QT: Can men compete in women's sports if they meet all the same requirements of transwomen?

submitted by FlanJam from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (32 children)

Uhhm. Yeah sure. Not sure how or why a man would undertake these procedures and the whole thing seems kinda far fetched but sure. If someone meets the requirements to compete they can compete.

[–]BiologyIsReal 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (31 children)

If you think this question is far fetched, then tell us how we can differentiate between a "true trans woman" and a "cis man. If questioning someone's "identity" is "transphobic", how can you reject mediocre "cis" male athletes who "just" want an easy win from competing in women's sports? As far as I can see, you can't, which means that by allowing any trans identified male in women's categories you are open it to any male who want to play there regardless of how he identifies.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (30 children)

Your comment doesn't really make a ton of sense to me. What does me thinking that the hypothetical is far fetched to do with how someone identifies?

I'm not opening it to any male who wants an easy win. I'm opening it to anyone who meets the requirements for fair competition regardless of personal beliefs. Unless you consider sports to be about more than a fair competition - which I don't.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

You don’t see how to many women, things like sports teams and clubs are about more than competition? They are about social connections, team building, fitness, and a place where they can simply be without men commenting.

[–]ZveroboyAlinaIs clownfish a clown or a fish? 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In USA it is about scholarships as well.

Sports is also a good way for women to learn how to be more assertive, because society is not teaching women to act like that. A lot of female CEO's and high management have sports background.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Yes, sports teams and clubs are often about more than competition, but in advancing this POV let's not underestimate that for many girls and women competition and winning are of paramount importance.

I'm wary of overemphasizing the importance of collegiality, fitness, feeling good and other non-competitive aspects of sports for girls and women because the idea that girls and women mainly or solely value and do sports for the social connections, team building, fitness, personal satisfaction, etc, can be used against us to argue that therefore girls and women women won't or shouldn't mind if all the prizes and records girls' and women's sports start going to males. Since girls and women weren't in sports to score, win and set records anyways, the typical spiel goes, what's it to them if none of them are on the podium or record books any more?

Also, lots of sports are more about individual performance than about team performance - and many sports are primarily pursued and practiced on an individual basis, not a through teams. People who do track & field, swim, dive, ski, tennis, golf, surf, lift weights, endurance sports and so on often train and compete mainly as individuals. They might be on teams theoretically, or in certain situations, and they might participate in certain team events (like track or swim relays). But unlike in soccer, basketball, field hockey, baseball, softball etc, people in a lot of sports often are mainly in it for themselves.

Moreover, in sports that are mainly about individual accomplishments, a lot of the strongest social bonds and greatest comradery occur between competitors who are each other's main rivals. Like with the boxers Joe Louis and Max Schmeling. One of the aspects I found so intriguing and exciting about women's pro tennis back in the day was the intense rivalry between Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert on the court, and their close friendship and support for one another off the court.

Finally, even when athletes are in team sports, certain individuals on teams always stand out and get the most attention and focus. Megan Rapinoe of the USA national women's soccer team. Sue Bird and Brittney Griner of the WNBA. Tom Brady of the Patriots. Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle, Roger Maris, Derek Jeter of the NY Yankees.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Idk that bringing it up at all is over emphasis but cheers.

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I didn't mean to imply that bringing it up is overemphasis. Sorry for giving that impression. I'm not at my best right now.

But IRL and in online convos about this, including on sports sites, a point that often gets made to justify allowing trans-identified males AND males with DSDs like Caster Semenya to invade and win in women's sports is that girls and women don't care that much about winning, setting records and getting sports glory in the first place coz due to our (supposedly) naturally less competitive, cut-throat and ambitious nature, we do sports for other reasons. Also, because it's supposedly in our nature to take our lumps and lose with grace. Whereas for males - even ones who claim to be women - winning, setting records and getting glory are supposedly essential for their mental wellbeing. Or so the reasoning goes.

To this way of thinking, depriving girls and women of the chance to win, place or get in the record books - no big deal coz those things don't really matter to us; we supposedly do sports just to be sociable, and most of us are happy sitting on the bench or being bumped off the roster altogether. But to deprive a Caster Semenya or Ragehell McKinnon of the chance to win, place and get in the record books is grossly unfair, a moral outrage and major human rights violation!

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes I know but they asked what else women might get from sports teams besides sating a desire to compete so..

[–]adungitit 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

a point that often gets made to justify allowing trans-identified males AND males with DSDs like Caster Semenya to invade and win in women's sports is that girls and women don't care that much about winning, setting records and getting sports glory in the first place coz due to our (supposedly) naturally less competitive, cut-throat and ambitious nature, we do sports for other reasons.

