system doing all it can to prevent it (my youngest plays football for JPL, two youth pioneer league clubs, as a striker, but isn’t allowed to play football in PE at school. Girls do Netball and Hockey. Only).
The worlds best (whatever) athlete, will always be the one with just the right genetic mix of weight, height, strength etc and just the right opportunity and social environment for whatever they excel in. Sooner or later that combination will appear in somebody without a penis. It probably already exists and the “opportunity and social environment” are still suppressing it.
Of course, more men (simplified for clarity) will possess the best genetic mix for (say) the Hundred Meters, than women, but I’d bet there are potential candidates out there ( a bit like the hypothetical piano sauvant, who lives and dies in a remote rice paddy, never seeing a piano).

Actually, special mention required here for Lily Mae, who is really quite something. I haven’t met her, but she’s caused a stir… https://instagram.com/lily_mae_fisher?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

[User deactivated.]

The worlds best (whatever) athlete, will always be the one with just the right genetic mix of weight, height, strength etc and just the right opportunity and social environment for whatever they excel in. Sooner or later that combination will appear in somebody without a penis. It probably already exists and the “opportunity and social environment” are still suppressing it.

It'd be interesting to see an open climbing comp series. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if Janja is the best climber in the world (though I'd prefer to see her quit comps and go on a Bosi style rampage outdoors).

[slab_happy]

Surely this:

For most sports, anyone who has taken steroids has an unfair advantage over other athletes as the improvements to muscle cells are permanent.

Contradicts this:

...because I think there's quite likely to be a point where the advantages are gone (apart from unchangeable things like height).

I wouldn't presume that you keep forever loads of extra lean body mass that you no longer have the hormones to maintain, because that's not how hormones or bodies work.

But taking massive doses of exogenous anabolic steroids is not the same thing as having ordinary male levels of testosterone, and I therefore wouldn't presume they'd automatically have the same long-term consequences (they might or might not, but I'd want to see evidence).

Especially since trans women are not only taking medication to suppress testosterone, they're taking estrogens which have a load of effects actively reversing the past effects of testosterone on their bodies.

[slab_happy]

It's a shame there isn't a less wooly categorisation than gender. We could  then use this to subdivide people where innate physical differences were concerned.

Surely the less wooly categorisation is sex based on whether the person has XX or XY chromosomes? Anyone with XX chromosomes is allowed to compete in a protected category and everyone else competes in an Open category.

This doesn't solve the tricky question of inclusion for DSD athletes, but there are far fewer DSD athletes than trans athletes, it's far more nuanced and probably more appropriate to be dealt with on a case by case basis

It's less woolly but also not very helpful, IMHO -- putting the issue of trans women to the side, most cis women who don't have XX chromosomes aren't going to have any competitive advantage.

For example, Turner syndrome (XO chromosomes) is just going to make you unusually likely to be short and have heart problems. And women with CAIS have XY chromosomes and "normal male" levels of androgens -- but their bodies can't make use of those androgens at all (whereas typical cis women's bodies do benefit from our own much lower levels of androgens).

Conditions like 5αR2D where your body produces high levels of androgens and you can make some use of them are in the minority when it comes to "DSD conditions where you don't have XX chromosomes".

Conversely, there are some very common conditions where you can have XX chromosomes and unusually high levels of androgens relative to the female average.

It's also somewhat incompatible to try to have a non-woolly rule (XX chromosomes or not) and then also try to handle exceptions on a nuanced, case-by-case basis. That just made it woolly!

Also of course it requires chromosome testing for everyone, which might be feasible for people competing at the world level, but not for anything below.

"We'll test your chromosomes but only if someone thinks you look too butch or is suspicious that you're too good" has turned out in practice to be absolutely poisonous.

there are far fewer DSD athletes than trans athletes

Citation needed? You could be correct, but I couldn't find any data one way or another on a quick Google, so please let me know if you've got a solid link; I'd be interested.

We can't just extrapolate from estimates of the percentage of trans people in the population (where we only have very rough estimates at the moment anyway) versus estimates of the rate of DSD conditions, because one of the questions is whether trans women and/or women with DSDs are over-represented among elite athletes.

[User deactivated.]

Surely this:

For most sports, anyone who has taken steroids has an unfair advantage over other athletes as the improvements to muscle cells are permanent.

