Should Transgender Athletes compete in sports?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nope. You cannot change your sex. You cannot change your gender. You cannot change your race. You cannot change your species.

We are what we are.

I'd disagree about race. Race is a very fluid concept that varies from culture to culture and over time.

You are right that we can't change our gender, though. Trans people really are their gender, regardlessof what you thonk about it.

Trans-anything should receive help in a place with padded walls and should not be encouraged by society to try and be something they are not.

Is that the way you think we should deal with everyone who you disapprove of? Lock them up?

 

[Prestor John]

I'd disagree about race. Race is a very fluid concept that varies from culture to culture and over time.

Nope. Culture has absolutely nothing to do with race.

You are confusing the concept of ethnicity with race.

A person's race refers to their bone structure and skin, hair, or eye color.

It all boils down to our DNA.

No matter what a person can try to change their race, their DNA will always be able to prove what they are.

The same is true of a person's sex.

You are right that we can't change our gender, though. Trans people really are their gender, regardlessof what you thonk about it.

There are only the two sexes or genders. Male and female.

This distinction in the overwhelming majority of cases is determined at birth by a simple visual inspection of the child's primary sexual organs.

Our feelings or beliefs do not change basic human biology or reality in general.

Is that the way you think we should deal with everyone who you disapprove of? Lock them up?

That is a huge stretch and where do you get off claiming that I "disapprove" of anyone?

People with mental illnesses need help and hopefully they receive that help where they can't hurt themselves or others.

Do you want transgender people to keep killing themselves?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

That's sad because what he said was dumb.

That is sad because I think he gave the most intelligent answer

 

[Koldo]

Not in the same way I was using it as you are ignoring the difference between male and females.

Not in the NBA.

Depends if he was still a good 3 point shooter as that is his game

Curry is an all-star despite there being taller people than him in the league. He is still better than them

You didn't show anything as you are still ignoring that Curry is an all-star. You are still avoid the differences between male and female biology and world records.

And you are ignoring the difference between short people and tall people.

Why is it that you don't get to see short people in the NBA if height is not a significant advantage ?

I am NOT stating that the taller you are the better off you are. What I AM stating is that being tall, up to a certain degree, is pretty much a requeriment to be able to perform well.

Curry IS tall! It doesn't matter if he is not tall according to the NBA standards. It just goes to show that NBA standards are MUCH higher than the general population. This IS evidence in favor of what I am saying. If height wasn't a significant factor then the NBA standards for height would be close to the world's average height. If the mean height of any sport is much smaller or higher, in any massively played sport, that means height is a relevant factor. Otherwise it would be a mere coincidence. Can you explain to me why short players almost never make it to the NBA if it is not because of their height ?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nope. Culture has absolutely nothing to do with race.

You are confusing the concept of ethnicity with race.

No, I'm not.

A person's race refers to their bone structure and skin, hair, or eye color.

A generation ago, "British" and "Spanish" (or even "English" and "Irish") were considered separate races. Now, people consider them all "white."

Meanwhile, sub-Saharan Africa, which has more genetic diversity than the rest of humanity altogether, gets all lumped together as "black."

It all boils down to our DNA.

No matter what a person can try to change their race, their DNA will always be able to prove what they are.

You think that DNA determines race? That's adorable.

The same is true of a person's sex.

There are only the two sexes or genders. Male and female.

Well, no.

First off, sex is not gender. Second, both sex and gender are spectrums, not binary "this or that" matters.

This distinction in the overwhelming majority of cases is determined at birth by a simple visual inspection of the child's primary sexual organs.

Our feelings or beliefs do not change basic human biology or reality in general.

That is a huge stretch and where do you get off claiming that I "disapprove" of anyone?

Your suggestion that trans people should be locked up was one indication.

People with mental illnesses need help and hopefully they receive that help where they can't hurt themselves or others.

But you hurting others... that's fine, right?

Do you want transgender people to keep killing themselves?

You do, apparently.

 

[Shad]

And you are ignoring the difference between short people and tall people.

That isn't as great as the difference between male and female.

Why is it that you don't get to see short people in the NBA if height is not a significant advantage ?

As they can not play the game as well. Just like how woman are not as good at sports as men in elite leagues are. Ergo being male provides an advantage over being female.

I am NOT stating that the taller you are the better off you are. What I AM stating is that being tall, up to a certain degree, is pretty much a requeriment to be able to perform well.

No it is factor in competition. Plenty of people can make 2-pointers without being over 6'3. Did it in HS and Jr for years.

