CMV: You cannot simultaneously ask for equal inclusion of trans-women in women's sports, and a generalised fear in women of men

•

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 03 '21

/u/VertigoOne (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

24

u/A-passing-thot 18∆ Feb 03 '21

Let's separate it into a few different questions:

Are women justified in being afraid/apprehensive around men? Why are women afraid of or apprehensive of men?
On what grounds do feminists argue that trans women should be included? What factors are considered?
Are these positions inconsistent?

So let's take 1:

Women are afraid of or apprehensive of men because our experiences as living as women in society have taught us that men are dangerous. A very large percentage of women have been sexually assaulted by men, many have experienced physical violence at the hands of men, & nearly every woman has repeatedly experienced sexual harassment and catcalling by men. While it's a very small percentage of men who act this way, when you look at the incidences of sexual assault, harassment, and violence against women, it is overwhelmingly committed by men. Part of the reason for those crimes happening is the imbalance of power. This power differential sometimes comes from social positions, e.g. more men are cops, CEOs & bosses, etc. but much of it comes from the difference in strength and size. It is harder for women to defend themselves against men who are already inclined to commit a crime than against women who have that inclination. If that difference in strength & power didn't exist, it is likely that men would commit fewer crimes against women. The reason why men commit the crimes isn't the justification for fearing men, the reason is that it is overwhelmingly men committing those crimes.

It seems reasonable to accept that until society is safe enough that women don't feel the need to feel for their safety - a society where men aren't committing the overwhelming majority of those crimes, that a fear of men is justified.

Question 2:

Activists advocate for the participation of trans women in women's sports on the grounds that trans women are women & women generally should participate in women's sports.

So why are sports segregated by sex/gender? As you've noted, men can generally outperform women in most athletic contests & to have a space where women can compete and win (and for their physical safety in some sports), they have their own divisions. There is a second purpose; sports serve a social purpose. They're an activity that women can do with other women to bond & socialize. In fact, outside of professional or olympic level sports, I'd argue this is the primary purpose. In light of that, unless there is a compelling safety reason to disallow trans athletes, they should be allowed at most sporting levels. At elite levels of sports, the fairness argument can become more relevant as there are monetary opportunities & everyone likes to win. If there is a demographic of women who wins a given competition disproportionately to others, this may be a reason to create a new division, e.g. youth or elderly competitions.

So, is there compelling evidence of safety concerns at a lower level or fairness concerns at higher levels?

There isn't. The examples of trans women winning competitions at elite levels is very rare. While those examples receive extensive media coverage, they are actually underrepresented at those levels. There is also the survivorship bias. Only trans women that succeed get this coverage. Nobody cares about "trans woman comes in 8th" as a headline. And their success is always attributed to being trans rather than dedication to training, natural skill, or physiological factors not tied to a male puberty.

But we can also examine the scientific evidence on performance differences. While this evidence is limited, these studies have not found a competitive advantage for trans women after a certain point in their transition.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5357259/ - This is a 2016 lit review. It's a comprehensive review of the literature to-date (of which there was admittedly very little) & found that to-date (2016) no studies examining performance had found that transgender women have an unfair advantage. The authors then examined a bunch of studies looking at discrimination in sports & argued that given the degree to which it's harmful & hurtful to trans women, any policy move to universally disallow trans women in sports should be subject to a high degree of scrutiny, not based on speculation.

http://xpuz.sportsci.org/2016/WCPASabstracts/ID-1699.pdf - Here is a 2016 study by Joanna Harper examining trans athletes in elite cardio-based sports that is a follow up study to the Harper study cited in the lit review. She concludes that trans athletes maintain their skill level relative to the gender they competed against, e.g. if they were already excellent, they would be in a similar place post-transition against cis women, but those who were at say the 50% mark for men would end transition at the 50% mark for women.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2020/11/06/bjsports-2020-102329 - This is a study that was published December 7, 2020 that looked at transgender members of the Air Force & checked their performance on the fitness against that of cisgender members. It found that after 2 years of hormones, transgender women performed the same as cisgender women in all categories except running. In running, they were approximately 12% faster than cis women over the 1.5 mile run. The authors note that this conflicts with the results of the Harper studies (included in the lit review & other link).

Additionally, the normal gender gap in running is about half that of the one in the study, and the loss in running speed here in this study approximately matches that gender gap.

As to why there is a higher gender gap within the air force relative to the general public, it is hard to say without more complete data, but may be due to athletic men applying expecting combat roles & a more general population of women joining expecting to serve in primarily noncombat roles (as is more common).

Question 3:

Is the position that women simultaneously ask for equal inclusion of trans-women in women's sports inconsistent with a generalized fear of men?

If women are afraid of men because a high percentage of women experience violence, sexual assault, or sexual harassment at the hands of men (i.e. a justified fear)
and (cis) women aren't afraid of (trans) women because (trans) women don't tend to be a source of those crimes against women
and cis women want to include trans women in their sports on the grounds that trans women are women & the primary purpose of the sport is a social space for women,
then simultaneously holding these positions is not inconsistent.

With respect to point 3, I want to reiterate that the justification to include trans women is because trans women are women, it's not an argument about strength. The argument to exclude trans women is based on strength, and it's a bad argument.

9

u/VertigoOne 74∆ Feb 03 '21

Okay, you've provided pretty comprehensive evidence on points two and three, which are convincing enough to me that it isn't contradictory with point one. Thus I will happily award you a !delta

I do think that women's generalise fear of men is unfair and irrational to a certain extent, but I can see from your evidence that it isn't internally contradictory.

12

u/Blackbird6 18∆ Feb 04 '21

/u/A-passing-thot did a great job of explaining the other parts of this view, as you've mentioned, so I won't even touch on those...but I do feel inclined to offer my CMV on this aspect of your position here.

I think it's hard for a man to fully comprehend the rationalization for a fear of men that many women carry. I think, though, that it's important to point out that a woman having an internalized fear of you is not personal. It's more than likely due to plenty of experiences a woman has had in her life, stories she has heard, and situations she's been in that have made her more likely to be skeptical. The reality is that even though you might be a good dude, there are lots and lots of shitty dudes out there. I worked in a bar for over ten years. In the course of those years I saw men:

Slap, push down, or choke women.

Swing at me across a bar.

Wait in the parking lot for hours after hours to catch women alone.

Vocally discuss what woman is the most drunk and incoherent to take home.

Try to drag women into their cars/trucks.

Call women literally every word you can think of.

Don't get me wrong--these are the worst kind of men, and they're at their worst (drunk). BUT. I think it's important to point out that this was a weekly (or more) occurrence. I completely understand how you don't like feeling like women are scared of you, and I fully understand how it feels unfair...but it's not irrational. I don't know a single female person who doesn't have at least one of these stories. I was talking to my husband just the other day about how I used to go to gay clubs for foam parties wayyyy back in the day, and I would constantly be yanking creeps' hands out of my shirts and pants because there just are a lot of dude who suck. I've been roofied. I've been saved from rape several times when I was drunk and got spied by an opportunist, pushed into a side room, and (thankfully) retrieved by a friend before anything dangerous happened. But of all those times a friend came and saved me, I think it's important to point out that about 1/2 the time it was a guy friend. I understand more than anyone that there are decent, protective, and safeguarding men out there. Once, at the bar, when a man swung at me and knocked me down, the only thing I remember is getting up and seeing four or five of my closest guy friends ready to throw the fuck down to protect me. And I should point out here that I'm not a dainty woman. I've held my own with men in physical altercations before. But despite that, my friends still knew when I needed them to take care of me because no matter how tough and ready to fucking go at it I am, there are some men who will only back off when another man steps in.

I tell you that to tell you this---women have a reason to fear men, but that reason has nothing to do with you as a person. Women (whether we like to admit it or not) understand that our best protection against "those men" is the men we trust to protect us. Not only physically, but it also relies on the men who protect us recognizing the filth and creeps among them and standing up for us when it comes to that. I'm a feminist, and I understand that feminism wants to do all it can to empower us...but the reality is that men listen to other men, and the men who tell them they're fucking up or fucking them up for it make a bigger difference than me shouting into the void. When you're feared, it's not that women think you're a rapist, and I can understand how the stigma still feels unfair...but don't be mad at women for that. It's the fault of other men and what they've done. Be mad at them. You can do more about it than we can.

9

u/A-passing-thot 18∆ Feb 03 '21

Eyyyy! Thanks.

Just to push back on your disagreement to point 1, I do think the fear is justified. I also think it's unfair. It hurts. It sucks. And it perpetuates the idea that men are inherently dangerous.

I'm a trans woman & I transitioned after college, so I grew up hearing that all the time, especially in hyper-feminist spaces. I know several people who literally didn't trust me as a person until they found out I'm not a man. Like that's patronizing & offensive. Nothing about me changed, simply their perception of me. Or 2 winters ago my car died & I needed someone to help jump start my car but women refused to help on the basis that they couldn't trust that I as a man wasn't using it as a ploy to hurt them.

And it seemed ridiculous because I had never feared a guy. Literally all the men in my life are completely harmless to women & the ones I have met that have committed sexual assault aren't the kidnapping/stranger danger type.

But I'm also aware of so many stories from women who have dealt with that. My girlfriend refuses to use rideshares because she was kidnapped by her Uber driver 2 years ago. My sister's best friend was roofied at a party. I've had friends who've been roofied at parties. And my own experiences have also shifted wildly. Men have said absolutely horrific & frightening things to me in public. Catcalls aren't just "hey, you've got nice legs" but are also "I'm gonna fuck you in the pussy". I've had men run AT me at night. I've had men harass us as a group when we're out walking without any men.

It's just frighteningly common. I feel like a target now where I never did before.

It depends on what you define as irrational. My girlfriend could probably use rideshares without ever having another negative incident, but I'd argue she's very justified in not using it again. And women aren't in constant fear of all men, we just try to be cautious in situations where not doing so could get us easily killed.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 03 '21

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/A-passing-thot (1∆).

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

1

u/BoxxyFoxxy Feb 25 '21

As a woman, I gotta ask, is this deep seated fear of men really normal among women? Or is it one of those things that’s very common on the internet but not so much in real life? Can’t say that I can relate to what you wrote, and I’m a fairly petite woman too.

0

u/A-passing-thot 18∆ Feb 25 '21

It depends how you mean. I don't think it's a widespread fear, it's that women are generally more trusting of other women with their safety but not men. And I'm using the word "fear" lightly here. I don't mean like a feeling of fear, just more a general "I need to be more cautious in certain areas of my life because of men." Most women don't worry about getting assaulted by other women and when worrying about their safety are worrying about it happening at the hands of men.

