Trans activists: Trans women should not be required to suppress testosterone to play on women's teams

[Emily Lake]

I know the point of weight classes in combat sports is to drag is out more...

I don't think it's to "drag it out". I think it's more a recognition that physical size is only one element that makes a good fighter. Seriously, Bruce Lee was an incredibly fighter, but if you put him up against Brock Lesner (probably a really outdated reference at this point), there's a good chance that he'll get smooshed as soon as Lesner gets hold of him. The sheer difference in mass and size is nearly insurmountable. But there's also the recognition that if you put Lee up against anyone even remotely similar to him in size and build, he's going to mop the floor with them. Part of what made Mike Tyson so incredible was that he was significantly smaller than the vast majority of this opponents and defeated them anyway.

The point of weight classes in combat sports is the same as the point of sex classes or age classes in almost all sports: To control for intrinsic characteristics that are NOT influenced by training and which confer a clear and unambiguous advantage that is external to the sport itself. And adult will run faster than a ten-year-old, even if the child is an incredibly fast runner and the adult is an out of shape slob. A mediocre post-pubescent male will throw a ball with greater force than a highly skilled post-pubescent female in almost all cases. To the extent that we can, we create categories of people who have similar advantages and we attempt to control for differences that aren't representative of actual skill in the sport.

As a poor analogy... An apprentice welder won't compare to a master welder, but we can still recognize an exceptionally skilled apprentice welder when compared to other apprentices.

 

[Emily Lake]

I think you're looking at it backwards. You're describing the result of gender differences of behaviour. Men don't care as much about being included into groups as women. Male groups are built around problem solving. They have a shared goal and work towards it. The moment that goal is reached the group disolves. Women are expected to make everybody feel welcome because that's important for them. They want to feel welcome and included so they make an effort to welcome others. They socialise themselves into this. Men have no part in this. If men want to be included into a group they usually learn a skill valuable to the group, or they get an asset that will help the group.

...

I think it's super basic human instinct. Women formed the core of the hunter gather tribe, made sure the social dynamic worked, that everybody felt included and looked after the children. Men kept them safe and built stuff. For women it's important to be included in the group, preferably is high in the hierarchy, and that they don't risk social isolation. Men focused more on not getting their head bashed in by someone (a man) in another tribe. It's different prioritise in life.

Another good example is hierarchy. Women are absolutely obsessed about hierarchy. Men aren't. Men only want high status so they can get girls. For women having high status is an end in itself. It's important for a woman to get a guy with high status. A man couldn't care less whether or not his girlfriend has any status at all. It's a non-issue.

Well gee, thank you Mr. Man for setting me straight. I'm happy you're around to make this make sense to my poor little lady-brain. It was downright silly of me to imagine that I had a better understanding of the experience of women than a man does...

 

[Toni]

I know the point of weight classes in combat sports is to drag is out more...

I don't think it's to "drag it out". I think it's more a recognition that physical size is only one element that makes a good fighter. Seriously, Bruce Lee was an incredibly fighter, but if you put him up against Brock Lesner (probably a really outdated reference at this point), there's a good chance that he'll get smooshed as soon as Lesner gets hold of him. The sheer difference in mass and size is nearly insurmountable. But there's also the recognition that if you put Lee up against anyone even remotely similar to him in size and build, he's going to mop the floor with them. Part of what made Mike Tyson so incredible was that he was significantly smaller than the vast majority of this opponents and defeated them anyway.

The point of weight classes in combat sports is the same as the point of sex classes or age classes in almost all sports: To control for intrinsic characteristics that are NOT influenced by training and which confer a clear and unambiguous advantage that is external to the sport itself. And adult will run faster than a ten-year-old, even if the child is an incredibly fast runner and the adult is an out of shape slob. A mediocre post-pubescent male will throw a ball with greater force than a highly skilled post-pubescent female in almost all cases. To the extent that we can, we create categories of people who have similar advantages and we attempt to control for differences that aren't representative of actual skill in the sport.

As a poor analogy... An apprentice welder won't compare to a master welder, but we can still recognize an exceptionally skilled apprentice welder when compared to other apprentices.

