Sport and Transgender People: A Systematic Review of the Literature Relating to Sport Participation and Competitive Sport Policies

submitted by GConly from ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]slushpilot 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The paper's ridiculous conclusion:

Currently, there is no direct or consistent research suggesting transgender female individuals (or male individuals) have an athletic advantage at any stage of their transition (e.g. cross-sex hormones, gender-confirming surgery) and, therefore, competitive sport policies that place restrictions on transgender people need to be considered and potentially revised.

What this is trying to imply is so patently absurd that I don't even feel the need to entertain any of this... but while we're here let's parse what this one paragraph actually is (or isn't) saying:

  1. "there is no direct or consistent research suggesting [...] have an athletic advantage" If this is the key point of the conclusion then we can stop reading now: what a nothingburger. There is no such research because nobody believed it was necessary to point out the obvious. Here I go using common sense again: males have physical advantages over females. If you really wanted a study then just look at any sanctioned sporting results for male and female categories (race times, etc.), and see who is consistently faster/higher/stronger etc. We don't need research to tell us water is wet, but they seem to be using this to imply no difference exists just because nobody "directly researched" that a difference exists... (taps head)

  2. "at any stage of their transition" Translation: "upon self-declaration". Hahaha, right. See above regarding male and female categories to easily disprove this. Or are they saying that male physical advantage suddenly disappears upon identification of a "female brain"?

  3. "[no] transgender female individuals (or male individuals) have an athletic advantage" If you omit the paranthetical aside "(or male)", what is the rhetorical intent of this sentence? We know females don't have an athletic advantage... but men do! Are they purposely writing it in such a muddy and confused way that we're supposed to pretend we don't know what they're pushing? It somehow says "female", but nobody's worried about females stealing advantage!

  4. "sport policies that place restrictions on transgender people" No they don't. Let me try using their technique: "There is no direct or consistent research suggesting exceptional policies that place restrictions on transgender people". The restrictions are the same for everyone: compete in your own category according to your biology, which is first by sex, then by weight class. These are the major determinants of fair competition. And no performance-enhancing drugs, like anabolic steroids. It's the same for everyone.

If you don't like that because you're so Special, they also have Olympics for you.

[–]DameDuLac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

If you don't like that because you're so Special, they also have Olympics for you.

Lack of respect towards the Paralympics and its athletes is not cool.

[–]slushpilot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I have the greatest of respect for paralympic athletes.

Just not for people who only think themselves "special". I mean, the people we're talking about want to compete against women... it's really not very different if they were to say they feel excluded from the amputee category. Maybe it didn't come across so well, but I wanted to point out that absurdity.

[–]DameDuLac 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ok, I just wanted to point it out because it definitely did not come across well.

[–]MarkTwainiac 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Slushpilot: The Special Olympics and Paralympic Games are two very different things.

The Special Olympics are for people with intellectual disabilities, such as Down's syndrome. The Paralympics are for people with physical disabilities, such as wheelchair users, those who are blind or with very limited sight and thus "legally blind," and the amputees you mention.

I took your crack to be a diss on people with intellectual disabilities. They're the ones who get called "special." Those of us with physical disabilities usually get different slurs, such as "gimp."

[–]slushpilot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I obviously don't literally think that genderspecial men should go compete with actual physically/intellectually disadvantaged people.

But it's only the next step after the kind of advantage they're asking for when they demand to win races against women. I was taking that thought to its absurd conclusion. So, whether they want to identify themselves into the amputee category or the Downs category too, it's just more of the same and either way I have no respect for it.