Transgender athlete

[Jose Fly]

So here's a real-life scenario about "fairness".....

As you can tell from my posts, I've spent much of my life playing, watching, and coaching sports...IOW, I'm a pretty decent athlete. My current favorite sport is golf, which I've played for 25+ years and am quite good at. Last summer, I played a round where I got paired with a (cis)woman who recently competed in, and finished near the top in our local women's amateur tournament that was held at the same course we were playing that day. Even though I played from the men's tees and she played from the women's tees, I basically beat the crap out of her. I out-drove her by a lot, hit shorter irons into the greens, and just plain out played her. Simply put, I was a much better golfer than her.

Is it "fair" that I can't compete in the women's amateur? I would most likely win, probably easily so, so why am I barred from competing? Am I being unfairly excluded? Conversely, if I and other men were allowed into the tournament, would that be fair to the women players?

 

[PureX]

To make the point that if we eliminate women's sports and just have "sports", all the top levels (including the secondary levels like minor leagues) will be all men.

Then perhaps we need to re-evaluate what we consider to be "sporting". What's it's purpose, and who it's for. So we can make more equitable decisions in support of it.

Again, are you aware of why women's sports were created in the first place?

I don't care why we once did what we once did. I care what, why, and how we are doing it, now.

"Equitable competition" is why women's leagues were created! Duh.

You seem to be having a really hard time understanding that female and male genitalia do not determine a body's physical athleticism or skill level. You think because the biggest, strongest, fastest athletes on Earth are all male that being male makes all male athletes bigger, stronger and faster than all female athletes. When it clearly does not. Except for those top few, male and female athleticism are mixed and variable. It's not a penis that makes a body bigger faster or stronger. And it's not being bigger faster and stronger that should be the sole goal of athletic sports, anyway.

So what exactly is your solution? Be specific.

If bigger faster and stronger matters so much to the performance in a given sport, then devise ways of measuring these and create leagues based on these attributes for various degrees of skill. And then let anyone who wants to compete do so with others of a similar athletic and skill level. It's really not that hard to do.

Yes there is, as evidenced by the fact that the top-tier leagues are all men. If there was no advantage to being born male, that wouldn't be the case.

I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE TOP TIER ATHLETES! They do not represent the human collective of sporting participants. They are not the issue, here.

 

[Jose Fly]

Then perhaps we need to re-evaluate what we consider to be "sporting". What's it's purpose, and who it's for. So we can make more equitable decisions in support of it.

I don't care why we once did what we once did. I care what, why, and how we are doing it, now.

As I suspected, you simply do not see any value in women's sports. That's a shame.

You seem to be having a really hard time understanding that female and male genitalia do not determine a body's physical athleticism or skill level. You think because the biggest, strongest, fastest athletes on Earth are all male that being male makes all male athletes bigger, stronger and faster than all female athletes.

Nope, never said that.

Except for those top few, male and female athleticism are mixed and variable.

Nope, that's not true at all.

It's not a penis that makes a body bigger faster or stronger.

Your absurd strawman is noted.

And it's not being bigger faster and stronger that should be the sole goal of athletic sports, anyway.

Another strawman.

If bigger faster and stronger matters so much to the performance in a given sport, then devise ways of measuring these and create leagues based on these attributes for various degrees of skill. And then let anyone who wants to compete do so with others of a similar athletic and skill level. It's really not that hard to do.

As I suspected, you would happily eliminate women's sports. That's a shame.

I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE TOP TIER ATHLETES! They do not represent the human collective of sporting participants. They are not the issue, here.

It seems to me that you don't value sports much at all. That's fine by itself, but I suggest that if you're going to try and debate sports issues, you actually take the time to educate yourself on the subject. Because at the moment, you're not doing yourself any favors.

 

[metis]

I was referring to their biology. Do you understand the biological differences when it comes to male vs female?

I'm an anthropologist, whereas basic genetics is part of our training, thus your response above is nonsensical because one needs to define what they mean by "biological differences"?

We all have varying degrees of both testosterone and estrogen in our bodies, but sometimes the genitals don't match the hormone that's most dominant. Therefore, a child may be labeled as being "male" at birth, but when the hormones kick in during puberty, "he" could have a higher percentage of estrogen. Thus, the teen has the body that doesn't match the sex drive.