I definitely disagree with the bolded, based on personal experience. In my family, my kids, except for one (who grew about 10 inches between ages 14 and 15), were my height by age 10 with much longer and quicker legs than mine. Thankfully, we did not manage the family such that was ever an issue. Even a very fit adult will have trouble catching up to a fast 4 year old in certain situations--such as very tight laps around a room with two sets of doors. You have to trick them if you want to catch them. And by trick, that would include bribe or wait them out as they run out their energy. In fact, that's precisely the reason that the former owner of my house removed the back staircase in this house: he was tired of trying to catch his kids....

 

[Jarhyn]

I think you're looking at it backwards. You're describing the result of gender differences of behaviour. Men don't care as much about being included into groups as women. Male groups are built around problem solving. They have a shared goal and work towards it. The moment that goal is reached the group disolves. Women are expected to make everybody feel welcome because that's important for them. They want to feel welcome and included so they make an effort to welcome others. They socialise themselves into this. Men have no part in this. If men want to be included into a group they usually learn a skill valuable to the group, or they get an asset that will help the group.

...

I think it's super basic human instinct. Women formed the core of the hunter gather tribe, made sure the social dynamic worked, that everybody felt included and looked after the children. Men kept them safe and built stuff. For women it's important to be included in the group, preferably is high in the hierarchy, and that they don't risk social isolation. Men focused more on not getting their head bashed in by someone (a man) in another tribe. It's different prioritise in life.

Another good example is hierarchy. Women are absolutely obsessed about hierarchy. Men aren't. Men only want high status so they can get girls. For women having high status is an end in itself. It's important for a woman to get a guy with high status. A man couldn't care less whether or not his girlfriend has any status at all. It's a non-issue.

Well gee, thank you Mr. Man for setting me straight. I'm happy you're around to make this make sense to my poor little lady-brain. It was downright silly of me to imagine that I had a better understanding of the experience of women than a man does...

I don't attribute it to you being a girl or him being a man, for the record. I attribute it to you, as an individual, consistently making poor arguments. I generally just assume you are a man faking "as a woman", similar to r/asablackman

I mean shit, in your own post you are discussing the results of puberty, ie, the results of hormone exposure as the driving factor of competitive advantages and wanting to make competitions about skill, and then you rabidly reject actual arguments that we focus specifically on the mechanisms of those differences preferring instead jacking off into your own mouth with blind adherence to "man" and "woman" language.

 

[Emily Lake]

I don't attribute it to you being a girl or him being a man, for the record. I attribute it to you, as an individual, consistently making poor arguments. I generally just assume you are a man faking "as a woman", similar to r/asablackman

I mean shit, in your own post you are discussing the results of puberty, ie, the results of hormone exposure as the driving factor of competitive advantages and wanting to make competitions about skill, and then you rabidly reject actual arguments that we focus specifically on the mechanisms of those differences preferring instead jacking off into your own mouth with blind adherence to "man" and "woman" language.

WTF are you talking about? Again, are you quite certain you haven't confused me with someone else? Because I definitely haven't insisted on adherence to man/woman language, and I'm totally on board with hormone suppression as the only requirement when it comes to sex-segregated sports. You are attacking me, rather viciously at that, for arguments I haven't made.

I have, however, argued with you that it's absurd to expect gay men to want to bang vaginas, or to expect that lesbian women should want to stick penises up their twats. It's idiotic to think that a male-only gay sex club should be required to allow transmen who have not surgically transitioned into their club.

This is made even more confusing because your response here has nothing at all to do with my interaction with Dr.Zoidberg... so it mostly looks like you're trying to take a cheap shot at insulting me by implying I'm not a "real" woman. I mean, seriously, how much more needlessly insulting can you get?

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm totally on board with hormone suppression as the only requirement when it comes to sex-segregated sports. You are attacking me...

Yes, I was attacking you viciously... For not having accepted that argument. You have now, clearly and explicitly.