Christ, I don't follow anything sports-related, but I'm not at all surprised that these points would get made and probably with people legitimately not even realising how misogynistic they're being. Trans activism is so full of these gross bioessentialist arguments that are all of a sudden getting feminists on board who I feel just a decade ago would've been at your throat if you implied a female brain made women meek and submissive.

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I imagine trans rights activists do see that, which is why they want to use women's sports for gender validation.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

So your point is that women need spaces away from men. Women's sports currently is such a place which would be taken away if you let trans women compete. Okay sure. But this isn't an argument exclusively to sports. We can apply the same logic to women's fitness centers, book clubs Bible study meetings or whatever. I agree that places like these should exist. Hell im helping to create such a space currently. I simply consider these secondary in a highly competitive environment where fairness should be the primary metric.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Ok, but if we go by the testosterone metrics for example, a guy can have all the advantages of male puberty but be considered a fair competition to a five foot tall woman in lifting if he took one dose of estrogen in his lifetime.

Separating sports by testosterone in one blood test is clearly not fair. Allowing anyone who has the advantages of male puberty to compete against someone who has not, regardless of whether he now has high testosterone is not fair.

Nature did not make competition between men and women fair. Sex separation gave some level of fairness.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Okay. So the current rules aren't fair. If we established rules that were fair - eg the male would have to be In a lower weight class as well - and the playing fields were equal, would you allow males to compete with females?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nope. Sexual dimorphism wasn’t fair in giving men more strength. The playing fields are not equal. That’s my issue. They won’t be equal no matter what hypothetical is made up.

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You keep making statements showing that you assume the current requirements are fair, and thus anyone who "meets the requirements" is participating in and advancing "fair competition."

It's like you're unaware that history is riddled with regulations that are unfair and laws that are unjust. Doing what's right isn't the same as following the rules; often doing the right thing means challenging, protesting, going beyond and defying the rules.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

What does fairness in competition have to do with revolutionary thought in a historical context? If you think the current rules aren't fair then work to get them changed and start changing them on the levels you can.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

What does fairness in competition have to do with revolutionary thought in a historical context?

Huh? I have no idea what you mean by "revolutionary thought" here.

"Fairness in competition" is the concept you keep referring to with your repeated mention of "fair competition." You keep making statements that give the impression you believe that if someone follows the current rules, then fair competition is guaranteed. Which is like saying that since laws only require that employers pay a minimum wage, adhere to certain minimum safety standards and follow X,Y and Z regulations, then paying that wage, adhering to those standards and following those regs constitutes compensating, safeguarding and treating all employees fairly. But many people would say that fairness means paying employees at least a living wage or, ideally, what they're worth, endeavoring to make employees as safe as possible, and providing a plethora of benefits and amenities.

I am working to get the rules in sports changed, BTW. But that's not the issue at hand here. This is a debate dub. The issue is whether QT can make a case that the current rules allowing males to use claims of being trans to compete in female sports are fair. You keep suggesting/insisting they are fair, but without explaining how and why - and without revealing what you mean by "fair," a word that seems to mean something different to you than to me and some other posters.

Fair in your view seems to stop at first definition given by Oxford, "in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate," and not to include the additional meaning that comes next, "just or appropriate in the circumstances."

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It seems like you're misunderstanding me. I'm assuming - for the sake of the argument - that the rules are fair and that if they are not that fair rules can be found. I should have made that clearer. I honestly don't know enough to judge wether the current set of rules are fair.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The people with expertise in sports, sports medicine/science and sports regulation who've looked into this issue extensively say that there is no fair way to allow males to compete in girls' and women's sports. As Ross Tucker of Science of Sport has pointed out, the aims of fairness in sport here are in direct conflict with the aim of "inclusion" for any males in the female category. Including males in female sports automatically puts female participants at a competitive disadvantage ranging from 10-12% in running to 50% in weightlifting to 160% in events that involve throwing or punching. Including males in female sports also excludes females not just from placing, winning and entering record books - it excludes female people from trying out, qualifying and participating in the first place. Moreover, if the sport is a contact sport like rugby, wrestling, boxing, MMA, roller derby, or hockey - or it could involve contact and collisions like basketball, soccer and baseball - allowing males to play/compete against females puts the females at risk of injury and death.

Since you now admit that you "honestly don't know enough to judge whether the current set of rules are fair," I don't get why you are weighing in on this topic and this thread at all. What do you think you are bringing to the table here?

