Transgender athlete

[lewisnotmiller]

I don’t even like basketball, so they can do what they like

In general, I feel safety should be the first priority, and it is immoral to allow transwomen to compete in combat and collision sports because this passes significant risks on to others.

I find those who favour ideology over safety on this issue to be ignorant, particularly when it applies to girls level (for the record, I also think collision sports at school level should all be played by weight, not age. When I was at school, you'd turn up for a game and see a 14 year old version of the incredible hulk jogging on to the pitch, and think "Oh ****..." A 1.90m 110kg hulk shouldn't be playing against a 1.60m 55kg child.)

I'm not sure about the 'immoral' part. It gets tricky.
Rugby instituted weight divisions either in addition to or instead of age ones at junior levels (I could look it up, but...rugby...yuck...)
Once you get to the top levels, those weight divisions are removed. Instead we are (oh so slowly) trying to implement rules that protect from longterm injuries (neck and head trauma in particular for Rugby).

So morally I think it's entirely possible to have trans women playing collision sports like Rugby or AFL (which I know more about...) but only within certain limits, guidelines or measures. How that could be implemented at all, or even better in a fair and equitable way...I honestly don't know. I certainly don't feel like I could advocate for unfettered inclusion of trans athletes to women's sport regardless of context or sport.

Each sport needs conversations around safety, advantage and inclusion.

In sports with no increased risk then the equation is inclusion v fairness. There is no fully equitable solution.

Again though, I find it ignorant when some people smugly parade their "superior morality" and act as if it is purely a cost free and unquestionably moral action to include transwomen.

For reasons explained, I favour fairness, and see the “but some women are taller” arguments as fallacious given the unique and incomparable advantage of male puberty. Fairness for ciswomen produces the greatest good imo.

It sounds like you're making a utilitarian argument. That makes sense to me, although I do generally like to keep in mind that we are talking the greatest long term benefit, rather than in the immediate.

If some people favour inclusion over fairness then I’m not going to lose any sleep over it, but feel they should be open and honest that they are deliberately favouring inclusion over fairness and that transwomen do retain a significant advantage. There would need to be some restrictions on who qualifies (for example 2 years of testosterone suppression) as self-ID would lead to the end of elite sport for ciswomen and is thus insane.

If some ciswomen athletes feel this is unfair and protest, then they shouldn’t be criticised as it is unfair to them and it is not objectively more moral to favour inclusion over fairness. Some people have to pay the cost, and those who don't shouldn't criticise those that do.

At lower levels of sport a wider range of solutions are possible, and it is up to the relevant bodies to create their own policies based based on what works in their specific situations.

I broadly like what is in place in the Australian basketball landscape, as it errs on the side of inclusion where safe and possible, but the processes and methods are horribly vague and deliberately unclear (it seems) when it comes to the elite women's competitions.
Everything below that seems pretty decent to me.

This is now their chance to put something a little clearer and more transparent in place, which will help everyone. As I mentioned before (although I'm sure it was lost) the current system is not particularly fair to the trans athletes in particular, as there is no way for them to have a good handle on whether they 'should' be able to play in the women's competition, once they reach elite/sub-elite levels.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I am going to state my view here:

It is silly to forbide trans women from competing against cisgender women because of a biological advantage when no one cares if biological advantages are unfair in almost all other cases. It is just a selective outrage.

I don't think viewing this as a simple "yes or no?" question sufficiently takes into account the variation among different sports and the different scenarios where trans women would or wouldn't have an especially major advantage over cis women, sometimes to the point where said advantage could lead to safety issues.

If one takes into account that trans people's participation in sports against cis people is a relatively nascent area of research with no clear answers or solutions so far, they might be less likely to assume that everyone who is not so sure of a specific approach is malicious or engaging in selective outrage.

 

[Augustus]

1) Obviously if there are safety issues, they ought to be taken into consideration. Not only when it comes down sex and weight difference, by the way.

2) It is not an unquestionably moral action to include trans women.