Prior to now, though, you have done anything but, repeatedly pulling up red herrings against requests for acceptance of this principle, and further muddying waters with that unfounded jank about pre-pubescent development without discussion of hormones, and all kinds of essentialism over what "men" and "women" are.

I have, however, argued with you that it's absurd to expect gay men to want to bang vaginas, or to expect that lesbian women should want to stick penises up their twats. It's idiotic to think that a male-only gay sex club should be required to allow transmen who have not surgically transitioned into their club.

And I have repeatedly pointed out that everyone has a right to bang whoever they wish with whatever genital configuration they wish, assuming consent.

What I have not accepted is rejection from a public place over what resides in their pants, and ridicule of private organizations obsessed with only allowing "platinum" gays.

As an example, in the pup play communities here in Minneapolis, there are two groups, one the North Star Kennel Club and the other the Minneapolis Puppy Pack.

Of the two, one of the organizations leadership frequently disparages members who have vaginas, albeit in a shitty behind-their-back way. The other organization actually sent a trans person to regional puppy/handler competition this last year to compete. Not because they were trans but because their performance was great.

Of course, if someone doesn't feel like interacting sexually or otherwise with a trans person, The Kennel Club would never expect them to.

The point though is that reasonable people in reasonable communities will make reasonable accomodations of space and social acceptance for all members, regardless of sex and sexual identity. Is it a primarily "gay" space? Yes. But only assholes worthy of ridicule will go to such ends as to enforce "platinum gay" only rules. Don't like the one without the penis? Don't stick your dick in them. It's that simple.

This is made even more confusing because your response here has nothing at all to do with my interaction with Dr.Zoidberg... so it mostly looks like you're trying to take a cheap shot at insulting me by implying I'm not a "real" woman. I mean, seriously, how much more needlessly insulting can you get?

About as needlessly insulting as attempting to ban someone from a space wherein nobody is expected to actually fuck any specific person, merely because they are a person you yourself wouldn't.

And yeah, I'm allowed to consider "pure platinum gays only" clubs to be needlessly exclusive and shitty, perfectly worthy of ridicule.

Though...

As long as we can agree that hormonal affect is really the appropriate way to divide sports, rather than "men" or "women" (things that hold no real concrete meaning besides acting as an imperfect and unofficial shorthand proxies), we can probably move on to other things.

Of course, metaphor is still holding out.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think you're looking at it backwards. You're describing the result of gender differences of behaviour. Men don't care as much about being included into groups as women. Male groups are built around problem solving. They have a shared goal and work towards it. The moment that goal is reached the group disolves. Women are expected to make everybody feel welcome because that's important for them. They want to feel welcome and included so they make an effort to welcome others. They socialise themselves into this. Men have no part in this. If men want to be included into a group they usually learn a skill valuable to the group, or they get an asset that will help the group.

...

I think it's super basic human instinct. Women formed the core of the hunter gather tribe, made sure the social dynamic worked, that everybody felt included and looked after the children. Men kept them safe and built stuff. For women it's important to be included in the group, preferably is high in the hierarchy, and that they don't risk social isolation. Men focused more on not getting their head bashed in by someone (a man) in another tribe. It's different prioritise in life.

Another good example is hierarchy. Women are absolutely obsessed about hierarchy. Men aren't. Men only want high status so they can get girls. For women having high status is an end in itself. It's important for a woman to get a guy with high status. A man couldn't care less whether or not his girlfriend has any status at all. It's a non-issue.

Well gee, thank you Mr. Man for setting me straight. I'm happy you're around to make this make sense to my poor little lady-brain. It was downright silly of me to imagine that I had a better understanding of the experience of women than a man does...

You made the claim that men somehow is the reason women are socialised into making everybody feel welcomed. I explained why that is silly, based on how men socialise. You have not come up with a social mechanism that can explain how men is the cause of the female behaviour. Instead you resort to sarcasm, which emphasizes your lack of arguments. Could it be that you don't have any?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I know the point of weight classes in combat sports is to drag is out more...

