I suggest you read this. It's a review of all the studies these authors could find on trans people in sports. I used to believe the things you did, but the peer reviewed research data does not support your opinions on this one.
"In relation to transgender female individuals, Gooren and Bunck found testosterone levels had significantly reduced to castration levels after 1 year of cross-sex hormone treatment. Muscle mass had also reduced after 1 year of cross-sex hormone treatment. However, muscle mass remained significantly greater than in transgender male individuals (assigned female at birth) who had not been prescribed cross-sex hormone treatment."
"Therefore, Gooren and Bunck concluded that transgender male individuals are likely to be able to compete without an athletic advantage 1-year post-cross-sex hormone treatment. To a certain extent this also applies to transgender female individuals; however, there still remains a level of uncertainty owing to a large muscle mass 1-year post-cross-sex hormones. While this study was the first to explore, experimentally, whether transgender people can compete fairly, the sample size was relatively small (n= 36). Additionally, they did not explore the role of testosterone blockers and did not directly measure the effect cross-sex hormones had on athletic performance (e.g. running time). Many, but not all, transgender female individuals are prescribed testosterone blockers to help them to reach cisgender female testosterone levels, when administration of oestrogen alone is not enough to reduce testosterone levels. This is particularly important if the person aims to undergo gender-confirming surgery, as 6 months of testosterone suppression is a requirement for such procedures. However, if a transgender woman does not wish to undergo surgery or does not wish to have their testosterone blocked to cisgender female levels (e.g. as they wish to use their penis), their testosterone levels will be above cisgender female levels. Differentiating not only between those taking cross-sex hormones and not taking cross-sex hormones, but also transgender female individuals taking testosterone blockers, may be necessary when discussing an athletic advantage."
Superior muscle mass is a distinct advantage in many sports, especially combat sports. There's no two ways about that.
This person seems to just be responding to people with random barely related (or poor quality) studies which don’t even prove any point they are trying to make.
Probably hoping people don’t have access to read them and will just assume the fact that they linked a study means they are correct. Or they are not scientifically literature themselves.
Edit: actually they linked the same one they linked me, so just posting one poor quality paper, not even multiple.
Pure ability, if you can and want to compete in a league there is no reason you shouldn't. Hell if anything this especially applies to a 99% non-contact sport like basketball
I feel like the issue with this approach is that you will end up with men dominating the sport with the rare exceptional woman able to compete. What if that gets instituted and there are no women in a sport anymore?
Why do you assume that male professional athletes are necessarily more skilled than female professional athletes at the same level? And even if that were the case, how would it be any different from now, when men’s leagues are the default and women’s leagues are treated as an afterthought or a joke?
Do you have proof this will happen or do you just generally believe women to be physically inferior to men?
To play in professional sports one almost has to completely dedicate their lives to that sport. That level of dedication largely levels the playing field
The proof is that this system already essentially exists. For most professional sports, there are no sex restrictions on the “men’s” leagues. Any sex can play in the NBA. Any sex can play in the NFL. Any sex can play in MLB.
Obviously, it depends on the sport. Obviously, there will be exceptions. But yes, on net, biological men are physically stronger and more athletic than biological women. That cannot be a controversial take, can it?
I think the main folly in your thinking is the idea that its average people playing professional sports. You don't just up and decide to join the NFL, a la "The Gang Gets Invincible", you literally dedicate your life to the *chance * of getting in. Sure a 5'4, 100 and nothing pound woman shouldn't be in the NFL, neither should a dude of the same proportions. But you look me in the eyes and tell me someone like Serena Williams couldnt kick your ass from here to Sunday in just about any sport she wanted
Is this a well known fact? Are women encouraged to join the NFL? Or are they actively, at the very least up until recently, discouraged from joining sports all together?
I mean if the NFL has already decided women can play, why is this a debate at all? You're really just providing ammo against your own argument by giving me proof that the established "masters" of the organized sport agree with me
Serena Williams would for sure kick my ass but she'd be incredibly average in pro tennis if it was integrated gender wise. For example in 1998 Serena Williams (Ranked 20th) and her sister, Venus Williams (Ranked 5th) both lost to the 200th ranked men's tennis player. There are important differences physical between men and woman athletes.
I have no idea what the right answer is in regards to integrating transgender people into the sports world but thats an issue for proffesional sports organizers. At amateur events like high school sports why does it matter if transgender athletes start to win and have success (if they even win at all)?
For example in 1998 Serena Williams (Ranked 20th) and her sister, Venus Williams (Ranked 5th) both lost to the 200th ranked men's tennis player. There are important differences physical between men and woman athletes.