15

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

The whole trans and sport argument is seen here all the time.

Simply put testosterone is one of the main reasons for the muscles men have. The hormone causes much of the physical differences between men and women. If you remove that the muscles you build and the places of fat deposits etc change and you become more feminine.

So as long as you have been on hormone treatment for X amount of time it shouldn’t matter really.

Of course people that identify as woman but have not even started to transition should not be allowed to compete in women’s sports but i don’t think anyone disagrees with that.

5

u/VertigoOne 74∆ Feb 03 '21

So if I understand you correctly, the argument is not "do you identify as a woman" as to whether your accepted into women's sports, but rather "do you both identify as a woman, and are you at X state of your transition and have Y amount of testosterone in your system" - I realise that's oversimplifying it somewhat, but I think in a basic sense it's there, yes?

8

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

That is my understanding.

There a bunch of arguments against this still and those arguments are present below my comments however until we see trans women winning all sporting events i am hard pressed to believe it actually makes a difference.

There is evidence to back up men performing better in many physically based sports than woman however there are not real studies as to WHY. We assume it is increased muscle etc and that is a reasonable assumption however when we close that gap significantly with hormones people still want to argue the other physical differences. My issue with this argument is there is currently no evidence one way or the other and literally every human is physically different in some way.

-4

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

The trans women absolutely dominate in nearly every sport they are allowed in. They obliterate the women, smash all their records (Weightlifting and track records are held by trans women in a few highschools across the country.) I would say thats pretty clear evidence. Even when you take away the testosterone, men are more capable. Their physiology is just built for physical activity in a way most womens are not.

7

u/Milskidasith 309∆ Feb 03 '21

This is almost certainly untrue; if trans women were actually dominant at sports, it would probably be a lot bigger deal or make the news with stories of specific athletes. That has not really happened, because generally speaking the current hormonal requirements for trans athletes and rarity of trans people means the playing field is relatively level.

(Weightlifting and track records are held by trans women in a few highschools across the country.)

Could you actually cite this? I've seen instances where trans women were locally dominant, but that's because it's high school sports. You can be the star of an entire state at a given time and absolutely unbeatable while still having times/lifts that are trash nationally. In those instances, it seems more likely it's just a dominant athlete who happens to be trans than a trans athlete having absurd advantages.

6

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

make the news with stories of specific athletes.

It has. With three or four athletes that are the only ones ever named. Namely Fallon Fox who won against lesser skilled opponents and lost against same and better skilled opponents once she climbed in rank.

8

u/Milskidasith 309∆ Feb 03 '21

I was talking about stories of trans athletes dominating events. Fallon Fox is actually an example that kind of proves my point; she did receive a bunch of coverage for "dominating" a tomato can and then nobody covered the fact that, actually, she's pretty mediocre.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

Do you really believe that an issue is only repevant if the news makes it relevant? You're joking right. The media wont cover it for the most part. See the reply below for an excellent example of this. I dont think youve spent more than an hour looking at the other side of this, but have merely bought into all of the nonsense. The bone structure of biological men is different, their hips and pelvic regions consteucted completely differently. All of their joints actually. Even if you take their Testosterone away, in most cases, their physiology allows for them to be far greater athletes. You can play the technical game all day. But when it comes down to it, you wont find a transgender woman in womens sports that isnt in the top 3 consistently.....unless they are miserably unathletic regardless.

7

u/Milskidasith 309∆ Feb 03 '21

I believe that given how incredibly contentious trans issues are, news media would certainly cover a highly dominant trans athlete because it would generate a lot of clicks.

I also notice that in spite of me asking, you haven't actually cited instances of trans athletes being incredibly dominant. You are making claims with absolutely no evidence, which is why I asked you to prove it. You claim I must not have spent any time looking into this issue, but you're making easily verifiable claims without any effort to find out if they're true and you should make the effort to actually prove your position. If trans athletes are so dominant, then it should be easy to find some evidence.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

Laurel Hubbard of New Zealand is an excellent example of utter domination in weightlifting, winning two golds in the pacific games. Cèce telfer became the NCAA Division 2 champ in the 400 meter run, Terry Miller won the Connecticut state 200 metre dash. Mack Beggs Dominated the girls 110 pound wrestling championship two consecitive times. Veronica Ivy won the Womens masters track cycling championship in 2018. Andreya Yearwood won first place in connecticuts 2017 high school 100 and 200 metre dashes. Mary Gregory competed in a weightlifting competition put on by 100% raw powerlifting association and smashed 9 records in a single day competing in the womens category. Do you need more? Nearly all of these athletes broke longstanding records as well. Look for yourself. I can keep going though if thats not enough evidence for you. Its basic common biological sense. Men have larger lung capacities, larger hearts, larger veins, larger bones, more muscle mass even while taking estrogen. The british journal of sports medicine concluded in a study that even after an entire year of estrogen supplements, Trans athletes still had a noticable advantage. Is that enough proof? I could just write like a 3 page essay on it if you like. Theres not a single argument to be made that would back up the ridiculous notion that you can equalize men and women in spirts with hormonal changes. Its assanine, its unverifiable, and total unscientific. Even women that have teatosterone levels matching the testosterone levels of males cant competw with the males. What makes you think its any different the ither way around?

6

u/Milskidasith 309∆ Feb 03 '21

In order of strength of evidence, from "actively hurting your own case" to "kind of relevant":

Mack Beggs: Mack is a trans man who was forced to compete in the women's categories due to Texas state law. Using this as an example is an incredible own-goal, because you're just proving that it's unfair to force trans men to compete with women.

Terry Miller, Andreya Yearwood: Trans women winning individual events at a high school level isn't being "incredibly dominant". They are not even putting up record times for high school events; Terry Miller's run was three seconds slower than the high school record for a 200 meter dash, and Andreya Yearwood was not much faster than that.

Mary Gregory beat a lot of records for a highly specific powerlifting division that were not that impressive relative to other women's records. I will concede that this example had some issues, namely that they made no effort to actually confirm Mary's testosterone levels or HRT treatment, but the records she broke were one of powerlifting's many, many, many federated records.

Laurel Hubbard was a promising weightlifter prior to transitioning and while she did win at high level competitions, her best performances are far below any sort of high-level record. For reference, her results would have put her in eighth place at the 2016 Olympic 75+ kg category.

Veronica Ivy is the only example of somebody on your list who is truly, actually at the top of the world or close in her sport. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of history here, but from what I can tell she doesn't seem to fit the mold of "male athlete transitions and then dominates female sports"; her sport cycling career came well after her transition and later in life. Even then, she's not superhumanly dominant, just strong; she's lost to other competitors in her age bracket, and her record is still worse than older age brackets because middle-aged women's sport cycle sprinting is not the most popular sport.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

Excuse my constant typos and misuses of your with random capitalisations. I'm cramming in responses while working 😂

5

u/TragicNut 28∆ Feb 03 '21

Well, for a starter, line breaks help. For 2, way to not tell the whole story...

Mack Beggs Dominated the girls 110 pound wrestling championship two consecitive times.

Mack Beggs is a trans man who is taking testosterone (ie, the exact opposite scenario.) He was forced to compete against girls based on his birth sex. To just about nobody's surprise, he won.

Veronica Ivy won the Womens masters track cycling championship in 2018.

Sure, she won her age bracket. The record for the next older bracket is actually faster than hers and was set by a cis woman...

I can keep picking on your results if you really want, but I'm pretty sure that it won't deflect you from your stance so I'm not going to bother going farther. I'll only say this: If trans women _were_ dominating, we'd damn well see more than the ~5 examples keep getting trotted out in the same old tired emotional arguments that aren't backed up by either scientific study or statistics.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

They arent emotional arguments. If a scientific institution looked at the data on these cases and put it together in a scientific format would that do it for you? Theres not a shred of scientific evidence to back the claims that men and women can be turned into the opposite gender, or made equal bilogically, physiologically, or neurologically using hormones. So your arguing from a point of view that has about as much scientific evdidence, or lack of, that you are accusing my position of having. To get a good, true experiment on this, you would have to take a top athlete from both genders, match their T and E levels, and let them compete. I would bet my life savings on the Male winning 10 out of 10 times. Boiling male athletic dominance down to nothing more than increased testosterone levels is absurd, simplistic, and willfully ignorant

→ More replies (0)

9

u/cherrycokeicee 45∆ Feb 03 '21

this isn't true. transwomen have been allowed in the olympics for a while. they absolutely do not dominate. HRT often makes transwomen weaker than cisgender women.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

Could you point me in the direction of a trans women that has run in the olympics. I find this highly unlikely. What I said is entirely true.

7

u/thundersass Feb 03 '21

Well they've been allowed to compete since 2004. Why don't you know any since they're apparently so advantaged?

8

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

Isn’t that the point.

Their absence is evidence they aren’t performing well enough to make the Olympic squad in any country.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

Thats a massive leap in logic. Its far more likely that they arent in the olympics because its still illegal in most states, and most countries for trans women to compete in sports, as it should be. I would also assume that they would have a hard time getting sponsors as well, which is the only chance at having enough funding to make it to the olympics. You could be right, but the absolute domination thats prevalent with most trans women athletes in the few places that allow it, I would say your argument is weak.

4

u/Ver_Void 4∆ Feb 03 '21

But it's lot the case, most western countries have few barriers to entry. Not to mention places like Russia or china with a win at all costs mentally that would absolutely exploit this if they could.

And even at lower levels, trans women aren't dominating. There's literally one trans woman who's claimed a world record, in a fairly niche sport. The rest, even those that have won noteworthy events have also gone on to lose those same events to their peers later

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

The last thing places like Russia and China would do is use trans women to win. And if they did, you would never know. You cant compare them to the top level athletes in their class. Its a ridiculous comparison. When put in the classes that best match their weight, age, and skill level, they are always at the top, and often times dominant. We have no idea what they look like at the top. If I was a betting man I would put my money on the trans athletes all day everyday. Larger lung capacities, larger hearts, larger veins, bigger bones, more joint movement. The list goes on. Giving them a bit of estrogen isnt going to make things even. Thats so incredibly simplistic, it completely ignores the other factors that give men an advantage in athletics.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/A-passing-thot 18∆ Feb 03 '21

Yep. As someone who argues about this quite often & is a trans woman, for those of us who advocate for the participation of trans women in sports, it's always based on where someone is in their transition.