I don't think it's to "drag it out". I think it's more a recognition that physical size is only one element that makes a good fighter. Seriously, Bruce Lee was an incredibly fighter, but if you put him up against Brock Lesner (probably a really outdated reference at this point), there's a good chance that he'll get smooshed as soon as Lesner gets hold of him. The sheer difference in mass and size is nearly insurmountable. But there's also the recognition that if you put Lee up against anyone even remotely similar to him in size and build, he's going to mop the floor with them. Part of what made Mike Tyson so incredible was that he was significantly smaller than the vast majority of this opponents and defeated them anyway.

The point of weight classes in combat sports is the same as the point of sex classes or age classes in almost all sports: To control for intrinsic characteristics that are NOT influenced by training and which confer a clear and unambiguous advantage that is external to the sport itself. And adult will run faster than a ten-year-old, even if the child is an incredibly fast runner and the adult is an out of shape slob. A mediocre post-pubescent male will throw a ball with greater force than a highly skilled post-pubescent female in almost all cases. To the extent that we can, we create categories of people who have similar advantages and we attempt to control for differences that aren't representative of actual skill in the sport.

As a poor analogy... An apprentice welder won't compare to a master welder, but we can still recognize an exceptionally skilled apprentice welder when compared to other apprentices.

But building muscles is also a sports skill. That's what bodybuilding is about. And the difference in training is a pretty small factor in most sports. While training is important, genetics is by far the most dominant factor. Don't you think it's more down to which influencing genetic characteristics are visible on TV? So size, age and gender.

Most professional athletes are naturally brimming with testosterone. That's hard to regulate, measure or control for. Even though it would be the best metric by which to categorise athletes

 

[Jarhyn]

I know the point of weight classes in combat sports is to drag is out more...

I don't think it's to "drag it out". I think it's more a recognition that physical size is only one element that makes a good fighter. Seriously, Bruce Lee was an incredibly fighter, but if you put him up against Brock Lesner (probably a really outdated reference at this point), there's a good chance that he'll get smooshed as soon as Lesner gets hold of him. The sheer difference in mass and size is nearly insurmountable. But there's also the recognition that if you put Lee up against anyone even remotely similar to him in size and build, he's going to mop the floor with them. Part of what made Mike Tyson so incredible was that he was significantly smaller than the vast majority of this opponents and defeated them anyway.

The point of weight classes in combat sports is the same as the point of sex classes or age classes in almost all sports: To control for intrinsic characteristics that are NOT influenced by training and which confer a clear and unambiguous advantage that is external to the sport itself. And adult will run faster than a ten-year-old, even if the child is an incredibly fast runner and the adult is an out of shape slob. A mediocre post-pubescent male will throw a ball with greater force than a highly skilled post-pubescent female in almost all cases. To the extent that we can, we create categories of people who have similar advantages and we attempt to control for differences that aren't representative of actual skill in the sport.

As a poor analogy... An apprentice welder won't compare to a master welder, but we can still recognize an exceptionally skilled apprentice welder when compared to other apprentices.

But building muscles is also a sports skill. That's what bodybuilding is about. And the difference in training is a pretty small factor in most sports. While training is important, genetics is by far the most dominant factor. Don't you think it's more down to which influencing genetic characteristics are visible on TV? So size, age and gender.

Most professional athletes are naturally brimming with testosterone. That's hard to regulate, measure or control for. Even though it would be the best metric by which to categorise athletes

What this really comes down to for me is that there are two general classes of comparison happening in sports, two modal distributions: the distribution which allows testosterone as a factor at all, and the one that doesn't allow testosterone above the lower modal baseline + 4-5 STD deviations in variance.

Neither of these generally allow "supplemental" testosterone; though I also don't think it appropriate to ban athletes who target the higher modal testosterone value with supplements, assuming that they do not go above 2-3 STD deviations past that mode, or within 1 STD deviations of the "athletic average", whichever is lower.

 

[Emily Lake]

Yes, I was attacking you viciously... For not having accepted that argument. You have now, clearly and explicitly.

I have for a very long time. For reference see earlier in this thread as well as a few other threads discussing the topic with krypton iodine sulfur. Just because you're slow to catch on and seem to confuse posters and assume the worst of them doesn't make your perception accurate.