Curry IS tall! It doesn't matter if he is not tall according to the NBA standards.

Except you are using NBA standards as that is the game we are talking about.

It just goes to show that NBA standards are MUCH higher than the general population.

Duh. It is league that is designed to make money not lose it like the WNBA.

This IS evidence in favor of what I am saying. If height wasn't a significant factor then the NBA standards for height would be close to the world's average height. If the mean height of any sport is much smaller or higher, in any massively played sport, that means height is a relevant factor. Otherwise it would be a mere coincidence. Can you explain to me why short players almost never make it to the NBA if it is not because of their height ?

Now apply male advantages against female and you see why there is separation of sexes in sports. There is no bar to females in the NBA. People just understand they hurt their team by having females on the team.

Short people are not in the NBA as they can not compete just as most females can not compete with males. Again see world records.

 

[Koldo]

That isn't as great as the difference between male and female.



As they can not play the game as well. Just like how woman are not as good at sports as men in elite leagues are. Ergo being male provides an advantage over being female.



No it is factor in competition. Plenty of people can make 2-pointers without being over 6'3. Did it in HS and Jr for years.



Except you are using NBA standards as that is the game we are talking about.



Duh. It is league that is designed to make money not lose it like the WNBA.



Now apply male advantages against female and you see why there is separation of sexes in sports. There is no bar to females in the NBA. People just understand they hurt their team by having females on the team.

Short people are not in the NBA as they can not compete just as most females can not compete with males. Again see world records.

So you do acknowledge that height IS a huge advantage in basketball. If so, why have you arbitrarily set the advantage that males have over females as the only one that justifies the creation of a division ?

 

[Shad]

So you do acknowledge that height IS a huge advantage in basketball. If so, why have you arbitrarily set the advantage that males have over females as the only one that justifies the creation of a division ?

Not huge. I said it was a factor. There have been sub 6 foot stars and all-stars.

Male vs female advantage are not confined to height. Males have more muscle mass, bone density, larger bones, testosterone itself, stronger shoulders, larger shoulders, stronger joints in general, better joins in the pelvis (shape), height, better respiratory function, large lungs, less body fat, and so on.

Few professional leagues have any bar to female membership. They just know how to look at results in competition in which males are dominate in. Even a male and female of comparable height and weight the male has an advantage to due biology. So transwomen can easily come to dominate female division while transmen will find a niche in male divisions at best.

Again look at world records. Look at how businesses actually operate.

 

[Koldo]

Not huge. I said it was a factor. There have been sub 6 foot stars and all-stars.

Male vs female advantage are not confined to height. Males have more muscle mass, bone density, larger bones, testosterone itself, stronger shoulders, larger shoulders, stronger joints in general, better joins in the pelvis (shape), height, better respiratory function, large lungs, less body fat, and so on.

Few professional leagues have any bar to female membership. They just know how to look at results in competition in which males are dominate in. Even a male and female of comparable height and weight the male has an advantage to due biology. So transwomen can easily come to dominate female division while transmen will find a niche in male divisions at best.

Again look at world records. Look at how businesses actually operate.

Tall people dominate NBA. Therefore, it is a huge advantage. Therefore, the question is still applicable: "why have you arbitrarily set the advantage that males have over females as the only one that justifies the creation of a division ?"

 

[Shad]

Tall people dominate NBA. Therefore, it is a huge advantage.

It's not that huge otherwise Curry wouldn't be an all-star

Therefore, the question is still applicable: "why have you arbitrarily set the advantage that males have over females as the only one that justifies the creation of a division ?"

I pointed out difference between male and females ergo not arbitrary. Try again.

 

[Koldo]

It's not that huge otherwise Curry wouldn't be an all-star



I pointed out difference between male and females ergo not arbitrary. Try again.

Curry IS tall, which is one reason for him being an all-star. You need to point out why the difference between tall and short people doesn't justify another division.

 

[Shad]

Curry IS tall, which is one reason for him being an all-star. You need to point out why the difference between tall and short people doesn't justify another division.

The sport itself is about height. I am pointing out being male itself is an advantage over females.

Men in town gyms break the women's world record in weightlifting all the time. They are not even athletes.

 

[Scott C.]

Do you believe that biologically male athletes have innate advantages over biologically female athletes due to their physiology?