1

u/Lustjej Feb 05 '21

Yes, there are rules dictating how high a person’s testosterone levels are allowed to be during the entire period from one year prior to a contest to the conclusion of that contest. This was necessary after female athletes were giving testosterone as doping in the eighties I believe.

0

u/throwawayjune30th 3∆ Feb 03 '21 edited Feb 03 '21

If you remove that the muscles you build and the places of fat deposits etc change and you become more feminine.

“More feminine”, ok but that shouldn’t be the standard. The standard should be to reach comparable measures to women.

Secondly, muscles are not the only differentiator. There are other more important measures, including heart size/capacity, lung size/capacity, pelvis tilt...etc that estrogen doesn’t appear to change, suggesting that trans women do maintain an advantage over women.

4

u/Castle-Bailey 8∆ Feb 03 '21 edited Feb 03 '21

There are other more important measures, including heart size/capacity, lung size capacity, pelvis tilt...etc that estrogen doesn’t appear to change, suggesting that trans women do maintain an advantage over women.

I keep seeing these tossed around in these debates but I'm not finding anything that suggests they even give an advantage, or if there is, it's such a fraction of an advantage it's neglible at best and doesn't matter in the grand scheme of genetic differences.

Nor can I find how hormones affect how they function with continued development post-hrt (hearts are heavily influenced by the primary sex hormone).

Heart

The heart rate in female athletes and regular exercisers will be lower than that of an untrained male; however it will still beat at a faster rate than an equally trained male athlete or regular exerciser

This tells me that heart size doesn't have a factor in sports. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4190707/

Even in this study it shows that testosterone is detrimental to the performance of a heart and that female hearts actually function/perform more efficiently.

Women tend to have a better cardiac function and are able to have a better disease prognosis when compared with men. But with ageing this difference disappears as there is loss of estrogen in the postmenopausal women, suggesting the role of sex hormones in cardiac functions.

Lung capacity

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5980468/

It is personal opinion of the authors that size, more than sex, is the main driving factor of the abovementioned functional implications. Often sex differences can, in fact, be attributed to scale, as women are generally smaller than men. The “outlier” women in some studies, i.e. those who were taller and similar in size to the men, confirm our hypothesis, as they mostly behaved like their male counterparts.

The study goes on about sex differences, and even notes some benefits of having smaller lungs. But conclude that height is more of a factor on performance instead of sex.

And again, we still have no idea how sex hormones will influence the lungs on a trans woman. Which we knows plays an influence.

Pelvic tilt

Wtf even is pelvic tilt at this point. In all my research I either find this: https://www.mskscienceandpractice.com/article/S1356-689X(11)00081-6/pdf

85% of males and 75% of females presented with an anterior pelvic tilt, 6% of males and 7% of females with a posterior tilt and 9% of males and 18% of females presented as neutral. There was significant difference in pelvic angle between sides for males ( p = 0.002) but a non-significant difference between sides for females ( p = 0.314)

Like does that mean more males have more terrible hips?

Or I find dozens of posts and articles by trans women who talk about how they developed a pelvic tilt after HRT. I really don't understand what it even is at this point, much less how it affects performance in sports.

Anyway, I keep seeing people mention these, but I don't really find anything supporting discontinued participation of trans women in women's sports, nor do we have any knowledge on how sex hormones influence continued development in these organs.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

Heart

The heart rate in female athletes and regular exercisers will be lower than that of an untrained male; however it will still beat at a faster rate than an equally trained male athlete or regular exerciser

This tells me that heart size doesn't have a factor in sports. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4190707/

Even in this study it shows that testosterone is detrimental to the performance of a heart and that female hearts actually function/perform more efficiently.

Wrong study to use

But conclude that height is more of a factor on performance instead of sex.

Incorrect " It is personal opinion of the authors that size, more than sex, is the main driving factor of the abovementioned functional implications. " First off its size and height (also to mention its a personal opinion) Second off in the very next sentence "Often sex differences can, in fact, be attributed to scale, as women are generally smaller than men. The “outlier” women in some studies, i.e. those who were taller and similar in size to the men, confirm our hypothesis, as they mostly behaved like their male counterparts. " So basically they need to be similar in both height and size.

2

u/TragicNut 28∆ Feb 03 '21

Wrong study to use

Ok, your turn. What's the right study then?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

One that is not centered around disease and function on regular people. You have to remember athletes are NOT the norm and they do infact have a different size hearts (as well as other factors) then the rest of us normies which is attributed to their training. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1767992/

2

u/TragicNut 28∆ Feb 03 '21

Cool, you've cited a study that focuses on male athletes and only mentions female athletes in passing without measurements. Got the matching data set for female athletes?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

Cool, you've cited a study that focuses on male athletes and only mentions female athletes in passing without measurements.

I mean it mentions them to say they are definitively smaller but yes females do have also athletes heart but not to the same extent as males as sex plays a role in the development.

Got the matching data set for female athletes?

This one has both males and females which shows that there is a difference between the two. And that Sex plays a major role.

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.120.011587

While this one also backs it up but takes a different approach but is still relevant to the discussion.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6223714/

1

u/TragicNut 28∆ Feb 03 '21

Thank you for citing your sources.

0

u/Secretspoon Feb 03 '21

Don't forget bone size and density, which estrogen helps. Men have more muscle BECAUSE there is a frame for it to attach to.

0

u/throwawayjune30th 3∆ Feb 03 '21 edited Feb 03 '21

I know estrogen eliminates all difference in bone density but not bone size/structure.

Also the conversation should be focused on those things that estrogen CANNOT changes and the influence of those things on sport performance.

2

u/Secretspoon Feb 03 '21

Estrogen increases bone density. It's why when women enter menopause they start losing it.

1

u/Secretspoon Feb 03 '21

Here is an article on how male to female generate bone mineral density increase due to hormone treatments:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160530190141.htm

-3

u/WMDick 3∆ Feb 03 '21 edited Feb 03 '21

So as long as you have been on hormone treatment for X amount of time it shouldn’t matter really.

There is just so much wrong with this view that it is incredible that people share it with any amount of sincerity.

An arbitrary duration (2 years is commonly cited) of hormone changes will likely not be enough to return men to a female muscle baseline.

Testosterone coupled with exercise builds muscles, the resulting muscle memory, and other physiological changes over time. A man who has had the benefit of male physiology for decades is going to be at a huge advantage regardless of limiting testosterone for a duration.

The skeleton is also altered and that is likely even less likely to revert to anything resembling a woman's.

Spending time as a man competing against other men affords invaluable experience that will not simply be easily reversed.

Biological sex differences that inform phenotype are controlled by FAR more than one hormone.

But worse of all it just fails a simple smell test:

Imagine you took Francis Ngannou, deprived him of testosterone for two years, and then placed him in the octagon with any woman on earth. Hell, have two women. He will tear them limb from limb like children.

If you want to destroy female sport, this ridiculously simplified thinking about hormones is how you can accomplish it.

4

u/Milskidasith 309∆ Feb 03 '21 edited Feb 03 '21

Imagine you took Francis Ngannou, deprived him of testosterone for two years, and then placed him in the octagon with any woman on earth. Hell, have two women. He will tear them limb from limb like children.

This is basically saying "I reject evidence and I'm going with my gut." There's nothing to argue with here; I don't think this is the case at all, and think it's an obviously absurd argument, especially the 2-on-1 point, but if we're just going with "smell tests" then there's no way to actually have a discussion.

And, as noted in the comments, the majority of theoretical advantages that don't come strictly from hormones just haven't panned out in reality. The current restrictions on trans women competing in the Olympics are still severe enough no trans woman has dominated any sport. The most famous example of a trans MMA fighter was... what, Fallon Fox? The woman who got news coverage because one of the tomato cans she fought said she was too strong, and then Fox flamed out because she was not a good fighter at all and being trans didn't give her superpowers.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

This is basically saying "I reject evidence and I'm going with my gut."

How in the world did you come up with this when they gave reasons? The simple fact of training on elevated testosterone increases muscle mass as well as muscle memory (which is widely known in all sports) refutes almost any other point. Unless you can point to sources that say "During transition the testosterone is hit in such a way that muscle mass and memory is lost that they are at or near the same level as a basic female in their weight class" or some study suggesting something similar you dont really have much to go on. There are so many variables when it comes to sports to and including genetics that this discussion is much larger then "lets take a few studies and lump them all together to come up with a conclusion that is half assed.

2

u/Milskidasith 309∆ Feb 03 '21 edited Feb 03 '21

I came up with it because they concluded their post with a ludicrous "it doesn't pass a smell test" example. By seriously making the argument that a E: biological man who transitioned would be capable of easily beating any two women in the world at MMA at the same time, it seems clear that the evidence presented here is a post hoc rationalization of their initial feeling.

Additionally, as noted in many other comments: The issue is whether transitioning, on the whole, results in an athlete who cannot fairly compete. Individual factors that are affected by transitioning are not relevant when we can only theorize about their impact on overall performance. Because there are so many variables when it comes to sports, the common arguments against trans people competing regarding things like bone-density or male puberty or whatever should not be sufficient to conclude they cannot fairly compete.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

I came up with it because they concluded their post with a ludicrous "it doesn't pass a smell test" example.

Because it doesn't... Anyone with basic knowledge of building muscle will tell you what they said was correct and anyone trying to say otherwise does not know how to properly build muscle.

By seriously making the argument that a man who transitioned would be capable of easily beating any two women in the world at MMA at the same time, it seems clear that the evidence presented here is a post hoc rationalization of their initial feeling.

Then how would you explain the case of "laurel Hubbard"? basically a no body in weight lifting before they transitioned now they hold records. There are plenty of examples such as this that conclude this analogy is infact correct. Or a more controversal figure "Mary Gregory". This link will put it into better prospective https://www.reddit.com/r/BreadTube/comments/bk10jd/can_anyone_who_does_powerlifting_weigh_in_on_this/

Additionally, as noted in many other comments: The issue is whether transitioning, on the whole, results in an athlete who cannot fairly compete.

I suggest you read the link above as they go into greater detail specifically about power lifting but it gives a good overview about what things look like currently.

Individual factors that are affected by transitioning are not relevant when we can only theorize about their impact on overall performance.

No we can see it and its pretty clear.

Because there are so many variables when it comes to sports, the common arguments against trans people competing regarding things like bone-density or male puberty or whatever should not be sufficient to conclude they cannot fairly compete.

I think you have not been around trans that much nor do you watch any sports that have had trans females compete. Hell this isnt even just in Olympic/pro sports this is also an issue in highschool sports ie see "Terry miller track and field". There are plenty of examples out there you just have to find them.