 

[Debater Slayer]

We would need to ascertain what characteristics are essentially game breakers. In the case of basketball I only know of height. If you can provide a study that shows other traits are as impactful, we can look into that. Or we can compensate for those with a specific set of rules to make competition fairer. Or we can stop pretending we care about fairness in sports. All alternatives work.

There's a vast range of options to minimize unfairness between the two extremes of "make tall people play basketball in their own league" and "make all competitions entirely open and unrestricted because sports are unfair anyway."

Sometimes I borrow some principles of thought from mathematics and programming and try to apply them to analysis of other subjects as well. In this case, I'm approaching this issue as a question of a normal distribution versus a skewed one.

In statistics, two types of measurements applied to distributions of data are measures of dispersion and measures of central tendency. The former, as the name implies, describe the spread of the data, while the latter describe the approximate center of the data. When talking about outliers, we can frame their differences or rare features in terms of measures like standard deviation and variance. When talking about the majority of people, we can frame their features in terms of measures like the mean (i.e., average value), median, and mode.

Human height is an example of a feature that takes the shape of a bell curve as the sample size gets bigger. These are bell curves of heights by gender:

Height is normally distributed

Adult heights within a population are approximately normally distributed due to genetic and environmental variance.38

Height is partly determined by the interaction of 423 genes with 697 variants.39

One of the basic rules of probability (known as the Central Limit Theorem) says the distribution of a trait that is determined by independent random variables, like height and genes, roughly follows a bell curve. This means the range of human heights in a population fall centrally around the mean height. In statistical terms, it’s also the case that the mean and median height are the same – they fall right in the middle of the distribution.40

Human Height

The average height of a population can inform us about the nutrition and living conditions of populations in the past for which we have little other data.

ourworldindata.org

As you can see, the vast majority of people—roughly 95% per the empirical rule—fall within a maximum of two standard deviations from the mean. You could argue that the remaining 5% could make things unfair for the rest in elite competitions, but open competition would probably result in a distribution where large values completely skewed the entire sport in favor of a minority. Such distributions where huge outlying values and significant inequality skew the whole distribution away from the shape of a bell curve may look like this:

I would expect an entirely open competition to resemble a skewed distribution, where the majority of competitors stood little to no chance of winning due to the presence of the outlying values for physical predictors of performance such as height. On the other hand, maintaining separation by sex in sports means the normal distribution—the shape of the bell curve—should remain intact, so the vast majority of competitors may have a realistic chance of winning against each other and sometimes even against the tiny minority of outliers.

So, while you could argue that the extreme outlying values are still "unfair" in a normal distribution, that would still a very different level of unfairness from an entirely open competition with enough outliers to skew the whole distribution and put the majority in a heavily disadvantaged position.

 

[Kfox]

We would need to ascertain what characteristics are essentially game breakers. In the case of basketball I only know of height. If you can provide a study that shows other traits are as impactful, we can look into that. Or we can compensate for those with a specific set of rules to make competition fairer. Or we can stop pretending we care about fairness in sports. All alternatives work.

I think everybody cares about fairness in sports, they just don't care about YOUR idea of fairness in sports.

 

[Kfox]

I'm an anthropologist, whereas basic genetics is part of our training, thus your response above is nonsensical because one needs to define what they mean by "biological differences"?

If you are a human with XY chromosomes, instead of XX, a Testosterone level of 1,000 instead of 25, a prostate instead of a Uterus, an Estrogen level of 15 instead of 90, Testes instead of Ovaries, etc. (I could go on but I think you get my point) You are a biological male regardless of what is going on inside of your head.

According to science, humans are mammals, and all mammals are binary; male or female. There is intersex, but that is more of a deformity; if you are whole, you are either male of female.

 

[Jose Fly]

I think everybody cares about fairness in sports, they just don't care about YOUR idea of fairness in sports.

That is precisely the point I'm making in my earlier post.

Is it fair that I'm excluded from competing in a local amateur tournament because of my sex? Ah, but if I'm allowed in, then so are all other men, which means the tourney would become all men. So let's have a second tier, right? But what if that ends up being all men too? A third tier? Fourth? Just how many layers of competition do we have to create before we consistently have women winners? And what do we say to the women who used to be the "top women's amateur golfer in Washington" but are now the "top women's amateur golfer in the Fourth tier of Washington State amateur golf"? Is that fair to them?