Yes, clearly. The fastest males run faster than the fastest females. The strongest males bench press more than the strongest females. The highest jumping males jump higher than the highest jumping females. This holds true at all levels of competition starting with early teens (or sooner). It's true in High School, College, and the Pros. I can't off hand think of any sport where the best men in the sport would not defeat the best women in the same sport. It strikes me as insane to allow a biological male (transgender female) to compete with females in sports. It might be the case that a particular transgender female is not a super star male and would get beat in a women's league. I'm not a particularly athletic man and I'm sure many women in sports would kick my butt. I'm not trying to give the transgenders a hard time or make life tougher than it already is, but we need some common sense here.

 

[Augustus]

Yes, clearly. The fastest males run faster than the fastest females. The strongest males bench press more than the strongest females. The highest jumping males jump higher than the highest jumping females. This holds true at all levels of competition starting with early teens (or sooner). It's true in High School, College, and the Pros. I can't off hand think of any sport where the best men in the sport would not defeat the best women in the same sport. It strikes me as insane to allow a biological male (transgender female) to compete with females in sports. It might be the case that a particular transgender female is not a super star male and would get beat in a women's league. I'm not a particularly athletic man and I'm sure many women in sports would kick my butt. I'm not trying to give the transgenders a hard time or make life tougher than it already is, but we need some common sense here.

In the world athletics championships they had a 4x400m mixed relay (2 male 2 female).

This perfectly illustrated the performance gap between elite male and elite female athletes. Female runners with 50m head starts were getting beat by 20m by the end of their lap.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, clearly. The fastest males run faster than the fastest females. The strongest males bench press more than the strongest females. The highest jumping males jump higher than the highest jumping females. This holds true at all levels of competition starting with early teens (or sooner).

But is this true for trans athletes?

Current rules say that trans women athletes have to be on hormone therapy to lower their testosterone levels into the "typical" female range.

This hormone therapy causes a drastic loss in muscle mass. The net impact on competitiveness varies from sport to sport, but in general, trans women are actually at a bit of disadvantage compared to cis women.

Now... I'm on the fence about whether this rule should be in place. After all, a trans woman who doesn't get - or want - hormone therapy is still a valid woman... still, though: since this rule is on the books now, it ought to be part of your comparison.

It's unfair and unrealistic to assume that the performance of a male athlete with the hormone levels of a typical cis male is representative of how a trans woman athlete on hormone therapy would perform.

 

[Augustus]

This hormone therapy causes a drastic loss in muscle mass. The net impact on competitiveness varies from sport to sport, but in general, trans women are actually at a bit of disadvantage compared to cis women.

Why do you believe this given there is no substantial scientific evidence in support?

As I pointed out earlier (Should Transgender Athletes compete in sports?), there is no evidence that this is true for high performance athletes.

On the contrary, given that we do have examples of non-elite athletes winning elite women's events post-transition it is almost certain that many athletes do retain significant advantages.

With sports, the proof is in the pudding, and evidence of advantage is often apparent before 'scientific proof' (for example, it was obvious Lance Armstrong was doping a decade or so before it was proven).

As for the science, one recent study:

Testosterone suppression for transgender women has little effect on reducing muscle strength even after a year of treatment, according to new findings. Researchers say the findings could have important implications for transgender athletes in female sport...

But findings by the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, to be published this year, have shown the effect of the hormone treatment in relation to reducing leg muscle strength, is almost neglible for men who transition to become women.That could be significant in sporting terms because it indicates the physical advantages of biological males are maintained even after transitioning…

Transgender row stoked by new findings

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why do you believe this given there is no substantial scientific evidence in support?

As I pointed out earlier (Should Transgender Athletes compete in sports?), there is no evidence that this is true for high performance athletes.

On the contrary, given that we do have examples of non-elite athletes winning elite women's events post-transition it is almost certain that many athletes do retain significant advantages.

What examples?

The studies that we do have show a significant performance disadvantage for trans athletes, all else being equal. For instance:

There has been limited research in this area. Harper conducted a small study, published in the Journal of Sporting Cultures and Identities in 2015, which analyzed the race times of eight transgender female runners, both before and after transition.

Collectively, it found that the eight runners had much slower race times after transitioning from male to female, even after adjustments were made to compensate for the change in physical ability that normally occurs due to age. The findings were limited, however, because no actual testing was done and Harper relied on the athletes' published race times.

With sports, the proof is in the pudding, and evidence of advantage is often apparent before 'scientific proof' (for example, it was obvious Lance Armstrong was doping a decade or so before it was proven).

The "pudding" is actual results. Trans athletes have been eligible to compete at the Olympics since 2004, but in that time, not one trans athlete has even qualified.

If being trans confers an advantage, why would this be?

 

[Augustus]

What examples?