Thus the repeated question of whether you have confused me with someone else.

Perhaps consider pulling your head out of your ass and reading without a chip on your shoulder.

 

[Emily Lake]

You made the claim that men somehow is the reason women are socialised into making everybody feel welcomed. I explained why that is silly, based on how men socialise. You have not come up with a social mechanism that can explain how men is the cause of the female behaviour. Instead you resort to sarcasm, which emphasizes your lack of arguments. Could it be that you don't have any?

Read better. "Men" don't make it that way, "society" makes it that way. And it has nothing at all to do with "how men socialize", it has to do with "how society expects and conditions women to socialize".

But please, continue mansplaining to me how women are.

 

[repoman]

But building muscles is also a sports skill. That's what bodybuilding is about. And the difference in training is a pretty small factor in most sports. While training is important, genetics is by far the most dominant factor. Don't you think it's more down to which influencing genetic characteristics are visible on TV? So size, age and gender.

Most professional athletes are naturally brimming with testosterone. That's hard to regulate, measure or control for. Even though it would be the best metric by which to categorise athletes

What this really comes down to for me is that there are two general classes of comparison happening in sports, two modal distributions: the distribution which allows testosterone as a factor at all, and the one that doesn't allow testosterone above the lower modal baseline + 4-5 STD deviations in variance.

Neither of these generally allow "supplemental" testosterone; though I also don't think it appropriate to ban athletes who target the higher modal testosterone value with supplements, assuming that they do not go above 2-3 STD deviations past that mode, or within 1 STD deviations of the "athletic average", whichever is lower.

What about bone structure and size and ligament differences and so on.

Should a runt of a man who becomes a transwoman be allowed to compete in power lifting with women, but a freak of a brick shithouse man to transwoman not?

There are definitely frame sizes both in height and thickness of big men that women can never approach. That can not be undone with hormones.

 

[Emily Lake]

But building muscles is also a sports skill. That's what bodybuilding is about. And the difference in training is a pretty small factor in most sports. While training is important, genetics is by far the most dominant factor.

I'm guessing you've never been an athlete, have you? Look, my spouse is 6'2", 210 lbs, with very dense bone structure. But if you put him in a ring with an MMA fighter who is 6'2", 210 lbs, he will get his ass thoroughly whooped. Training is a significant difference when it comes to performance. Some of the underlying physical elements add benefits that are extraneous to training - a 6'2" person will have greater reach than a 5'0" person... and there is nothing that training can do to alleviate that.

 

[Emily Lake]

What about bone structure and size and ligament differences and so on.

Should a runt of a man who becomes a transwoman be allowed to compete in power lifting with women, but a freak of a brick shithouse man to transwoman not?

There are definitely frame sizes both in height and thickness of big men that women can never approach. That can not be undone with hormones.

As I mentioned earlier... some of those are a direct result of hormonal influences during puberty, but I don't know how much of them. Particularly, I know that a lot of them are driven by the pituitary gland, but some are driven by the adrenal, and I don't know how much.

It's definitely true that the effect of hormones during puberty cannot be undone... but Jaryn had raised the concept of people who didn't go through male puberty at all and where they fit. Setting aside my personal reservations about fucking with puberty overall... I think a lot of the naturally occurring differences would be countered, I just don't know that it would be all of them. But enough that it probably puts them within the band of "normal" female characteristics.

It's true that some of those advantages cannot be undone by hormone therapy after puberty. And yes, some of that is going to be an insurmountable obstacle. I still think that hormone suppression to within reasonable levels for a set period of time prior to competition is a reasonable starting point. If the remaining physical advantages prove to be overwhelming, we'll try something else.

 

[Jarhyn]

But building muscles is also a sports skill. That's what bodybuilding is about. And the difference in training is a pretty small factor in most sports. While training is important, genetics is by far the most dominant factor. Don't you think it's more down to which influencing genetic characteristics are visible on TV? So size, age and gender.