Contradicts this:

...because I think there's quite likely to be a point where the advantages are gone (apart from unchangeable things like height).

I wouldn't presume that you keep forever loads of extra lean body mass that you no longer have the hormones to maintain, because that's not how hormones or bodies work.

But taking massive doses of exogenous anabolic steroids is not the same thing as having ordinary male levels of testosterone, and I therefore wouldn't presume they'd automatically have the same long-term consequences (they might or might not, but I'd want to see evidence).

It's not just a case of "might or might not", the evidence is available; studies showing retained benefits were literally using testosterone, not "massive doses of exogenous anabolic steroids". 

Especially since trans women are not only taking medication to suppress testosterone, they're taking estrogens which have a load of effects actively reversing the past effects of testosterone on their bodies.

Reversing some but not all of the effects is the point. 

[petejh]

Bit of a straw man this:

...because I think there's quite likely to be a point where the advantages are gone (apart from unchangeable things like height).

I wouldn't presume that you keep forever loads of extra lean body mass that you no longer have the hormones to maintain, because that's not how hormones or bodies work.

The debate isn't about *forever* hormone levels across a person's lifespan, the debate is about how much *and for how long* competitive advantage is conferred on a trans woman in high-level competitive sport by being born with male levels of T, and training as an athlete to a high level from a young age to then change gender and continue competing against cis women who don't have that physiological history.

Talking about *forever* levels of hormones isn't a relevant timescale. The relevant timescale is a condensed period of time during a person's life taking in the first 20-30 years following puberty. For truly elite-level sport - arguably where this matters the most - it's a much shorter window.

In some events you only need a competitive advantage over other athletes for one day. For longer-term advantages we're still only talking a small number of years, because people normally only compete professionally for a small number of years out of their overall lifespan.

As other have pointed out, we're at the early stages of increased # of trans athletes and it seems the most rational approach is to see what the evidence shows over the next 5-10 years for retained physiological advantages. In the meantime use a precautionary principle following what the evidence currently suggests, that there likely is an advantage in the short term, but for how long that remains we're not sure.

[slab_happy]

Talking about *forever* levels of hormones isn't a relevant timescale.

Sure, but I wasn't the one who introduced the claim that changes were "permanent" -- that was jwi.

It's not a straw man if you're responding to something that someone actually said.

I agree that how long you might have retained physiological advantages for is what we're mostly debating (or hoping for clearer evidence on).

[chickencurry60]

Bit of a straw man this:

...because I think there's quite likely to be a point where the advantages are gone (apart from unchangeable things like height).

I wouldn't presume that you keep forever loads of extra lean body mass that you no longer have the hormones to maintain, because that's not how hormones or bodies work.

The debate isn't about *forever* hormone levels across a person's lifespan, the debate is about how much *and for how long* competitive advantage is conferred on a trans woman in high-level competitive sport by being born with male levels of T, and training as an athlete to a high level from a young age to then change gender and continue competing against cis women who don't have that physiological history.

Talking about *forever* levels of hormones isn't a relevant timescale. The relevant timescale is a condensed period of time during a person's life taking in the first 20-30 years following puberty. For truly elite-level sport - arguably where this matters the most - it's a much shorter window.

In some events you only need a competitive advantage over other athletes for one day. For longer-term advantages we're still only talking a small number of years, because people normally only compete professionally for a small number of years out of their overall lifespan.

As other have pointed out, we're at the early stages of increased # of trans athletes and it seems the most rational approach is to see what the evidence shows over the next 5-10 years for retained physiological advantages. In the meantime use a precautionary principle following what the evidence currently suggests, that there likely is an advantage in the short term, but for how long that remains we're not sure.

Height is at least a small determining factor in the significant majority of competitive sports, so those can be immediately said to have lasting competitive advantage. For the small minority of remaining sports I believe the burden of proof should be to prove there isn't a lasting competitive advantage rather than the other way round. The presence of heightened testosterone during puberty has a significant, lasting effect on the body. Unfortunately given the limited sample sizes of elite trans athletes it's unlikely that we will be able to have sufficient evidence either way for a given time period of suppressed test. Trying to judge things by what evidence we have leads to ridiculous judgements as in the Semenya case - unfair on every athlete involved.