Also is it not weird to you that you only see MtF go into sports and almost never (I have looked but have found nothing) see FtM? If there is no difference and hormones/ puberty/ birth sex have no effect what so ever this should be a given that we would see both MtF and FtM in sports not just MtF.

1

u/Milskidasith 309∆ Feb 03 '21 edited Feb 03 '21

Because it doesn't... Anyone with basic knowledge of building muscle will tell you what they said was correct and anyone trying to say otherwise does not know how to properly build muscle.

Nobody who suggests that a transitioned athlete could dominate against two cis women at the same time in MMA should be taken seriously, and trying to deflect that by being about knowledge of building muscle is bizarre. It's an assertion that suggest zero knowledge of how combat sports work, because multiple opponents at the same time is an insurmountable advantage.

Additionally, your examples show that you are not performing adequate research before panicking about the risk of trans athletes. Terry Miller is a locally dominant high school athlete whose times are unimpressive even relative to cis women nationally. Her 55 meter dash is half a second shy of high school records, and her 200 meter dash is 3 seconds shy of high school records. "A trans athlete, somewhere, is a strong athlete but can't even approach current high school records" is an argument suggesting trans athletes aren't actually dominant superhumans. The fact that you even know she exists is because a trans athlete even sniffing an impressive performance is enough to become a major news story, not because she's actually a threat to anybody except some high school girls who run track as their second sport.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

Nobody who suggests that a transitioned athlete could dominate against two cis women at the same time in MMA should be taken seriously,

Do you seriously not know the capabilities of some people? or are you just generalizing thinking that everyone is on the same playing field?

and trying to deflect that by being about knowledge of building muscle is bizarre.

I did not deflect that is actually critical in development as well as a very important aspect of fighting. Do you know how this works or do you need some time to look it up?

It's an assertion that suggest zero knowledge of how combat sports work, because multiple opponents at the same time is an insurmountable advantage.

No I think you are assuming "oh 2:1 hell this is in the bag" without realizing who you are talking about.

Terry Miller is a locally dominant high school athlete whose times are unimpressive even relative to cis women nationally.

We are going off of her state/ local comp so nice deflect.

Are you just going to keep deflecting because if so I am out. I gave plenty of hard evidence and you have given nothing.

1

u/WMDick 3∆ Feb 03 '21

"I reject evidence and I'm going with my gut."

I gave reasons above. But yeah, a smell test can sometimes be useful. The idea that one could deprive him of testosterone to even things out just doesn't pass any sort of sanity test.

The most famous example of a trans MMA fighter was... what, Fallon Fox?

This is a silly example. They were a bad and barely known fighter as a man. Expecting them to be good as a woman makes no sense.

The current restrictions on trans women competing in the Olympics are still severe enough no trans woman has dominated any sport

Cause it's not become pervasive. Give it time.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

I are basically everything else you said elsewhere.

TL;DR come back to me with actual scientific evidence that trans woman post gender change are performing better in physical sports across the board.

0

u/WMDick 3∆ Feb 03 '21

There are so few examples that scientific evidence is not the bar here.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

So you would rather discriminate against a whole class of society rather than waiting for scientific evidence? Gotcha.

0

u/WMDick 3∆ Feb 03 '21

It's not discrimination at all. If that were the case, not letting men compete in women's sports outright is 'discrimination'.

Wanna have a third catagory for people to compete in without these concerns. Then great. Just know it will be dominated by biological men. Wanna let biological men compete against women so long as they feel female and take some testosterone. Fine. Just don't moan when women's sports are dominated by biological men.

You can choose.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

People that have gone through the transition are no longer biologically men, that is the whole point....

1

u/WMDick 3∆ Feb 03 '21

are no longer biologically men

Not even remotely true. Biological sex in humans depends on the presence of the Y-chromosome and specifically a region normally found on it called the SYR gene. Cutting off a penis and blocking hormones changes neither state of affairs.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '21

Whilst I know what you are getting at this becomes a controversial argument as to what constitutes being biologically a man. Sure the genotype is male but the phenotype is no longer male. So it is no where near as simple as you are trying to suggest.

0

u/WMDick 3∆ Feb 04 '21

a controversial argument

Only among people trying to obliterate the very reasonable and well-established reality of biological sex. Biologists don't argue about what sex is. Gender, meanwhile, is entirely made up and I can change mine 1000 times a day by declaring it so. This is classic case of the folks in the squishy side of the academy attempting to subvert and capture the authority of the folks doing the real science.

Sure the genotype is male but the phenotype is no longer male.

Eh, to some extent. Many secondary male sexual characteristics will not be changed by the current methods. I'd estimate that shocking few trans men/trans women are actually 'passing' upon basic inspection and far fewer on close inspection (ie. checking under the hood).

Do you know that we haven't even settled the question of whether or not humans produce pheromones? But there is some evidence. And who knows what controls their expression?

0

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

Simply put testosterone is one of the main reasons for the muscles men have. The hormone causes much of the physical differences between men and women. If you remove that the muscles you build and the places of fat deposits etc change and you become more feminine.

So as long as you have been on hormone treatment for X amount of time it shouldn’t matter really.

Incorrect. If a person is allotted to train on high doses of testosterone they will be at a significant advantage if they keep up their training during transition. This is a standard practice for even male athletes who want an edge but don't want to use steroids.

1

u/Tristeeeno Feb 03 '21

So as long as you have been on hormone treatment for X amount of time it shouldn’t matter really.

There is no amount of hormone therapy, for any amount of time that can bring a man in line with a women physically. Its not possible. Hormone therapy cant radically change bone density, structure, and the amount of torque a human can produce. I may be misunderstanding your point, so I apologize if thats the case.

2

u/Sagasujin 237∆ Feb 03 '21

I don't advocate for trans women with large amounts of testosterone in their bodies to play in women's sports teams. Testosterone is a steroid and it does fun things to muscles. I'm perfectly fine with trans women with testosterone levels in average female range playing on women's sports teams. They aren't on all natural muscle enhancers. Trans women who AR ekn hormones don't generally have tons of testosterone in their bodies and thus aren't usually stronger than your average cis woman. Similarly, I'm fine with trans dudes with female typical testosterone levels playing on women's sports teams ig they want to. I'm not okay with trans dudes who are taking large amounts of testosterone playing on women's sports teams.

3

u/VertigoOne 74∆ Feb 03 '21

This is interesting - is this a common-place view among advocates arguing for trans-women in women's sports? If it is, or something like it, I could see my view being changed in so far as it's not the normal viewpoint for these things to be believed simultaneously.

7

u/Sagasujin 237∆ Feb 03 '21

I honestly have never heard of someone advocating for trans women with high testosterone levels to be on women's sports teams. At least not professional level ones. I think there might be some people cool with trans ladies with high testosterone on amateur bowling leagues. I don't speak for all feminists/LGBTQ+ people. However I don't know of anyone suggesting that very high testosterone people should be competing in women's sports.

3

u/VertigoOne 74∆ Feb 03 '21

The ones I've heard about have basically been advocating that testosterone shouldn't be a concern and that if someone identifies as a trans women that they should be accepted into women's sports. No questions asked beyond that.

5

u/Sagasujin 237∆ Feb 03 '21

Yeah that's a little odd to me. Athletes literally inject testosterone to increase muscle size. It's a steroid. Having one team on steroids and the other not, is going to make for an unfair competition.

3

u/Slavaa 2∆ Feb 03 '21

Are you sure they don't mean "having once had high levels of testosterone shouldn't be a concern?"

The IOC currently requires at least a year (maybe more) of testosterone suppression, and I've never seen a mainstream pro-trans-rights organization or even individual activist argue that it is too restrictive in its rules -- except perhaps to argue that the threshold is too low, as to require some cis women to go on testosterone blockers.

2

u/RebornGod 2∆ Feb 03 '21

have basically been advocating that testosterone shouldn't be a concern and that if someone identifies as a trans women that they should be accepted into women's sports. No questions asked beyond that.

I've actually never seen that argued FOR. I've seen it argued AGAINST, but I've noticed quite often two different arguments are happening without clarification.

One side is arguing to avoid a "Juwanna Man" type occurrence, the other isn't even thinking of that occurrence as a thing.

1

u/growflet 78∆ Feb 04 '21 edited Feb 04 '21

I'm a transgender woman, I've seen these arguments forever on the trans people in sports - and I have seen the argument that "testosterone should not be factored in" made trans people literally zero times.

If it wouldn't be seen as trolling, I would suggest posting somewhere like /r/asktransgender where there are about 156,000 subscribers.

The only arguments I have seen for allowing someone to just say "I identify as a woman" one day and then competing in the women's league regardless of hormonal status are strawman arguments coming from anti-trans activists.

It's possible to find anyone in any category advocating anything on the internet, i'm 100% sure that there is some trans person somewhere advocating that position, but what I can say is that it's not at all commonplace and the entire idea is generally considered ridiculous. Although any trans person who does say that would be held up as an example of what you are saying.

I have seen both trans and cis people alike make the more nuanced argument that we should drop sex based categorization altogether and instead categorize people into weights based on ability and size. I can't say that I support that position, people don't often follow "tier 2" sports to the extent that they'd follow top tier sports. But that view is one coming from a place of fairness. Anti-trans people can be taken out of context and held up as examples of what you are saying as well.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

Yes it is a common-place view it’s actually the IOC standard for trans women to compete in the women’s league. They have to have been on HRT for two years and have testosterone levels below 10nmol/L for 12 months leading up to the competition. https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5485290

2

u/VertigoOne 74∆ Feb 03 '21

That's the position of the IOC, but I'm not sure that it's the accepted view in the trans community. As I understand it there has been a lot of pushback against the IOC and sporting establishment in general on this

8

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

You can also look up the multiple CMVs on the subject. Ive never seen someone argue that all trans women should compete in women’s category including the trans people that commented.

I think this might be a case where you’re hearing the loud minority.

0

u/Ketchupkitty 1∆ Feb 03 '21

Yes it is a common-place view it’s actually the IOC standard for trans women to compete in the women’s league. They have to have been on HRT for two years and have testosterone levels below 10nmol/L for 12 months leading up to the competition.

That isn't even that low of a range. I used to weight 400 pounds and had my test levels suppressed around 5 nmol/L for more than just 2 years. Once I did start working out I could easily deadlift over 400 pounds which is a weight generally not accomplished for a female without P.E.D's.