Rachel McKinnon becomes first transgender woman to win track world title - Cycling Weekly

Laurel Hubbard - Wikipedia

Ross Tucker (from twitter): "We’ve now collectively established that across a range of levels, elite to recreational, biological sex confers advantage between 12% and 40%, depending on the event. That’s a target for policy to focus on - any reductions smaller than that (see Sweden study) undermine fairness"

The studies that we do have show a significant performance disadvantage for trans athletes, all else being equal. For instance:

A study of 8 people who were not high-performance athletes, with findings directly contradicted by the study I noted.

I also posted a bigger study that showed EPO has 'no effect' on athletic performance which is palpable nonsense.

The proof is in the pudding long before the results can be proven in a lab.

The "pudding" is actual results. Trans athletes have been eligible to compete at the Olympics since 2004, but in that time, not one trans athlete has even qualified.

If being trans confers an advantage, why would this be?

Due to the very small numbers involved at present in the 0.01% of sport represented by the Olympics. Look further down the levels and it becomes more apparent.

Ross Tucker (the guy you are quoting from): We should not care only if they’re on Olympic and World Champion podiums. The impact is likely to be much larger at the levels below that, where 99% of sport is played. That’s where a 5% drop in performance may have even more meaningful impacts, because it’s “the steep part of the curve”, where a mediocre biological male might leap into representative level, winning local events, or places on teams that compete at the next level up. Then it all comes down to the philosophy of how people value sport at participation and representative level, rather than elite levels, and it gets very messy indeed...

But we also have a subset of sports where the advantage will never disappear. This is particularly true where anthropometry – think stature/height, limb length etc – are crucial for sports performance. Lowering testosterone may reduce hemoglobin, muscle mass, strength, power and cardiovascular capacity, and it may cause fat mass to rise, but it’s not changing the skeleton, and it arguably isn’t undoing a body type and much of the size/bulk created in part by testosterone.

In some of these sports (contact sports, specifically), there is also a huge welfare issue, and so for that reason, the transgender MTF athlete poses particular concern for sports like boxing, MMA, rugby, AFL, even basketball, netball and handball.

Quite how sports sort through this issue, I don’t know...

But I respect that one can’t put a number to the problem’s size and say “XYZ is too many” in elite sport. In each case, one would be too many for a subset of athletes affected by any unfair advantage. I also think that the performance reduction may not be large enough to prevent the theoretical scenario I discussed above where some sub-elite men are able to win women’s events, and that individual variation and sporting variation will make it unfair in some instances.

Can you offer a rational explanation for non-elite males becoming elite females post-transition which is basically impossible if the transition disadvantages them as you suggest?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Rachel McKinnon becomes first transgender woman to win track world title - Cycling Weekly

Laurel Hubbard - Wikipedia

World championships are "non-elite" now?

Ross Tucker (from twitter): "We’ve now collectively established that across a range of levels, elite to recreational, biological sex confers advantage between 12% and 40%, depending on the event. That’s a target for policy to focus on - any reductions smaller than that (see Sweden study) undermine fairness"

A study of 8 people who were not high-performance athletes, with findings directly contradicted by the study I noted.

Remember when you focused specifically on non-elite athletes? I was responding to that.

And I have no details about your "Swedish study," whether it actually studied transitioned trans athletes, and which sports it considered. You really ought to pin those sorts of details down before making claims that it "contradicted" another study.

I also posted a bigger study that showed EPO has 'no effect' on athletic performance which is palpable nonsense.

If you want to stop posting studies that you yourself consider "palpable nonsense," that would be fine with me.

The proof is in the pudding long before the results can be proven in a lab.


Due to the very small numbers involved at present in the 0.01% of sport represented by the Olympics. Look further down the levels and it becomes more apparent.

Is it? You keep saying this, but it isn't clear at all. I certainly haven't heard about trans athletes dominating at non-elite levels.

Ross Tucker (the guy you are quoting from): We should not care only if they’re on Olympic and World Champion podiums. The impact is likely to be much larger at the levels below that, where 99% of sport is played. That’s where a 5% drop in performance may have even more meaningful impacts, because it’s “the steep part of the curve”, where a mediocre biological male might leap into representative level, winning local events, or places on teams that compete at the next level up. Then it all comes down to the philosophy of how people value sport at participation and representative level, rather than elite levels, and it gets very messy indeed...

But we also have a subset of sports where the advantage will never disappear. This is particularly true where anthropometry – think stature/height, limb length etc – are crucial for sports performance. Lowering testosterone may reduce hemoglobin, muscle mass, strength, power and cardiovascular capacity, and it may cause fat mass to rise, but it’s not changing the skeleton, and it arguably isn’t undoing a body type and much of the size/bulk created in part by testosterone.