Most professional athletes are naturally brimming with testosterone. That's hard to regulate, measure or control for. Even though it would be the best metric by which to categorise athletes

What this really comes down to for me is that there are two general classes of comparison happening in sports, two modal distributions: the distribution which allows testosterone as a factor at all, and the one that doesn't allow testosterone above the lower modal baseline + 4-5 STD deviations in variance.

Neither of these generally allow "supplemental" testosterone; though I also don't think it appropriate to ban athletes who target the higher modal testosterone value with supplements, assuming that they do not go above 2-3 STD deviations past that mode, or within 1 STD deviations of the "athletic average", whichever is lower.

What about bone structure and size and ligament differences and so on.

Should a runt of a man who becomes a transwoman be allowed to compete in power lifting with women, but a freak of a brick shithouse man to transwoman not?

There are definitely frame sizes both in height and thickness of big men that women can never approach. That can not be undone with hormones.

Again, 100% straw man arguments.

I have already talked at length about the way to address those untreated through puberty: exclude them until we can ascertain which advantages this gives and whether/for what time frame they remain relevant.

Now, you and Emily can have all the personal reservations you want about "messing with puberty"; personally, neither I nor any of the doctor's or pubescent trans patients care. The fact is, this is happening no matter how much of a tantrum you throw.

The fact is, we have plenty of documentation on the process of puberty and how to empower people to safely push it in their desired direction.

The only real question is how we adjust our society to those realities.

Personally, I don't see the problem...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But building muscles is also a sports skill. That's what bodybuilding is about. And the difference in training is a pretty small factor in most sports. While training is important, genetics is by far the most dominant factor.

I'm guessing you've never been an athlete, have you? Look, my spouse is 6'2", 210 lbs, with very dense bone structure. But if you put him in a ring with an MMA fighter who is 6'2", 210 lbs, he will get his ass thoroughly whooped. Training is a significant difference when it comes to performance. Some of the underlying physical elements add benefits that are extraneous to training - a 6'2" person will have greater reach than a 5'0" person... and there is nothing that training can do to alleviate that.

I think what he's saying that training isn't a big factor because all the competitors have the training.

 

[repoman]

I think that some people are just a lot stronger pound for pound and faster as well. Also willing to trade a miserably painful elderly life of eroded joints for success at intense combat/impact sports.

 

[ruby sparks]

I may not agree with everything the narrator says there (albeit I agree with most of it) but I think he makes a reasonable case against letting trans women compete in women's sports on self-identity alone.

 

[Jarhyn]

I may not agree with everything the narrator says there (albeit I agree with most of it) but I think he makes a reasonable case against letting trans women compete in women's sports on self-identity alone.

Yeah, the only people crying to compete on identity alone are fucking crazy. They don't need to be given any more air time, as if those fucking crazies actually represented anyone but a tiny lunatic fringe.

Of course, Metaphor (and repo) likes to play megaphone for them, if only so that he can use these people to straw-man against sane trans-inclusive policies.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But building muscles is also a sports skill. That's what bodybuilding is about. And the difference in training is a pretty small factor in most sports. While training is important, genetics is by far the most dominant factor. Don't you think it's more down to which influencing genetic characteristics are visible on TV? So size, age and gender.

Most professional athletes are naturally brimming with testosterone. That's hard to regulate, measure or control for. Even though it would be the best metric by which to categorise athletes

What this really comes down to for me is that there are two general classes of comparison happening in sports, two modal distributions: the distribution which allows testosterone as a factor at all, and the one that doesn't allow testosterone above the lower modal baseline + 4-5 STD deviations in variance.

Neither of these generally allow "supplemental" testosterone; though I also don't think it appropriate to ban athletes who target the higher modal testosterone value with supplements, assuming that they do not go above 2-3 STD deviations past that mode, or within 1 STD deviations of the "athletic average", whichever is lower.

Hormone proportions during childhood and puberty matter in adulthood, because they dictate your bone structure. Which is what muscles use as levers to maximise power output. That's not as simple as more testosterone = bigger/better. It's a complicated interaction between a number of hormones (correlating with gender). There's no just way we can solve the edge transexual women get with testosterone suppression alone.