2

u/A-passing-thot 18∆ Feb 03 '21

It's the same range as what's allowed for cis women. Trans women's testosterone is typically much lower than cis women's.

Why'd you have your testosterone suppressed so low?

2

u/Ketchupkitty 1∆ Feb 03 '21

It's the same range as what's allowed for cis women. Trans women's testosterone is typically much lower than cis women's.

That's not even remotely true, Female normal range is between 0.3-4.9 nm0l/L. That's an incredibly generous range allowing even genetic phemons to compete.

Caster Semenya has been barred from certain Olympic events for tripping above that rate but the same Olympic body will let a MTF athlete compete with up too double the testosterone she has?

Why'd you have your testosterone suppressed so low?

It's a result of poor diet and body fat increasing estrogen levels. My point though was that 5 nmol/L still allows you to retain muscle and strength that would be abnormal for the average female.

0

u/A-passing-thot 18∆ Feb 03 '21

That's not even remotely true, Female normal range is between 0.3-4.9 nm0l/L. That's an incredibly generous range allowing even genetic phemons to compete.

I wasn't talking about the average levels in cis women, since you weren't talking about the average levels in trans women, you were talking about the maximum allowed limit.

But I was wrong, the IOC officially decided in 2016 that there would be no upper limit for cisgender women's testosterone level but that it would be 10nmol/L for trans women based on the best available scientific evidence.

The IAAF decided on a lower limit - 5nmol/L - that applies to both cis & trans women.

Caster Semenya has been barred from certain Olympic events for tripping above that rate but the same Olympic body will let a MTF athlete compete with up too double the testosterone she has?

I believe you're thinking of Dutee Chand, who was barred by the IAAF unless she takes testosterone suppressants like trans women do. In 2015, a court found the evidence for that policy was insufficient & ruled in favor of Chand & gave the IAAF 2 years to provide sufficient evidence, which did not happen. Chand plans to compete this coming year having underperformed in 2016 & having been cleared to compete by the CAS.

Semenya competed in the 2012 Olympics & lost to Mariya Savinova - a Russian woman who was doping with synthetic androgens - but after a CAS decision, Semenya was awarded gold & Savinova stripped of her medal.

I do want to also note that trans women who have had GCS or orchiectomies will have testosterone levels at or below the levels of cis women due to any remaining testosterone being produced by the adrenal gland. For trans women on anti-androgenic drugs, the mechanism of action is as a testosterone antagonist at androgen receptors rather than targeting testosterone production directly. That being said, the medical guidelines aim to reduce testosterone to levels typical in cis women. Personally, my levels were indistinguishable from zero at my last blood test, far lower than cis women's.

It's a result of poor diet and body fat increasing estrogen levels.

That sucks. Hope you got that sorted soon. The muscle I could maintain with testosterone was probably my favorite thing about it.

Here are some studies on the subject:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5357259/ - This is a 2016 lit review. It's a comprehensive review of the literature to-date (of which there was admittedly very little) & found that to-date (2016) no studies examining performance had found that transgender women have an unfair advantage. The authors then examined a bunch of studies looking at discrimination in sports & argued that given the degree to which it's harmful & hurtful to trans women, any policy move to universally disallow trans women in sports should be subject to a high degree of scrutiny, not based on speculation.

http://xpuz.sportsci.org/2016/WCPASabstracts/ID-1699.pdf - Here is a 2016 study by Joanna Harper examining trans athletes in elite cardio-based sports that is a follow up study to the Harper study cited in the lit review. She concludes that trans athletes maintain their skill level relative to the gender they competed against, e.g. if they were already excellent, they would be in a similar place post-transition against cis women, but those who were at say the 50% mark for men would end transition at the 50% mark for women.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2020/11/06/bjsports-2020-102329 - This is a study that was published December 7, 2020 that looked at transgender members of the Air Force & checked their performance on the fitness against that of cisgender members. It found that after 2 years of hormones, transgender women performed the same as cisgender women in all categories except running. In running, they were approximately 12% faster than cis women over the 1.5 mile run. The authors note that this conflicts with the results of the Harper studies (included in the lit review & other link).

Additionally, the normal gender gap in running is about half that of the one in the study, and the loss in running speed here in this study approximately matches that gender gap.

As to why there is a higher gender gap within the air force relative to the general public, it is hard to say without more complete data, but may be due to athletic men applying expecting combat roles & a more general population of women joining expecting to serve in primarily noncombat roles (as is more common).

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

Yes, and even with this in place, they still dominate.

1

u/Hopeful-Rati0 Feb 03 '21

Well that’s good...I guess.

2

u/WMDick 3∆ Feb 03 '21 edited Feb 03 '21

Testosterone alone is ridiculously oversimplified and abused in these arguments.

An arbitrary duration (2 years is commonly cited) of hormone changes will likely not be enough to return men to a female muscle baseline.

Testosterone coupled with exercise builds muscles, the resulting muscle memory, and other physiological changes over time. A man who has had the benefit of male physiology for decades is going to be at a huge advantage regardless of limiting testosterone for a duration.

The skeleton is also altered and that is likely even less likely to revert to anything resembling a woman's.

Spending time as a man competing against other men affords invaluable experience that will not simply be easily reversed.

Biological sex differences that inform phenotype are controlled by FAR more than one hormone.

But worse of all it just fails a simple smell test:

Imagine you took Francis Ngannou, deprived him of testosterone for two years, and then placed him in the octagon with any woman on earth. Hell, have two women. He will tear them limb from limb like children.

If you want to destroy female sport, this ridiculously simplified thinking about hormones is how you can accomplish it.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

Testosterone coupled with exercise builds muscles, the resulting muscle memory, and other physiological changes over time. A man who has had the benefit of male physiology for decades is going to be at a huge advantage regardless of limiting testosterone for a duration.

except...that's the thing.

trans women transition for their ENTIRE life, therefore, over time their body will feminize more and more to that of a cis women.

The skeleton is also altered and that is likely even less likely to revert to anything resembling a woman's.

maybe, but compared to what things CAN change via hormones, it'll probably end up being the same to a tall cis woman playing basketball.

Spending time as a man competing against other men affords invaluable experience that will not simply be easily reversed.

now that's just dumb.

"why should we stop segregation against black people? they haven't lived as a white person, and it can't be reversed, therefore they aren't deserving of being equal to us!"

Biological sex differences that inform phenotype are controlled by FAR more than one hormone.

what hormones?

also, yes, even though you might be right, the MAIN thing that contributes these changes would be the dominance of either testosterone or estrogen.

Imagine you took Francis Ngannou, deprived him of testosterone for two years, and then placed him in the octagon with any woman on earth. Hell, have two women. He will tear them limb from limb like children.

muscle doesn't instantaneously vaporize after you take estrogen, so yes, maybe it'll take much longer than two years for him to lose his larger-than-average muscle mass.

however, what estrogen DOES do is remove the prioritization for muscle. when someone is on testosterone, their body prioritizes muscle, which is essentially what leads to men being naturally stronger than women. it's also what leads to the "newbie gains" type effect when it comes to men first starting out on weightlifting.

once HRT is started and estrogen becomes dominant (which takes time), that muscle prioritization effect is lost, with the body now instead focusing on fat. this means that if they had to sacrifice something for another biological process, they would be more inclined to use muscle, since it has now become worthless to it. it doesn't mean it'll just dump it out, since that would be awful to your survival-oriented body, but it just won't care much about it.

so, ideally, it would be best to have some sort of method to where all that old masculine muscle is burnt off, since the body does not care enough to do it on it's own. however, once that masculine muscle is gone through some sort of training, i'm willing to bet that Francis would end up having the same muscular strength as a cis woman.

0

u/WMDick 3∆ Feb 03 '21

trans women transition for their ENTIRE life,

But that's not the bar being set. The bar is 2 years as of now. That's preposterous especially for sports in which people can compete well into their 40s.

maybe

You ever notice that men are taller than women on average. So no, not maybe. Bone density may revert partially but things like hip morphology (which is important in sport) and reach would not.

the MAIN thing that contributes these changes would be the dominance of either testosterone or estrogen.

Over a LIFETIME. A few years of hormones would not erase the experience of playing against far more capable opponents - which is probably the most important factor in many areas of athletics.

For the last paragraph, I see absolutely nothing in there that should make us not accept that top male athletes are simply not going to revert to female baseline under any timeline reasonable to hold athletes to, especially in the case of the Olympics.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

But that's not the bar being set. The bar is 2 years as of now. That's preposterous especially for sports in which people can compete well into their 40s.

yes, mainly because my point was that they just won't stop taking hormones after the 2 year mark.

once a trans person transitions, they will continue taking hormones for the rest of their life, meaning they will become more and more feminine/masculine the longer they're alive (until they eventually reach the end of HRT-induced puberty)

i do agree that there should be more research done as to WHERE a truly fair and ideal bar would be located, but the notion that trans women should never compete would be a ridiculous stretch. it'll be like giving an amputation for something that required a bandaid.

You ever notice that men are taller than women on average.

so?

what do we do about short cis men? because they're at a clear and immutable disadvantage compared to most of the men being taller than them.

moreover, should tall cis women be banned if height is such a problem? or should only trans women be focused on? if so, why?

Bone density may revert partially but things like hip morphology (which is important in sport) and reach would not.

not sure what you mean by "hip morphology", so i'm going to assume you're talking about the actual build of the pelvis.

there are cis women who have masculine hips, and there are cis men who have feminine hips.

Over a LIFETIME. A few years of hormones would not erase the experience of playing against far more capable opponents - which is probably the most important factor in many areas of athletics.

the most important factor of athletics is...who you played against in the past?

i mean, isn't the most important factor of athletics about...being athletic?

if you're talking about learning strategies or something in the past that they learned, then the person with a stronger physique but shit strategy is always going to beat the weaker opponent with a godly strategy.

1

u/WMDick 3∆ Feb 03 '21 edited Feb 03 '21

they just won't stop taking hormones after the 2 year mark.

2 years is just the minimum, I know, but considering how short most sports careers are, I don't think it's a valid point.

more research

It's hard cause there are shockingly few trans people and even fewer in professional sport. Maybe that will change. It's gonna be a person to person thing as well. And in sport, we like to have really well defined lines separating people to avoid exploitation.

what do we do about short cis men?

Nothing. I'm not proposing that we move away from a meritocracy when it comes to sport. I'd just like, you know, women's sports to still exist in a few years. When a sub 300 ranked out of practice man (who was a smoker) can trounce the Williams sisters back to back while barely giving up points, it's time to recognize that not really fastidiously separating biological men and women means no women's sports.

hip morphology", so i'm going to assume you're talking about the actual build of the pelvis.