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I just read the article you quoted. 1st the comparisons are between males with normal hormone levels and females with normal hormone levels. 2nd I've read through the whole article and doesn't say anywhere that no fair rules could possibly exist - even if your phrasing may make that seem different.

Tucker simply argues for exclusion until such rules are found. For both safety and the sake of competition. And who would have guessed that I don't disagree.

What do I bring to the conversation. Not a lot since I don't know if the rules are fair and won't judge on that front. My objective is simply to scout out what GC thinks - one which I have achieved. But the conversation brings a lot to me. By GCs reaction to my initial answer I can get a rough picture of how many are actually interested in fairness and safety while the other does not want males in women's sport full stop.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Huh? I didn't quote an article. I made reference to the extensive, in-depth report that Ross Tucker did for World Rugby and to Tucker's many published works on this topic. These include numerous posts and blog entries on the Science of Sport website made over many years, articles in newspapers such as the Times (of London), the many media interviews he's given, his Twitter feed and, above all, his many podcasts (some of which are only accessible by subscribers).

I can get a rough picture of how many are actually interested in fairness and safety while the other does not want males in women's sport full stop.

Please set forth the scenario and criteria which you think would allow "males in women's sports" whilst preserving fairness and safety for female people.

I don't mean to insult you, but you seem to have little grasp of the differences in physical development of male and female humans not just during and after the puberty of adolescence, but in utero, infancy and early childhood - and all the consequences these differences have for sports performance from the get-go. I get the impression you did not participate in competitive (or other) sports as a kid (as I did), that you haven't ever taught or coached kids/young people in sports (as I have), that you've never raised or been involved in raising children (as I have), and that you don't really follow sports (as I do).

To start to get acquainted with the difference in male and female human sports performance from early childhood, I suggest you look at the different growth size and rate charts used for male and female infants; the junior sports records set by pre-adolescent children in various sports in different countries around the world; and the stats for US kids who had to undergo the annual President's Physical Fitness tests during and after the era of JFK. Also look at what's happened with Little League Baseball since it became open to both sexes in 1974.

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

There is no fair way to let men compete in women's sports. The rules about testosterone levels are just an excuse to allow males to compete against women while pretending they care about fairness. However, there is no scientifical basis for such rules. For example, how do you explain that Laurel Hubbard, a trans identified male who has a gap of several years within his weightlifting carreer, was able to compete at the Olympics for the first time at the age of 43 years old? What matters in sports it's your body, not your "identity". There is simple no reason for trans identified males not to compete against other males or not to create their own leagues. They just want to compete against women because they want "validation" and/or because they are mediocre athletes who could never reach the top leves by competing against males.

The point I was trying to make in my previous comment was there is no a signicative difference between "true transwomen" and "cis men". Both groups are males and, as such, they have an athletic advantage over women. Calling certain males "women" don't change the reality about women's sports being made unisex in order to give trans identified males whathever they want. By allowing males in women's leagues, you're disregarding fairness and male cheaters are bound to exploit this situation.

Here is a long list of other males winning on women's sports.

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think trans-identified males want to compete against women for other reasons beyond validation and the fact that they are mediocre and can't cut it in elite sports in their own sex category. I think many of them hate women and want to dominate, defeat and demoralize us. I think many are extremely covetous too; as a result, they want to take what belongs to women and have it for themselves.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I mean we agree. There is not significant difference between men and trans women assuming equal levels of fitness, hormones etc. Where we disagree is your premise that no fair ruleset does exist to let trans women compete with cis women. It's a premise that I personally consider extremely unlikely. You could for example control the trans women's weight class based on how far they went through male puberty. Weight is directly related to strength. Other competitions may control for other factors to ensure fair competition.

trans identified male

eyeroll

Anyways. Even the article you send me states that hormone levels do not fully remove a competitive advantage. Fully is implies that at least a part of the advantage is removed. The other part could be controlled via other factors. Otherwise the source is clearly biased and I don't have the time to pick apart the examples since even for the trans women who lost you may alledge that they lost on purpose - like you did for Hubbard already.

[–]BiologyIsReal 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

For someone who admits not to know much about this topic, you surely make a lot of assumptions. You assume the current rules are fair. You assume even if they weren't fair, surely there must be a fair way to allow males in women's sports. Why do you think sports were seggregated by sex in the first place? Even sports that have a weight category, like box or weightlifting, are seggregated by sex. Men have an athletic advantage over women because of their sex. Higher levels of testosterone are a great part of why, but they are not the full picture. You've to consider other factors like height, skeleton, heart and lung sizes, etctera. Moreover, it doesn't matter if an adult male lowers his testosterone levels for a year to compete, this doesn't overide the effects that testosterone already had over his body.