In some of these sports (contact sports, specifically), there is also a huge welfare issue, and so for that reason, the transgender MTF athlete poses particular concern for sports like boxing, MMA, rugby, AFL, even basketball, netball and handball.

Quite how sports sort through this issue, I don’t know...

But I respect that one can’t put a number to the problem’s size and say “XYZ is too many” in elite sport. In each case, one would be too many for a subset of athletes affected by any unfair advantage. I also think that the performance reduction may not be large enough to prevent the theoretical scenario I discussed above where some sub-elite men are able to win women’s events, and that individual variation and sporting variation will make it unfair in some instances.

It's a bit misleading to conflate getting on the podium for the Olympics with qualifying for the Olympics. Trans athletes haven't done either one, but one is a much larger - and deeper - sample than the other.

And "fairness" is a weird term to use here. Kenyan women tend to dominate workd-class women's long distance running, but nobody talks about "fairness" when talking about relative advantages of Kenyan runners versus non-Kenyan runners.

Physical differences between athletes is an inherent part of any sport. I think the only reason why "fairness" is brought up with regard to trans athletes is because the people calling for "fairness" don't regard trans women as real women.

I don't think what evidence we have so far shows a particular advantage for trans athletes. It certainly doesn't get reflected in event results. Still, even if there were an advantage, we could take two approaches:

- take the approach we take with Michael Phelps, Usain Bolt, or Kenyan marathoners: praise them for their accomplishments and say that they were "born" to compete in their chosen sport, or
- demand that they either be reined in or excluded altogether... which we don't do for any other class of athlete.

Can you offer a rational explanation for non-elite males becoming elite females post-transition which is basically impossible if the transition disadvantages them as you suggest?

Establish that this is happening to a significant degree first. Once you do that, we can talk about the why... but only in the context of why it should matter.

 

[Augustus]

World championships are "non-elite" now?

You seem to be missing the point.

The championships are elite, the winner (prior to transition) wasn't, hence their lack of wins in elite male competition.

You claim non-elite males can become elite females while being at a greater disadvantage than women born with female anatomy.

Remember when you focused specifically on non-elite athletes? I was responding to that.

My point was about non-elite athletes becoming elite post-transition.

And I have no details about your "Swedish study," whether it actually studied transitioned trans athletes, and which sports it considered. You really ought to pin those sorts of details down before making claims that it "contradicted" another study.

The study is not yet published, but the details were in the article I linked to:

Dr Tommy Lundberg, an exercise physiologist at the Karolinska Institute who has led the research, said that muscle mass dropped by five per cent after a year's treatment, but that the effect on trans women's muscle strength was neglible. The research was carried out on 23 volunteers - 12 trans women and 11 trans men - to monitor changes in muscle mass and strength during and after a year of hormone therapy.

Lundberg told The Times: "There has been no research at all previously on what happens, especially in terms of strength after transitioning. This is relevant for sports where strength is considered an advantage.

"We have found that trans women's muscle mass decreases by five per cent after a year but they maintained their strength levels throughout the treatment period.

"While the people in the study are not transgender athletes, the data are still relevant to the sporting community given that there has been no data available on changes in lower-limb muscle strength at this point."

Previous research has indicated biological males have at least a 10 to 12 per cent higher muscle strength than biological females, and in some power sports up to 39 per cent.

Lundberg's research, which he has presented at several scientific conferences, also found that women who have transitioned to be men and taken testosterone saw their muscle strength increase by 15 per cent, but they were still not as strong as men who transitioned to be women and took the testosterone blockers.

Ross Tucker, a scientific researcher for World Rugby, believes sports may have to reassess their policies on transgender players as a result of the findings. He said: "Sports are going to have to move with a lot more caution on this."

If you want to stop posting studies that you yourself consider "palpable nonsense," that would be fine with me.

You really do have a rather unique talent for missing the context and the bigger picture

Is it? You keep saying this, but it isn't clear at all.

What's clear is I've provided 2 examples of non-elite (pre-transition) males winning elite women's competitions post-transition.

You really don't understand why this is incompatible with the idea that MTF transitioning actually decreases performance? Seriously?

Establish that this is happening to a significant degree first. Once you do that, we can talk about the why... but only in the context of why it should matter.

I've just given you 2 examples which you ignored.

So any rational explanation as to why this can happen if they are being disadvantaged/not advantaged by transitioning?