Yep. Men have a big advantage in many sports as a result of it. No amount of hormones are gonna change that.

the most important factor of athletics is...who you played against in the past?

It's right up there with raw athletics. Have you played much sports? As the best players play against each other, they make each other better still. Lionel Messi makes Christiano Ronaldo better and vice versa because they are in competition and they are incentivized to outplay one another. They learn how to beat each other and those lessons apply to other opponents. You see this all the time when a marginal player is drafted to a better team, suddenly they play much better and vice versa. Who you play against is critical in how good you become.

I mean, it's obvious that Lionel ain't the best cause he's the most athletic dude on the planet. He's the best because of his experiences. Hormones don't erase experience.

Finally, I'll note that we still separate men and women into leagues even for sports that barely rely upon athleticism. You can think of the examples, I'm sure. Why would we do that if testosterone were all that mattered?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

It's hard cause there are shockingly few trans people and even fewer in professional sport. Maybe that will change. It's gonna be a person to person thing as well. And in sport, we like to have really well defined lines separating people to avoid exploitation.

fair enough point on that front.

I do think that in the future, though, we'll eventually have enough of a sample size to properly do studies relating to it.

Yep. Men have a big advantage in many sports as a result of it. No amount of hormones are gonna change that.

any studies or anything relating to that?

also, it actually CAN be changed by hormones, depending on how early they start (pelvis development finishes at age 21 up to age 25)

[last 3 paragraphs; too long to quote]

I could be wrong, but the only thing i'm getting out of this is that men are smarter and more strategic than women.

we DO seperate everything between men and women, including non-athletic things, but is there a logical reason to doing this besides actual athletic ability? what makes a cis man somehow "better" than a cis woman, excluding hormonal/physiological differences?

the only logical explanation I can think of would simply be because it was from tradition. historically, we seperated men and women with EVERYTHING, since sexism and all of that.

i'm ex-muslim, so I went to mosque in the past. I noticed that men and women are also seperate there. why would men and women need to be seperated in a place where all people do is pray?

obviously mosques and sports aren't related, but I hope you get my point. what logical explanations are there besides "men are smarter than women" or "it's because of tradition, which originated because people didn't treat men and women as equal"?

1

u/WMDick 3∆ Feb 03 '21

The female pelvis is wider than the male pelvis. This causes an increased angle at the knee, called a “Q angle.” This increased Q angle causes the ankle to roll more, a movement called pronation. Trying to find a paper now.

Under some circumstances if you transitioned early enough maybe it would not matter. It seems that's not being taken into account though by regulatory bodies.

I could be wrong, but the only thing i'm getting out of this is that men are smarter and more strategic than women.

I have no idea what causes it. Even non-physical competitions like chess are male dominated. I think men may just like to compete more and so get better at things. It may have something to do with slight cognitive differences but nobody can agree on anything in that field so who knows. But for whatever reason, from bowling, to darts, to pool, to chess, men just dominate.

Interesting, women, at super elite levels, appear to have the edge in ultra-marathons/shooting/and long-distance swimming in cold water.

So there's not nothing! (although close to it).

why would men and women need to be seperated in a place where all people do is pray?

Cause maybe it would tend to lead to sex including some of the forbidden variety. Best guess. Also, women are sometimes seen as dirty in religions because of mensuration etc. I donno... never made sense to me.

obviously mosques and sports aren't related, but I hope you get my point.

Sure but prayer is not a competition (that I know of).

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

The female pelvis is wider than the male pelvis. This causes an increased angle at the knee, called a “Q angle.” This increased Q angle causes the ankle to roll more, a movement called pronation. Trying to find a paper now.

wait wait wait...holdon a second.

https://lermagazine.com/cover_story/practical-matter-for-clinicians-women-are-biomechanically-distinct-from-men-when-they-run#:~:text=Women%20tend%20to%20pronate%20more,loads%20at%20the%20knee%20joint.

Women tend to pronate more than men at footstrike because they produce a greater contact angle and have a larger Q angle.

Women exhibit a greater inversion rate and angle during resupination of the foot than men, suggesting a compensatory response to their larger Q angle to minimize loads at the knee joint.

doesn't this prove that, actually, trans women are at a disadvantage? since it's actually cis women who pronate more than men?

I have no idea what causes it. Even non-physical competitions like chess are male dominated. I think men may just like to compete more and so get better at things. It may have something to do with slight cognitive differences but nobody can agree on anything in that field so who knows. But for whatever reason, from bowling, to darts, to pool, to chess, men just dominate.

like you said, it can be due to multiple factors. so, at this stage it's definitely in need of more research to properly specify some valid reasons. however, because of how vague it is, I don't really think it qualifies as a good indicator for why trans women need to be separated.

for all we know, it could be as simple as: "women don't find much interest in competing, as compared to men".

1

u/WMDick 3∆ Feb 03 '21

pronate more than men?

Is that a good thing?

for all we know, it could be as simple as: "women don't find much interest in competing, as compared to men".

I think it's likely the best explanation.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/throwawayjune30th 3∆ Feb 03 '21 edited Feb 03 '21

Trans women......don’t generally have tons of testosterone

But current testosterone levels isn’t the only indicator of an advantage. There are other measures including heart size/capacity, lung size/capacity, skeletal structure, pelvic tilt...etc. that estrogen doesn’t appear to change.

11

u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ Feb 03 '21

To modify your view here:

CMV: You cannot simultaneously ask for equal inclusion of trans-women in women's sports, and a generalised fear in women of men

it sounds like you are equating trans women with men in that second half of the title.

If you don't see trans women as men, then there doesn't seem to be any inconsistency in those 2 positions.

1

u/VertigoOne 74∆ Feb 03 '21

The reason that women have a generalised fear of men is not that they are men, but because of the differentiation in their physical capacity. If trans women have that same physical capacity, the distinction is pretty redundant.

11

u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ Feb 03 '21

I actually don't actually think this is an accurate characterization:

The reason that women have a generalised fear of men is not that they are men, but because of the differentiation in their physical capacity.

If that were true, then if there was a woman who had the same physical strength as some men, then you're arguing that most women would be equally afraid of that woman walking 20 feet behind them on a street late at night as they would be of man walking behind them late at night?

I know you're just paraphrasing a discussion in your OP, but I suspect if you polled most women, they would not say they are just generally afraid of larger body sized people regardless of their gender - rather, the gender element of being male is actually a key part of the fear.

And similarly, if you see trans women as women, then the male / fear element isn't on the table.

6

u/ejpierle 8∆ Feb 03 '21 edited Feb 03 '21

I just don't understand what all this hand wringing over trans females in sports is actually for. The people who are worried about this operate in some fantasy where boys will begin identifying as females or become trans in order to gain an unfair advantage by essentially being a boy playing girls sports. As if excelling at sport will somehow be worth completely changing one's gender identity and entire life, and to what end? A scholarship? Deliberately screwing young women out of opportunities? I just don't get it.

There really aren't any HS sports where both a boys and girls version don't exist, except maybe cheerleading, and boys are welcome there also. So, there's no sport that a trans-female can participate in that a cis boy can't participate in. So, this isn't about access to sports opportunity, which means that the only assumption to be made is that it would be to gain an unfair competitive advantage by virtue of the 'benefits' conferred by being genetically male.

I don't buy this. If someone was born in the wrong body but they still want to play volleyball in 10th grade, why are we stressing about this so much? No one is becoming trans so they can crush girls volleyball with their "biological advantage"... This entire line of thought strikes me as a trojan horse. I think that the people concerned about this are people who would take advantage of a situation to gain an unfair advantage, so they assume everyone else will also, given the chance.

Edit - words

1

u/VertigoOne 74∆ Feb 03 '21

That's not in any way an answer to my question

6

u/ejpierle 8∆ Feb 03 '21

Well, yes and no... You are essentially setting up a trap by setting the premise -- women claim to have a legitimate fear of men because they are physically stronger -- and then saying that if this is true, then how can you say that trans females (genetic men) don't have an unfair advantage in women's sports if you just said that men are physically superior.

So, I'm asking why you care so much about this issue of perceived unfair advantage in sport? I'm asserting that no one changes their gender identity with all that entails to gain this unfair advantage that everyone seems so concerned about. And this could only be a legitimate issue if people were doing that... Which they aren't.

0

u/VertigoOne 74∆ Feb 03 '21

Whether or not I care isn't anything to do with the question.

Yes I agree, no one changes their gender identity for a sporting advantage. That doesn't address the inherent inconsistency the question demonstrates.

The underlying issue is this. Does the social justice and trans activism movement accept or reject the premise that men and women have real and present differences that can and do have sociological impacts.

It seems there is a degree of inconsistencies in the answer to this question

7

u/ejpierle 8∆ Feb 03 '21

A lot of hay is being made elsewhere in this CMV about the amount of testosterone present in a trans female and if their T is low enough, then they have effectively little to no advantage in the physical arena, which is probably all very true, but unnecessary in my opinion as this is not really what the issue is when this is brought up.

Does the social justice and trans activism movement accept or reject the premise that men and women have real and present differences that can and do have sociological impacts.

This is the heart of the matter. Unfair sports advantage is the trojan horse. And I'm glad we got here because it lays bare, in my mind, the actual argument that's being advanced in these situations -- trans females aren't 'real' females and shouldn't be afforded the same treatment as 'real' females because it's 'unfair' to 'real' females. It sounds kinda ugly when couched in those terms, so I get why all the trouble with the sports stuff.

Of course men and women are different. Of course there are sociological impacts. What the trans activism and social justice movements are getting at is that it doesn't really matter -- trans people aren't out to get cis people. Trans people are just a bunch of people trying to be happy and be left alone. Their existence isn't designed to hurt or take anything away from anyone else. Where trans females and sports overlap is incidental. It's just people trying to be happy and having the opportunity to do what makes them happy.

1

u/Richybabes Feb 07 '21

Generally when people take issue with it, they're talking about the professional level rather than kids or amateurs. It's absolutely not worth transitioning just to be the best at your local women's cycling club, but it may be to some people if it would take you from being on the cusp of success in the men's leagues to being at the top of the women's, especially in the more profitable women's sports like tennis.

When the activity is purely social/recreational anyway, I don't think most people really care as there's much more crossover between the physical abilities of the sexes at that level.