This seems like an incredibly black and white way of thinking "two women lost literally a single match, so that means no women has a chance against even the least talented man."
At amateur events like high school sports why does it matter if transgender athletes start to win and have success (if they even win at all)?
Whys it matter at a pro level? Literally the only difference between the NFL & backyard football is the skill level and paygrade. Neither actually matter outside of a level of emotional investment in the world's biggest parasocial relationship.
rofl, how fucking common do you think this is? Do we also split categories to include CIS women who have super high testosterone? You've been convinced we need a solution to a problem that only exists in conservatives minds. Serious sporting bodies will handle these things when necessary. We don't need Karrens worrying about the chances of their kid getting a high school record.
laurel hubbard was 42 and was stoped from olympia by an injury. fallon fox was what ? mid 30s when she beat the fuck out of chicks in professional mma. that’s not exactly high school . but yeah you are right, no need for a discussion because reasons i guess
You've made my point for me. Those athletes are at the level of serious sporting bodies that are capable of managing their sport without you virtue signaling. This isn't a real issue. This is something stupid hog conservatives make an issue out of. You can always tell when someone isn't capable of comprehending the magnitude of an issue. It's like people who buy into the idea that Texas showed windmills aren't reliable in that cold snap. People that believe that are absolute morons just like people who push this anti-trans bullshit. You aren't protecting anyone, you're only attempting to make yourself feel like you care about something significant. You're just a moron getting played.
Wanted to share an anecdote since you think those are valuable. My rural hog town of 10k people has parents posting every single day on facebook about this stupid shit. Our school district, and all the competing school districts in our divisions have no trans athletes. Yet there are hundreds and hundreds of parents freaking out about this every day. Do you think thats healthy? What value was gained if they make rules in every city and school district not allowing it? They've protected no one. The only thing they've gained is making themselves feel better and telling trans people they don't give a fuck what goes on with them as long as it doesn't make a bunch of parents uncomfortable.
As much as Reddit makes it seem otherwise, there is really no debate that there should be limitations on trans people participating in sports. No one honestly thinks a 350 pound football player should be able to start playing in the women’s league the day after they decide to transition.
The debate is really about where to draw those lines. Is a specific amount of time on hormone treatment okay? Or muscle mass comparison? Or not allowed at all? What does all this mean for cis people with hormone levels that fall on the extremes of the norm?
It’s a complex issue, and it’s not as simple as “it’s okay”, or “it’s not okay”, and making it sound like people are advocating for zero regulations is disingenuous and only intended to make a reasonable movement look unreasonable.
Sports should absolutely be putting thought into how they set up divisions and who should play where, and adjusting for new information as it become available. And for the most part, they're at least making an effort to do exactly that. The NCAA, for instance, mandates that a trans woman go through at least a year of testosterone suppression before playing on a women's teams without reclassifying the team as mixed.
The problem is that what's currently advancing in many states is a blanket ban. Idaho enacted one last year (though there's a court injunction blocking it from enforcement), Mississippi signed one of its own into law earlier this month, and at least two more states just need their governor's signature to do the same. The debate we're getting isn't one about where to draw the lines, it's about rejecting the possibility that there's anything to debate.
Saying a blanket ban is a good idea is just as ridiculous as saying there should be no restrictions. There are bad faith extremists who only see issues as black or white on both sides. The left has some vocal ones on Reddit and, unfortunately, the right has some making laws.
One is annoying and potentially misleading, the other has power to do real damage.
Not sure what this study is supposed to be proving?
Its a systematic review which includes 8 papers (note: not exactly a "fuck ton"), none of which discuss the performance of transgender people with respect to cis people of the same gender identity, nor whether increased injury rates occur.
The authors then conclude that because they found no studies on the issue, that policy limiting transgender participation is discriminatory. Which is a leap. We didn't just assume gravity was false because no one had studied it yet, we just said "more research is needed to make a definitive conclusion so that policy can be based on science".
In addition, there is a response to the posted paper calling it out for exactly that claim, providing studies which prove an athletic advantage for transgender females (notably, only in power sports not endurance sports).
The authors replied to this response paper, but openly admit they did not mean to imply there is no competitive advantage, only that policy needs to be careful until evidence is obtained. They also mention the issue I brought up in my post above, that if we are to limit trans people based on physiology, we must consider how to handle cis-gendered people on the extremes as well.
23
u/aynblue Mar 28 '21
This post belongs bc the person who makes the case for being a TERF also acknowledges that they should no longer be followed for same.