 

[metis]

If you are a human with XY chromosomes, instead of XX, a Testosterone level of 1,000 instead of 25, a prostate instead of a Uterus, an Estrogen level of 15 instead of 90, Testes instead of Ovaries, etc. (I could go on but I think you get my point) You are a biological male regardless of what is going on inside of your head.

According to science, humans are mammals, and all mammals are binary; male or female. There is intersex, but that is more of a deformity; if you are whole, you are either male of female.

You serious need to study, and maybe here is a good place to start: Hormone - Wikipedia

 

[Koldo]

There's a vast range of options to minimize unfairness between the two extremes of "make tall people play basketball in their own league" and "make all competitions entirely open and unrestricted because sports are unfair anyway."

Sometimes I borrow some principles of thought from mathematics and programming and try to apply them to analysis of other subjects as well. In this case, I'm approaching this issue as a question of a normal distribution versus a skewed one.

In statistics, two types of measurements applied to distributions of data are measures of dispersion and measures of central tendency. The former, as the name implies, describe the spread of the data, while the latter describe the approximate center of the data. When talking about outliers, we can frame their differences or rare features in terms of measures like standard deviation and variance. When talking about the majority of people, we can frame their features in terms of measures like the mean (i.e., average value), median, and mode.

Human height is an example of a feature that takes the shape of a bell curve as the sample size gets bigger. These are bell curves of heights by gender:

Human Height

The average height of a population can inform us about the nutrition and living conditions of populations in the past for which we have little other data.

ourworldindata.org

As you can see, the vast majority of people—roughly 95% per the empirical rule—fall within a maximum of two standard deviations from the mean. You could argue that the remaining 5% could make things unfair for the rest in elite competitions, but open competition would probably result in a distribution where large values completely skewed the entire sport in favor of a minority. Such distributions where huge outlying values and significant inequality skew the whole distribution away from the shape of a bell curve may look like this:

I would expect an entirely open competition to resemble a skewed distribution, where the majority of competitors stood little to no chance of winning due to the presence of the outlying values for physical predictors of performance such as height. On the other hand, maintaining separation by sex in sports means the normal distribution—the shape of the bell curve—should remain intact, so the vast majority of competitors may have a realistic chance of winning against each other and sometimes even against the tiny minority of outliers.

So, while you could argue that the extreme outlying values are still "unfair" in a normal distribution, that would still a very different level of unfairness from an entirely open competition with enough outliers to skew the whole distribution and put the majority in a heavily disadvantaged position.

I am not sure I understand the final part of your argument. Why do you say that "On the other hand, maintaining separation by sex in sports means the normal distribution—the shape of the bell curve—should remain intact, so the vast majority of competitors may have a realistic chance of winning against each other and sometimes even against the tiny minority of outliers." ?

 

[Koldo]

I think everybody cares about fairness in sports, they just don't care about YOUR idea of fairness in sports.

In other words, they pay lip service.

 

[Koldo]

So here's a real-life scenario about "fairness".....

As you can tell from my posts, I've spent much of my life playing, watching, and coaching sports...IOW, I'm a pretty decent athlete. My current favorite sport is golf, which I've played for 25+ years and am quite good at. Last summer, I played a round where I got paired with a (cis)woman who recently competed in, and finished near the top in our local women's amateur tournament that was held at the same course we were playing that day. Even though I played from the men's tees and she played from the women's tees, I basically beat the crap out of her. I out-drove her by a lot, hit shorter irons into the greens, and just plain out played her. Simply put, I was a much better golfer than her.

Is it "fair" that I can't compete in the women's amateur? I would most likely win, probably easily so, so why am I barred from competing? Am I being unfairly excluded? Conversely, if I and other men were allowed into the tournament, would that be fair to the women players?

First things first. What is the reason to have a women only tournament? Let's see if we can agree with this before moving ahead. I say the reason to have a women only tournament is because women, in many different sports, can't properly compete against men of equal skill. In other words, because of different biological characteristics they can't win. Do you agree it makes sense to create a category to people that can't win in a regular open tournament because of their biological traits?

 

[Debater Slayer]

I am not sure I understand the final part of your argument. Why do you say that "On the other hand, maintaining separation by sex in sports means the normal distribution—the shape of the bell curve—should remain intact, so the vast majority of competitors may have a realistic chance of winning against each other and sometimes even against the tiny minority of outliers." ?