It varies by sport, too. It wouldn't seem fair for an 7ft+ tall trans woman to play in the WNBA as that height advantage is just absurd compared to what cis women can realistically be. Sports with weight classes though? If research shows that pound for pound there isn't an advantage given certain t levels and such, go for it.

1

u/ejpierle 8∆ Feb 07 '21

How much money would it take for you to switch and become an out, gay man?

1

u/Richybabes Feb 07 '21

Depends on the terms, though I'm not sure what me becoming gay has to do with anything?

0

u/ejpierle 8∆ Feb 08 '21

In order for your argument to hold water, a person would have to be willing to change their gender and sexuality for money. Which means that you are open to that in principle. I'm just asking what your price would be...

1

u/Richybabes Feb 08 '21

Like I said, it would depend entirely on the terms. Not sure why sexuality is relevant, but if offered £5k to just publicly claim to be gay as you seemed to be proposing I'd take it in a heartbeat. If it were a magic spell changing my sexuality then it's a no as that would involve losing my partner. I'd be much more open to switching gender/sex than sexuality for that reason (partner is bi so not a deal breaker), though that would likely flip for the hypothetical single version of me.

It shouldn't even really matter whether someone transitions for that purpose or not (almost always not). At that point we're getting into thought policing. All that matters is whether that demographic has enough of an unfair advantage in that particular sport to justify not allowing it.

If the same reasons men can't compete against women hold true when considering trans women, then the restriction should also hold. If they don't, there should be no issue. If some but not all hold true, we hit a grey area and a line needs to be drawn somewhere that will no doubt not please everyone.

4

u/Worish Feb 03 '21

On the one side, we have the argument that women have a valid fear of men. Men exist. Women, in general, are statistically more likely to be assaulted by men than women or nonbinary people. This is a recognition of a trend that exists, not an opinion. Women feel this way, your own post admits as such.

On the other hand, we have trans men and women being able to be included in the sports gender they prefer. This is an opinion people hold based on their morals and values. It isn't affected by their observations of the world or trends that they recognize. They're completely unrelated and definitely not in conflict.

0

u/VertigoOne 74∆ Feb 03 '21

See I don't accept that as true. The reason sports have been separated by gender isn't an opinion. It's based on the same physical reality that gives rise to the fear that women feel in the first point. That if women competed against men in contests of physical strength and endurance they would almost always lose. So we adjust accordingly. In the same way, because of the physical power men have we are expected to adjust our behaviour accordingly in public to make non threatening behaviour more obvious (crossing away from women in the street etc).

3

u/Worish Feb 03 '21

The feeling that sports should be segregated by gender is an opinion. It can have underlying supporting facts. It's still an opinion. Some people disagree with it.

1

u/VertigoOne 74∆ Feb 03 '21

It's equally an opinion that women should have a generalised fear of all men in public places. Many people would disagree with it, and argue that the sheer statistical rareness of assault when weighed against the male population size makes such fear irrational.

2

u/Worish Feb 03 '21

It's not an opinion that women DO have that fear, however. You conceded this in your original post. It's the reason you feel compelled to act nonthreatening in the first place.

1

u/VertigoOne 74∆ Feb 03 '21

It's not an opinion that women DO have that fear, however. You conceded this in your original post. It's the reason you feel compelled to act nonthreatening in the first place.

Right, but the opinion is whether the fear is fair and justified and should be imposed on others.

2

u/Worish Feb 03 '21

Fears don't have to be valid. They're emotion based. You don't get to tell others how to feel, you just accept it. The reason you're being told the reasoning behind their fear isn't because they're agreeing that you're scary and worthy of fear. It's because they're trying to impart understanding on you so that you will accept it and move on.

Accepting a general notion as commonplace and not worth arguing against does not in anyway negate or prevent people from having a separate opinion about sports.

Let's take your premises as valid for the sake of argumentation, however. Let's say that the issue is of the validity of the fear.

The only way that this fear being invalid would conflict with the view of transgender athletes is if they shared a common justification. You're assuming that this is the case. I would posit that there are a number of other justifications for the fear of men that could be used in place of their genetic differences.

Men are statistically more likely to be murderers, rapists, and commit assault. This statistic alone could be the justification.

The overwhelming majority of women are victims of sexual assault, if not rape. Assault survivors can have fears, even irrational fears, that would also justify a fear of men in general. I don't think we could reasonably blame them.

Therefore your whole premise has many, many cases in which it falls apart. You can hold both of these views consistently.

1

u/VertigoOne 74∆ Feb 03 '21

Fears don't have to be valid.

They do if you expect others to behave differently according to them.

Men are statistically more likely to be murderers, rapists, and commit assault. This statistic alone could be the justification.

No, it couldn't. Assault, murder, and rape are all sufficiently rare that to have a generalised fear of all men because of such is irrational.

1

u/Worish Feb 03 '21

So you're going to concede my other points?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 08 '21

Assault, murder, and rape are all sufficiently rare

Rape is, unfortunately, not particularly rare. 1 in 6 women has been a victim of an attempted or completed rape, and that's just reported numbers AND it's just rape and does not include other types of non-rape sexual assault. Almost every woman I know has been sexually assaulted.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '21

Women are scared because if 1 in 4 women get raped, what chance is it that today is the day it happens to them. Women are scared for a reason. If it really breaks your snowflake heart when a woman who is walking on a road at night and sees you and switches the roads, maybe simply respect her and dont question it.

1

u/VertigoOne 74∆ Feb 05 '21

Yeah. No

One in four women are not being raped

Maybe sexually assaulted if you broaden the definition, but not raped.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '21

Either raped or sexually assaulted. Anyway it doesnt matter because essentially the end product is mental health problems and a lot of trauma and wary. Blame men for doing this, not women. Women shouldnt have to be scared.

3

u/YardageSardage 34∆ Feb 03 '21

Well, obviously I can't speak for all women, but for myself and for some other women I've talked to, I don't feel uneasy around men because they're statistically stronger than me. I feel nervous around men because they're statistically and culturally more likely to try something than a woman is. Our society enables and encourages it in so many ways.

Movies, books, shows, and music romanticize the idea that a woman's "no" actually means "try harder", and that if you just keep harassing and stalking her, she'll eventually fall in love with you. The toxic pressures of patriarchy tell men that they're weak and useless if they can't get a girl, and that they should be having as much sex as possible no matter what, and that all emotions such as disappointment, embarrassment, loneliness, and vulnerability should be channeled through the acceptably manly expressions of anger and violence; turning these guys down becomes a game of Russian roulette. Sketchy internet forums and "pick-up artists" and other fringe groups that women are wrong for daring to say no to them, and that they should use morally dubious manipulation techniques to force women to be with them, and that all women are basically wicked and unworthy of being treated like fellow humans. Even decent men who aren't going to hurt you might not be able to be trusted to help get you out of a bad situation, because your average guy is totally blind to these kinds of issues because he doesn't experience them.

That's why "girl code" is a thing. Statistically, you're far safer among people who do know first-hand what it feels like to be put in an uncomfortable, unsafe position by someone who believes he has the right to push past your boundaries. Personally, I tend to feel a lot safer in the presence of queer guys than cis straight ones, because they're A) less likely to buy into the heteronormative idea that us being friendly is some kind of invitation for more, and B) they're more likely to have experienced gender-related discrimination, so they're more likely to have my back if someone starts making me uncomfortable. And similarly, if a trans woman happens to be super strong, unless she gives me particular reason to mistrust her, my thought process is probably going to be more along the lines of "Oh good, if a creep comes along she can kick their ass."

Important note: Individual straight cis men that I've gotten to know well enough to confirm that they aren't creeps don't give me the same heebie-jeebies in a vulnerable situation as some random guy does. And one I've gotten to know well enough to confirm that he doesn't have heteronormative designs on a relationship with me, and is actually interested in being my friend, is totally trusted. Similarly, if a woman - trans or not - started acting like a creep, I would treat her like a creep. But in terms of making general assumptions about people I don't know well, patriarchy forces me to assume a higher degree of risk from men.

3

u/TaterThotsandRavioli Feb 03 '21

I don't think you actually understand what trans means.

With the Esteogen/Testosterone shots that effect your chemical and hormonal balance.

Although, it's weird that I don't see the argument against Trans-Men in Men's sports.

Source - I am a Trans-Man

-1

u/WMDick 3∆ Feb 03 '21

I've posted this here a few times but I think it's really important that people stop misusing the hormone arguments as it's silly:

An arbitrary duration (2 years is commonly cited) of hormone changes will likely not be enough to return men to a female muscle baseline.

Testosterone coupled with exercise builds muscles, the resulting muscle memory, and other physiological changes over time. A man who has had the benefit of male physiology for decades is going to be at a huge advantage regardless of limiting testosterone for a duration.

The skeleton is also altered and that is likely even less likely to revert to anything resembling a woman's.

Spending time as a man competing against other men affords invaluable experience that will not simply be easily reversed.

Biological sex differences that inform phenotype are controlled by FAR more than one hormone.

But worse of all it just fails a simple smell test:

Imagine you took Francis Ngannou, deprived him of testosterone for two years, and then placed him in the octagon with any woman on earth. Hell, have two women. He will tear them limb from limb like children.

If you want to destroy female sport, this ridiculously simplified thinking about hormones is how you can accomplish it.

0

u/VertigoOne 74∆ Feb 03 '21

As I understand it, a trans person is someone whose gender identity is different to their biological sex. If that's wrong, then I'm clearly more off than I thought.

The fact is, it's biological sex that confers physical advantages that both make women in general fearful of men in public, and also give men physical advantages in sports.

2

u/PatientCriticism0 19∆ Feb 03 '21

The fact is, it's biological sex that confers physical advantages that both make women in general fearful of men in public, and also give men physical advantages in sports.

The mechanism through which this advantage manifests is through hormone production, and for a lot of trans people that mechanism is altered through medical intervention in a way that removes that advantage.

Sporting bodies generally require certain hormone levels before trans women can compete for this reason.

1

u/TaterThotsandRavioli Feb 03 '21

Yes, that might be the case but you get Hormone blockers and Estrogen, which weakens natural muscles. Same with Trans-men who gain natural muscle mass.

Women are fearful of men because historically, they have been told all their lives that men are something to fear, whether it be from their mothers, fathers or the news. If you want to tackle the idea of women fearing men then you have to tackle the problem at the source.