Agreed

3) You can't say you favor fairness and then at the closest corner, if anyone suggests rules should be changed or a new category created to increase fairness, completely dump away fairness.

Allowing or not allowing transwomen to compete changes nothing about the sports.

Saying “you can’t complain transwomen have an unfair advantage unless you also favour radically changing the very nature of specific sports” is obviously a fallacious argument.

By the same logic you can’t oppose performance enhancing drugs in sport unless you advocate for skinny guy sumo and small guy NBA.

 

[Kfox]

While I could easily answer this question, I find it redundant for I have already provided one example.

Which post number did you give the example?

 

[Koldo]

Once again...I'm fine with you giving hypothetical examples. But if you know nothing about the sport, you might at some point wonder what your angle is here?
To perhaps better illustrate why I think this is problematic, here are key physical considerations used when attempting to assess players available to draft to the NBA. Basically these are informative physical measures.

1. Standing reach
2. Height without shoes
3. Wingspan (ie. arm length)
4. Standing vertical leap
5. Max vertical leap (ie. runup allowed, one or two foot takeoff allowed)
6. Shuttle Run time
7. Lane agility drill (ie. basically flexbilility in turning and accelerating)
8. Three quarter sprint

There are a lot more tests, including skill tests and psychometric evaluations on fringey things like 'brain speed', as well as reflexes, etc, but the above 8 represent key physical tests done. The results of these are readily available (Draft Combine | Stats | NBA.com)

Out of the top 5 in each of those 8 categories, 1 of them (Dyson Daniels) was drafted in the top ten players chosen. He was first in the shuttle run, but didn't crack the top 5 in any other drill, and was drafted number 8 I think from memory (to New Orleans).

But ignore that for a moment. Let's assume those 8 measures are more indicative of performance than they actually are. How do you craft them into a coherent competition structure?



It is open. The NBL is open. Anyone can play. So that is already covered, and I'm a little bemused why that's constantly ignored.
Gender splits is an example of addressing the fairness issue, since it would be unfair to female athletes to make them compete with male ones in the sport of basketball. If a female was good enough, and wanted to, she could.

Trans athletes are therefore somewhat trickier in terms of fairness, as it is likely to depend on a lot more individual circumstances. Ultimately there are exactly two leagues in Australia that do not grant trans athletes access without going through an assessment process. Apparently that's not good enough? At other levels of competition, trans athletes have full access to women's competitions, and anyone can access 'men's competitions.

What I don't understand is why you want to divide people based on height, or other very uninformative factors, or how you think doing this would help trans athletes in basketball. At all. No understanding.
I also think it would be unhelpful for female athletes, and remove the problem of how to handle trans athletes (and female athletes) in elite and sub-elite competitions (remembering the specific meaning for those terms). There simply wouldn't be any. You don't care. I do.

[edit : appears you still want to include gender as a way to divide competitions now, in addition to whatever else, so perhaps this isn't true, but it leaves me more confused, not less.]


Hard to answer, as I'm not sure which opinion you mean. That elite level competition shouldn't be split by height?
It doesn't even rate as a topic of conversation. People would be horrified by the concept.
But I speak personally with about 60-70 players per week on a normal week, double that occasionally (tournament season).
In terms of 'short players'...I mean...I am one. By basketball standards, anyway. I'm 182cm. And height restricted leagues were trialled here at lower levels in the 90s, 00s. Far as I am aware they all died a natural death due to lack of interest. Not that many were trialled in the first place, but still...



Now I'm really confused. If you're arguing gender divisions should remain in place (as well as whatever else you're suggesting) then current Australian policy is probably more permissive (if a little unclear, which is my main issue) than you already in terms of inclusion. In terms of a broader 'should basketball be split to make it fairer on short people at an elite level' I'm comfortable to say a resounding no, but you can believe whatever you want.
Having said that, I'm lost as to how you'd measure 'biological advantage', but it's closer to the existing system I think. An individual assessment of a trans athlete is performed to see if she would be unfairly advantaged and basically destroy competition in the women's game. The mechanisms used to do this assessment are horribly unclear and untested, but the idea of approaching it that way makes sense at least.
Where a trans athlete can be included in women's competitions without it being carte blanche to all trans athletes without consideration, and where that athlete doesn't have clear undue advantage, I'm for it.