Because there's a difference between having outliers represent 5% of the distribution and having even more significantly outlying values represent a considerable portion of the distribution to the point where the majority who are close to the mean have no chance of winning.

A group of 20 people who can lift 50 kg-100 kg may lose to an outlier who beats them by 15% and lifts 57.5 kg-115 kg, but they all have a relatively similar range of lifting capacity. Now imagine that same group of 20 against seven or eight who can each lift 75 kg-150 kg. The entire distribution becomes fundamentally imbalanced.

 

[Koldo]

Because there's a difference between having outliers represent 5% of the distribution and having even more significantly outlying values represent a considerable portion of the distribution to the point where the majority who are close to the mean have no chance of winning.

A group of 20 people who can lift 50 kg-100 kg may lose to an outlier who beats them by 15% and lifts 57.5 kg-115 kg, but they all have a relatively similar range of lifting capacity. Now imagine that same group of 20 against seven or eight who can each lift 75 kg-150 kg. The entire distribution becomes fundamentally imbalanced.

Ok, that's what I thought you were saying but I wanted to be certain. The problem here is that you are not taking into consideration those that are being excluded from the competition because they don't have the innate traits required to be among the best, given the current rules.

There might be thousands, for example, of highly skilled basketball players that would love to play in the NBA, but since many of them are short they don't have what it takes to play in the NBA, because the current rules screw them. But since those players don't make it to the NBA, they don't show up in your graphics.

I think the easier way to make you see the problem here is thus: Imagine that trans women, that underwent male puberty, are allowed to play in any given sport's women category. Imagine also that undergoing male puberty gives them a significant advantage. Given this scenario, it is easy to conceive that eventually every athlete in the olympics playing in that women's category is going be a trans woman. (It might not happen but it is not far-fecthed depending on the sport). This would entail that the difference between athletes in that category is going to be small, but cisgender women suddenly are no longer competitive to participate in the olympics. This is exactly what is going on with short people that play basketball. Why is it a problem if cisgender women are no longer competitive if it is alright for short basketball players to be excluded? Why the double standard?

 

[Jose Fly]

First things first. What is the reason to have a women only tournament? Let's see if we can agree with this before moving ahead. I say the reason to have a women only tournament is because women, in many different sports, can't properly compete against men of equal skill. In other words, because of different biological characteristics they can't win.

Yes, that's correct.

Do you agree it makes sense to create a category to people that can't win in a regular open tournament because of their biological traits?

It depends on what "category of people" we're talking about.

 

[Koldo]

Yes, that's correct.


It depends on what "category of people" we're talking about.

Why does it depend on what category of people we are talking about?

 

[Jose Fly]

Why does it depend on what category of people we are talking about?

Because there are all sorts of reasons someone might not be able to win a tournament, and not all of them should be treated the same.

So are you trying to divert from the points I raised or something?

 

[Koldo]

Because there are all sorts of reasons someone might not be able to win a tournament, and not all of them should be treated the same.

So are you trying to divert from the points I raised or something?

I am talking about biological physical traits. Is there a set of biological traits that doesn't deserve a distinct category when possessing them makes one unable to compete to win?

I would say it is unfair for men to compete in women sports when their innate biological traits gives them a significant advantage.

 

[Kfox]

You serious need to study, and maybe here is a good place to start: Hormone - Wikipedia

Are you denying biological differences between male and female? Look; if there is anything you disagree with that I said, tell me; I don't have time to read a 10 page Wikipedia page that likely has nothing to do with what I am talking about

 

[Jose Fly]

I am talking about biological physical traits. Is there a set of biological traits that doesn't deserve a distinct category when possessing them makes one unable to compete to win?

Of course.

I would say it is unfair for men to compete in women sports when their innate biological traits gives them a significant advantage.

Agreed. But some would say that it's unfair to exclude me from the amateur tournament because of my sex.

My point is, no matter what we do it's going to be "unfair" to someone. But as many have noted, that's the nature of sports....at the competitive levels they are inherently unfair. That's what competition entails.

However, not all sports leagues are competitive. Some are primarily about playing and having fun, such as rec leagues, which are often co-ed. So if someone wants to play but isn't into serious competition, that's where they go.

So overall, given the number of nuances at play with this issue, it's important to specify exactly what we're talking about when we start debating different approaches. Unfortunately, that's extremely difficult to do with people who don't know much of anything about sports.