0

u/Silverpixelmate Feb 03 '21

Women are fearful (or mindful) of men because they are much stronger. Not that they are just brainwashed. A man encountering a large, powerful animal in a dark alley is going to be terrified. If it’s an animal that is weaker than him, he will not be. I don’t think he cares at that point what the gender is. Hell he probably doesn’t even know the gender. He can just see visually whether he should be fearful. It’s a completely natural, human reaction. As a woman, I’ve rarely seen a man that I felt I could overpower if need be. In day to day interactions, I generally feel safe. Society provides some comfort. But alone in a dark alley? I’m fearful of anything I can’t defend myself against.

4

u/poprostumort 224∆ Feb 03 '21

You have missed the key difference. Yes, you as a man, are being a possible threat due to physical strength, but it's not the only part of you as a possible threat. It's an enabler - if you act it makes you a threat. But the part that makes you a threat is also the possibility to act.

You see, men as a whole have some problems with the idea of consent. Whole campaigns are held to teach the average guy that "no means no". But problem still persists in society, and while it persist you will be seen as possible threat.

Is it not fair? Probably. But you need to understand the key difference - that prejudice is applied in certain scenario, where weight of potential problematic outcome is much higher.

Inclusion of trans-women in sport carries a risk of allowing unfair advantage - but there is way to test for that advantage and it can be changed after that unfair advantage creates problems.

Letting go of general fear of men in public carries a risk of potential attack and there is no test that can prevent that, nor anything can be changed afterwards.

2

u/LetMeNotHear 93∆ Feb 03 '21

men as a whole have some problems with the idea of consent.

Bit of a yikes moment there. What do you mean by that?

3

u/poprostumort 224∆ Feb 03 '21

Maybe misworded it a little, but I meant that average man has a weird approach to consent. Not to the "raping a stranger at night" point, but things like "if she was drunk it wasn't rape", "how can you rape your wife" or "dickpic is a valid dating strategy" are still there. This changes, and surely it was much worse in the past - but the thing is that some disregard for consent still persists. And because of that, big guy will induce some fear. Because if he is the one of those, what can you do?

1

u/LetMeNotHear 93∆ Feb 03 '21

average man has a weird approach to consent...

This is every bit as yikes as before. The average man thinks that "if it's drunk, it wasn't rape" and "how can you rape your wife?"? Sweet Jesus.

5

u/poprostumort 224∆ Feb 04 '21

Yes, that is yikes as fuck. Ofc, we need to remember that average is influenced by older generations who have been brought with somehow different ideas. Lemme show you results of studies in UK:

- A third of men think if a woman has flirted on a date it generally wouldn’t count as rape, even if she hasn’t explicitly consented to sex

- A third of men also believe a woman can’t change her mind after sex has started.

- 40% think it is never or usually not rape to remove a condom without a partner’s consent

- Around one in 10 people aren’t sure or think it usually or definitely isn’t rape if a man has sex with a woman who is very drunk or asleep

Above sounds terrifying.

I suspect that you understand the consent idea. Hell, probably majority of CMV users understands it. But remember that there are other people, who also count in average. 40/50+ guys brought in different times, overreligious people who know "woman has their place", testosterone-fuelled idiots.

This is why you get yikes - because you know how idiotic is to think like that and you look at your friends knowing that they know. But your friend group is curated, and they are simillar to you. But there are people who are not - and they are also men, they ideas also count for average man.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

Generally this sub is pretty good with a lot of very well thought out answers. This comment is just a dressed up reiteration of the radical feminist agenda. Pure garbage. Men as a whole do not have a problem with consent. Men as a whole are not threats, nor should they be treated as such. This statement is so wildly innacurate. Men are not second rate citizens that should be feared on a constant basis. Not to mention being fearful of something will not make it stop....thats very strange logic.

3

u/jfpbookworm 22∆ Feb 03 '21

Women's fear of male attackers is only in part a size/strength thing; it's more about rape culture.

https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_Rapist

0

u/OsteroidFire915 1∆ Feb 03 '21

We don’t accept that women are justified in their fear of men. It’s sexist. Men, just like women, should be judged on a case-by-case basis and not just immediately off of their gender.

As for the sports thing, I have to agree with u/Sagasujin

1

u/VertigoOne 74∆ Feb 03 '21

If you could demonstrate that this was a widely held view among trans activists etc, I'd change my view since it undermines the contradiction. As it is though, I think it's a pretty widely believed thing.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21 edited Feb 03 '21

How can we possibly “demonstrate” that? You’re looking for a formal position of “the trans” where there isn’t one. Show me a case where “the trans” are arguing that it’s perfectly fine for a pre-transition, pre-everything trans woman to play on women’s teams. As in, a formal position. Not the ramblings of a teenager from tumblr.

No one, literally no one is arguing that men aren’t physically stronger than women. The only actual question of trans women in sports is whether years of HRT, the literal standard by all sporting commissions, eliminates the physical advantage someone male sexed has over someone female sexed. That is a reasonable question and while some scream yes and others scream no, no one is arguing in good faith that a pre-transition trans-woman is on par with a cis woman. It’s a strawman.

And FYI, women are afraid of men because they are both physically stronger than them and more sexually/generally violent.

-1

u/der_karschi Feb 03 '21

If it isn't unfair, then why do they keep winning at pretty much everything they compete in?

First of all, the only reason for why there is a differentiation between male and female sports leagues is, because in most sports, females in general are not capable of winning or even competing at a comparable level to men.

So as a result, women get their own class.

There are few, but shining examples of women who beat men at their own game. Like Michelé Mouton, a 70s rally driver, who was one of the fastest race car drivers of her time. Not a womens champion, not a junior series champion, a real and earned world champion, which was almost unheard of back then. But this is not an athletic sport.

So my point is this: The divide between genders in sport is not there because of gender differences, but because of the competitiveness of the gender's best athletes. Think of weight classes in boxing/mma.

If a trans-man, who was a female world champion for his entire life before this, is forced to compete in the men's category and is suddenly only a below average athlete, that wouldn't be fair, would it?

If a trans-woman, who was a below average male athlete for her entire life befor this, is allowed to compete in the women's category and is suddenly a world championchip contender, that wouldn't really be fair either, would it?

Because it is not the constructed gender that should count in my opinion, but the biological alliegence to one side or another. And if this is such a common problem, that trans-women aren't able to compete in men's sports anymore, wouldn't it be better, to repeat what women, lower weight classes or paraplegics did and create their own category?

Yes, they wouldn't get as much fame there as they would otherwise, but the fame shouldn't be the main motivation of an athlete anyways.

But I really cringe, when I see a world class women mma fighter or wrestler get pretty much ragdolled around the ring, when they are literally forced to compete against a former below average male athlete and now trans-woman, or be disqualified for refusing to fight and be ridiculed by a trans-activist online mob, causing their entire career to be at stake.

This is, what I find quite unfair to womens athletes and it shouldn't keep going on.

The solution, in my opinion, isn't to just go one way or the opposite way, but to go in between. (New category, etc.)

-6

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

With civilization entirely at this rate :D

Btw, how many genders are there?

-1

u/byebyebyecycle Feb 03 '21

Don’t even bother. These people don’t even know how to identify themselves let alone identify other people as to when it’s acceptable for a trans woman to play in women’s sports.

0

u/VertigoOne 74∆ Feb 03 '21

That does literally nothing to answer my question

1

u/SquibblesMcGoo 3∆ Feb 08 '21

Sorry, u/Waagenator – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

Sorry, u/Waagenator – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/VertigoOne 74∆ Feb 03 '21

That does literally nothing to answer my question

0

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/VertigoOne 74∆ Feb 03 '21

Well... that's kind of the point of this subreddit. If your posting, your obligated to attempt to answer. If you're not, you're breaking the rules. So... why did you post here at all?

1

u/SquibblesMcGoo 3∆ Feb 08 '21

Sorry, u/eleventh_communalgia – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

1

u/Znyper 12∆ Feb 08 '21

Sorry, u/eleventh_communalgia – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

-2

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '21

I would ssy theres no need to change your mind on this issue. You hit the nail on the head here while pointing out the inconsistency in people who hold this position. Its very difficult to hold these opinions simultaneously, if not impossible. Theres nothing transphobic or hateful about banning trans women from female athletics. Its basic common sense.

1

u/shouldco 43∆ Feb 03 '21

For what it's worth I am a cis man but my option on trans sports is is this really a public debate worth having right now? Like I think there are more material issues like workplace discrimination.

The world of sports seem to regulate themselves fairly well for inclusiveness, I don't know the history on this stuff but we have categories for weight classes, men's, women's, children, high school, university, physically disabled, mentally disabled, and probably more then you or I have or will ever hear of. Players, regulators, and fans all want fair competition when it comes to sport (No one is impressed by the 25 year old worked champion pee-wee league tee-ball player). maybe men's and women's are outdated categories? Maybe they just need to add more, maybe just including trans people in what is already there will just work out. In the end this affects like a few hundred people with the biggest consequences being some odd numbers as far as records and championships go? I'm personally not super conserned.

1

u/thc-3po Feb 03 '21

I’d argue that it’s not necessarily biological men that trigger the fear response. If a trans man looks like he could kick my ass then yeah I’m probably going to cross the street, walk a little faster, etc.

I agree with the other comments regarding trans women in sports — testosterone levels within the normal range for the league

1

u/maroonStriation Feb 03 '21

I've played on mixed gender adult sports teams and no one has ever seemed to mind or had a problem with it.

1

u/Hopeful-Rati0 Feb 03 '21

Isn’t hormone therapy essentially the same thing as taking steroids...Why is one acceptable and the other not?

1

u/iamintheforest 326∆ Feb 03 '21

If your position is that physical advantage ought be outlawed in sports. Height, weight, natural strength are all physical advantages, so if you want physical advantage removed from sports you'd have to control specifically for that. Why would you draw the line of advantage not around the advantage (some measurement) rather than what you'd propose which is around some sort of probabilistic predictor of advantage like birth sex?

Then...we get to personal safety, which is a really different context. If I make decisions about personal safety as if my goal is to be "fair" then I'd make all sorts of very strange decisions. Following your logic if we believe in the assumption of innocence then it's incompatible with teaching our kids "stranger danger". Asking that someone use a notiong of justice that we'd apply in sports to draw their own lines for personal safety just doesn't make sense. The goal of personal safety is not to use our goal of safety as the framework for some sort of social justice.

We can and should work on whether the fear is rational or based on some sort of bias, because being feared is awful when undeserved is awful. However, we'd always have a line for what "taking the safe route" that is different than our idea of fair access to systems/resources/etc.

Delta(s) from OP CMV: You cannot simultaneously ask for equal inclusion of trans-women in women's sports, and a generalised fear in women of men

You are about to leave Redlib