Only to a small degree. I have a mate who is a kayaker, World Champ level. The sport costs him money.
Basketball is a global sport where players and competitions are competing internationally to secure talent and generate a good product.

A self-sustained elite program is a vital part of that, and it has a major impact (here at least) on how much lower level programs are structured. I can draw a clear line for each girl I'm coaching to what their next steps are if they are someone looking to become a professional basketball player. That's not due to the relatively small amounts of money invested by the government periodically because of Olympic competition.

1) Here's an example: Assign a score to each inherent physical trait proportional to how impactful it is. Each player is then evaluated and if their total score is less than a certain thresold they qualify for a certain category.

2) The existence of an open category makes absolutely no difference to what I am saying. I am NOT saying that it is unfair, for example, for women to be unable to play in the open category because of some rule forbiding them. The unfairness I am talking about is allowing inherent physical characteristics to define who can effectively win.

3) In other words, since creating a new category is not a topic at all you can't talk for others. We would need to look into what exactly happened in the past to understand why the experience failed.

4) How can you call whatever advantage a trans athlete may have as undue? How exactly do you figure out what is undue and what is not?

5) Not all categories (or even sports) are going to be as lucrative as others, and therefore they will be less investiment. And that's alright. It is better than those sports, and categories, not existing at all.

 

[Koldo]

I don't think viewing this as a simple "yes or no?" question sufficiently takes into account the variation among different sports and the different scenarios where trans women would or wouldn't have an especially major advantage over cis women, sometimes to the point where said advantage could lead to safety issues.

If one takes into account that trans people's participation in sports against cis people is a relatively nascent area of research with no clear answers or solutions so far, they might be less likely to assume that everyone who is not so sure of a specific approach is malicious or engaging in selective outrage.

It is a selective outrage, because, for example, essentially no one here cares if short men are being excluded from competitive basketball. Even though we all know tall players have a major advantage over short players.

 

[Koldo]

Agreed


Allowing or not allowing transwomen to compete changes nothing about the sports.

Saying “you can’t complain transwomen have an unfair advantage unless you also favour radically changing the very nature of specific sports” is obviously a fallacious argument.

By the same logic you can’t oppose performance enhancing drugs in sport unless you advocate for skinny guy sumo and small guy NBA.

ROFL. Creating a category for short men would radically change the game now....

Where's the facepalm button when I need it?

 

[Koldo]

Which post number did you give the example?

I have mentioned the example many times already: height advantage in basketball. Have you forgotten?

 

[Debater Slayer]

It is a selective outrage, because, for example, essentially no one here cares if short men are being excluded from competitive basketball. Even though we all know tall players have a major advantage over short players.

I have responded to that, but I get the impression that your position isn't likely to change even with elaboration. Your argument seems to me too fixated on one aspect to the exclusion of nuance and practicality.

 

[Koldo]

I have responded to that, but I get the impression that your position isn't likely to change even with elaboration. Your argument seems to me too fixated on one aspect to the exclusion of nuance and practicality.

You haven't shown that my position lacks nuance and practicality. So I also don't agree with your assessment about my position.

 

[Augustus]

ROFL. Creating a category for short men would radically change the game now....

Where's the facepalm button when I need it?

Jesus wept, you really have absolutely no clue what you are talking about do you?

lewisnotmiller has already explained to you very clearly the impacts that this would have on the game. Come on, it's not that hard to understand

d) You are also limiting your assessment of height, etc, to the NBA, whereas I am speaking primarily about the top four levels in Australia. If we use height as the same example of a way to split out competition, you'll run into problems when considering an international game. The average height of a basketball player at the NBL1 level is lower than at the NBL level. The average height of the NBL is lower than the NBA. So young Aussie player Sam might stand 6'1" and find himself as the shortest player in a height restricted league growing up, excel, make the next grade up, and find himself as the tallest player at the top level, before getting himself a college scholarship in the US (a common thing for top level Aussie players) again find himself as the shortest player in a height restricted league, make the NBA, find himself the tallest player in a height restricted league, make the Australian Olympic Team, and find himself the shortest player in a height restricted competition. Meanwhile the 6'1" female players don't need to worry, since they won't be in ANY of the top level competitions.