Sports are about bodies, not "identity". There is not reason why trans identified males cannot compete with men. If for whatever reason they really do not want to compete with men who don't identify as "trans", they are free to create their own categories just like women created theirs. Either way, women do not own any male any spot in women's sports.

I didn't say Hubbard lost on purpose. In my thread about the Olympics I said he may have, but whether he did or not it's irrelevant. He already proved his male advantage by qualifying for the Olympics for the first time despite his age and circunstances. What you're not understanding is that when GC say trans identified males have an unfair advantage over women we don't mean that any male will defeat all women every time under any condition. We mean that males competing against women will perform far better in comparison that if they competed against fellow males (also, in contact sports, the presence of males increases the risk for female athletes's safety). That was the point of the article I linked: mediocre male athletes suddenly doing much better after "transition". If you read the stories of male athletes competing in women's sports you'll find that many of them fall within the following categories: males who are new to sport and become a rising star; males who struggled in the men's categories, but are much more successful once swicht categories; middle age males who compete against much younger women.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

So you're saying women's sports are for women because women created it and stuff. Most of the other factors could be controlled by weight and maybe some other factors. I imagine something like a score for every athlete depending on their physical capabilities. You could then sort athletes based into brackets based on these scores.

So yeah. Hubbard proves that the current rules are bad and need to be changed. That's not something we need to debate over. The more interesting question is: if actually fair rules were implemented: should trans women and cis men following these rules be allowed to compete against women? And should they be excluded from such a competition until these rules are found?

[–]ZveroboyAlinaIs clownfish a clown or a fish? 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You could then sort athletes based into brackets based on these scores.

There already such scores.

Thing is if remove sex, then in categories for "best women" we will also get "retired men after 50s" or "mediocre top 10 000 men". It is just unfair for women and is not giving equal opportunities for women, as "after 50s" or "mediocre top 10 000" women have nowhere to go like men. It will be just men taking women's places, and women gaining absolutely nothing from it. Men would not suffer from this either, only benefit.

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Like I said upthread, you seem to have little grasp of the differences in physical development of male and female humans not just during and after the puberty of adolescence, but in utero, infancy and early childhood - and all the consequences these differences have for sports performance from the get-go.

At six months, the hearts and crucial left ventricles of baby boys are 6-8% larger and stronger than those of baby girls. During the adolescence of puberty, boys' hearts grow to the point that they will be 25-38% larger than the hearts of girls and women of the same height and body weight. Males have much larger lungs and lung capacity; longer and stronger bones; skeletons that are shaped entirely differently to female skeletons; narrower pelvises, which affect how the every part of their lower bodies move from the hip sockets and femurs down to the toes and soles of the feet; bigger and differently shaped hands and feet; much greater grip strength; faster twitch fibers; quicker response and recovery time, etc. How do you control for those sorts of advantages?

There are thousands of ways that the bodies of male and female humans are different to one another. These differences give female humans some super powers. We can conceive, grow and give birth to new human beings, and we can provide human babies with breast milk that meets all their nutritional needs and provides them with immune benefits too, enabling them not just to survive but to thrive. Females have greater immunity than males, more endurance, and longer natural lifespans. But when it comes to sports, the same physical characteristics that give us super powers in reproduction and some other ways put us at a disadvantage compared to males. A huge disadvantage.

Also, the repeated claims that you've made about body weight don't hold up. Persons of the same body weight are not necessarily equally matched in strength or sports ability. The bodies of men and women who weigh exactly the same will still be different to one another in thousands of other ways. Also, the one time in many women's lives that we weigh the same as the men in our lives is when we are in the final phase of pregnancy.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

same body height and weight

Weightlifting records.

Female 81-89 kg category: record is 293 kg total. Heaviest female weight category except "superweight".

Male 51-59 kg category: record is 294 kg total. Lightest male weight category, except "underweight".

I will just leave it here.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

How you gonna make a system where everyone has to have a DEXA scan and regular weigh ins just so men can play against women when the sexed system works fine? What is the actual fault with the sexed system? It disallows men who identify as women? That’s not a problem. Why change it and make ridiculous requirements under the guise of fairness when there’s a system in place that has worked well enough since it’s inception right until a handful of blokes got their knickers twisted over it?

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Just made a comment right about it:

/s/GCdebatesQT/comments/8avh/_/uwpf

To "equate" there would be "best women" against "lowest category of men". Or "best women" against "30 years as retired men". And so on. As someone said - it is just unfair to women.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh yeah, real equal competition there. You’re five foot tall and 90 pounds mam? That puts you squarely in the 11 year old boy division congratulations!