You can lead a horse to water and all that...

 

[Koldo]

Jesus wept, you really have absolutely no clue what you are talking about do you?

lewisnotmiller has already explained to you very clearly the impacts that this would have on the game. Come on, it's not that hard to understand



You can lead a horse to water and all that...

You have quoted a part of his post that shows a fundamental misunderstanding concerning what I am talking about: I am not suggesting removing the women's category to create a height restricted category. You can do better than that.

 

[Augustus]

You have quoted a part of his post that shows a fundamental misunderstanding concerning what I am talking about: I am not suggesting removing the women's category to create a height restricted category. You can do better than that.

Read it again, more carefully this time:

The average height of a basketball player at the NBL1 level is lower than at the NBL level. The average height of the NBL is lower than the NBA. So young Aussie player Sam might stand 6'1" and find himself as the shortest player in a height restricted league growing up, excel, make the next grade up, and find himself as the tallest player at the top level, before getting himself a college scholarship in the US (a common thing for top level Aussie players) again find himself as the shortest player in a height restricted league, make the NBA, find himself the tallest player in a height restricted league, make the Australian Olympic Team, and find himself the shortest player in a height restricted competition.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

ROFL. Creating a category for short men would radically change the game now....

Where's the facepalm button when I need it?

It would. It's not our issue that you don't understand the game you're talking about.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

1) Here's an example: Assign a score to each inherent physical trait proportional to how impactful it is. Each player is then evaluated and if their total score is less than a certain thresold they qualify for a certain category.

So...if they don't qualify for your magic score, they have to play a lower level? Regardless of how they measure up against the opponent on the floor?
Or we're just saying that the genetic freak can't play in the lower league because they're too good? Because competition takes care of that. They dont play in the lower league because they are too busy playing in the top league.

I think you have this weird idea that you can divide top level basketball into 2, 3 or 4 divisions, and end up with increased fairness. Strange idea. The top 100 players are still the top 100.

2) The existence of an open category makes absolutely no difference to what I am saying. I am NOT saying that it is unfair, for example, for women to be unable to play in the open category because of some rule forbiding them. The unfairness I am talking about is allowing inherent physical characteristics to define who can effectively win.

It does. You're going on and on about biological characteristics making life unfair for short men, I guess. I am one, in relative terms, and it's a nonsense argument. Meanwhile this is a thread about transgender athletes, which is something that impacts on women, and transgender athletes. Not men. Short or otherwise.

You suggest we are being disingenuous because we ONLY care about gender, and nothing else in terms of 'fairness'. But any system...including the one you are proposing...would pick certain traits as ways to equalise competition. For me, I'd pick gender, and try to work out ways to include transgender athletes in female competitions in a controlled and measured fashion. You want to pick a bunch of convoluted measures which have very dubious links to actual performance when you can just watch players compete and work out who's better.
Maybe we just have tiers based on game impact, and let players play at the level to which they can rise to?

3) In other words, since creating a new category is not a topic at all you can't talk for others. We would need to look into what exactly happened in the past to understand why the experience failed.

It failed because very few people were interested in short man basketball as a spectator sport, and even as a participant sport most short guys would rather make big guys look stupid.
I have no idea why my opinion isn't relevant or considered informed by you. You've picked the one topic (basketball) that I live and breathe, and I've limited myself to Australian basketball examples exactly because I'm a qualified and accredited coach in the women's game, I spend huge amounts of time involved, I've played for over 32 years, etc.
Find someone else who has even a passing familiarity with the game, or at least realise that I know something of what I speak. Disagree with me if you like, but it's strange that you would question my credibility on this topic whilst having no understanding of the game at all.
Colour me confused.

4) How can you call whatever advantage a trans athlete may have as undue? How exactly do you figure out what is undue and what is not?

Umm...I didn't say that. Are you really just trying to take a contrary position because 'virtue signalling'? What I said was...
Where a trans athlete can be included in women's competitions without it being carte blanche to all trans athletes without consideration, and where that athlete doesn't have clear undue advantage, I'm for it.

If your point is that trans athletes don't have clear undue advantage, then include them in female competitions. But leave the assessment of whether they do have clear undue advantage to someone who understands the sport, and more importantly to people who understand the medical impact of the various drugs and treatments trans athletes have to go through.
This would include, for example, when the athlete transitioned. It's a science I am sure we will get better at over the years.

If the trans athlete happens to be 'kinda fast and strong for a woman', then I think it has less impact on a team sport like basketball than it would in women's MMA. But I'd defer to the experts on that. So you will note if you read what I've said through this entire thread that I have never once suggested that I can call advantages a trans athlete may or may not have as 'undue', 'unsafe', or 'unfair'.

5) Not all categories (or even sports) are going to be as lucrative as others, and therefore they will be less investiment. And that's alright. It is better than those sports, and categories, not existing at all.

Like women's basketball? I agree.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You have quoted a part of his post that shows a fundamental misunderstanding concerning what I am talking about: I am not suggesting removing the women's category to create a height restricted category. You can do better than that.

The quoted part of my post used the example of a male player. It had nothing to do with women's basketball, women, or transgender athletes. Glass houses and all that.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It is a selective outrage, because, for example, essentially no one here cares if short men are being excluded from competitive basketball. Even though we all know tall players have a major advantage over short players.

I'm selectively outraged because I don't care that people like me...like...exactly like me, 6 foot tall basketball players...are excluded from the NBA. Whereas we should all feel much more included if there was a short man NBA?
That's selective outrage?

C'mon, mate...this is a nonsense burger.

Kyrie Irving is 16 inches shorter than Tacko Fall, and would absolutely dominate him.
Meanwhile you couldn't name a single female player who should be in the NBA. Women need their own competition so that they can compete against other women (which apparently you don't disagree with). The question is where, when and how should transgender athletes be included in that restricted competition.
The rest of your height-focused pontificating has nothing to do with the OP at all, so I'm really lost why you want to pursue that point in relation to a sport you have no interest in.

Tell you what...

If you like, I can post an OP for you on a basketball forum I spend a lot of time on. It's where my username comes from (which is basketball related).
Give me a paragraph, and I'll put it up in good faith, and see what other people actually invested in basketball see. Perhaps I'm on an island here.

 

[Kfox]

I have mentioned the example many times already: height advantage in basketball. Have you forgotten?

Height is genetic, not biological. Again; what are some of the other biological advantages people seem to not care about?

 

[Kfox]

It is a selective outrage, because, for example, essentially no one here cares if short men are being excluded from competitive basketball. Even though we all know tall players have a major advantage over short players.

Again; short men are not excluded from playing competitive basketball, they are just not getting paid millions to play at the professional level like some of the tall guys; big difference. Nobody is entitled to be able to play in the NBA.

 

[Koldo]

Read it again, more carefully this time:

The average height of a basketball player at the NBL1 level is lower than at the NBL level. The average height of the NBL is lower than the NBA. So young Aussie player Sam might stand 6'1" and find himself as the shortest player in a height restricted league growing up, excel, make the next grade up, and find himself as the tallest player at the top level, before getting himself a college scholarship in the US (a common thing for top level Aussie players) again find himself as the shortest player in a height restricted league, make the NBA, find himself the tallest player in a height restricted league, make the Australian Olympic Team, and find himself the shortest player in a height restricted competition.

It would would have been better if you didn't act as if you are merely repeating what you have quoted before, rather than intentionally leaving out the last bit. I expect more from you.

First things first: I am definitely not suggesting to create a height category for teenagers and children.

Second, nothing else on that quote has relevancy. Any given player could choose to play in the open category if that's what he wants and if he is picked by a team.