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

[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.

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've trained a variety of of martial arts most of my life, as well as other sports. I'm right now in an incredibly good shape. I know how training works. A smaller trained person can beat an untrained bigger person. But if both are trained the edge of the bigger person tends to win out regardless of skill level.

I remember a guy in my BJJ club who was a circus strongman as well as an alcoholic. He wasn't particularly good technically, and often drunk during training, still won almost every time only down to sheer strength. He often beat our incredibly skilled and strong trainer. Because he was so damn massive. I've never been particularly muscular (relative to other MMA fighters), so I know the importance of muscles.

 

[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.

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.

And as I have said before, when you validate that statement against evidence that quantizes and supports the position, I might believe it has an impact. You have yet to establish that such differences exist, and exist to any significant or meaningful degree.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

And as I have said before, when you validate that statement against evidence that quantizes and supports the position, I might believe it has an impact. You have yet to establish that such differences exist, and exist to any significant or meaningful degree.

It's hard to quantify since transexual women are less sporty than women in general and are therefore competing less overall. Of those who are sporty they are winning more than CIS women proportionally. But doesn't prove anything, since it's a self selected group. It can also be argued that people with hangups about their gender and apearance are perhaps less likely to engage in activities where their bodies can be seen by people in general, which might explain the lesser degree of sportiness. So it's difficult to tease out the numbers.

But there's a shortcut. What I argued in the beginning of this thread is that the numbers we should be comparing is how often trans men are winning competitions. And compare that number to how often trans women are winning things. It turns out that when women transition to men, that is typically the end of their sports career. It's extremely rare that it isn't. Trans women typically just keep going.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_people_in_sports#Notable_trans_athletes

If the moment a woman transitions to a man he doesn't have a chance in hell to win anything, but a man transitioning to a woman does, then the prior gender is a significant factor. I'd argue to a huge degree, just based on the numbers.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

And as I have said before, when you validate that statement against evidence that quantizes and supports the position, I might believe it has an impact. You have yet to establish that such differences exist, and exist to any significant or meaningful degree.

It's hard to quantify since transexual women are less sporty than women in general and are therefore competing less overall. Of those who are sporty they are winning more than CIS women proportionally. But doesn't prove anything, since it's a self selected group. It can also be argued that people with hangups about their gender and apearance are perhaps less likely to engage in activities where their bodies can be seen by people in general, which might explain the lesser degree of sportiness. So it's difficult to tease out the numbers.

But there's a shortcut. What I argued in the beginning of this thread is that the numbers we should be comparing is how often trans men are winning competitions. And compare that number to how often trans women are winning things. It turns out that when women transition to men, that is typically the end of their sports career. It's extremely rare that it isn't. Trans women typically just keep going.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_people_in_sports#Notable_trans_athletes

If the moment a woman transitions to a man he doesn't have a chance in hell to win anything, but a man transitioning to a woman does, then the prior gender is a significant factor. I'd argue to a huge degree, just based on the numbers.

Nice try moving your goalposts.

I'm going to just file this in the circular file for now.

Let me reiterate:

My argument is, there is no evidence I have seen presented that SINGLE ESTROGEN PUBERTY transitioners have MEANINGFUL (statistically significant) competitive advantages over non-transitoned single-estrogen-puberty individuals.

Your bar of evidence, your goalpost, as a result of this position is to provide peer reviewed study that shows a meaningful, statistically significant advantage over single puberty non-transitioners.

You may find some evidence amid basketball. It may be the case that additional caveats may apply there, due to height acquired from delayed puberty. But this isn't an argument to disallow "trans" people and more of an argument for denying individuals who have chemically delayed the onset of puberty/termination of long bone growth beyond 5 STD of time. This applies to people who are not trans, as well.

Good luck.

 

[Trausti]

Transgender Women in The Female Category of Sport: Is the Male Performance Advantage Removed by Testosterone Suppression?

Longitudinal studies examining the effects of testosterone suppression on muscle mass and strength in transgender women consistently show very modest changes, where the loss of lean body mass, muscle area and strength typically amounts to approximately 5% after 1 year of treatment. Thus, current evidence shows that the biological advantage enjoyed by transgender women is only minimally reduced when testosterone is suppressed. Sports organizations may therefore be compelled to reassess current policies regarding participation of transgender women in the female category of sport.

 

[ruby sparks]

Transgender Women in The Female Category of Sport: Is the Male Performance Advantage Removed by Testosterone Suppression?

Longitudinal studies examining the effects of testosterone suppression on muscle mass and strength in transgender women consistently show very modest changes, where the loss of lean body mass, muscle area and strength typically amounts to approximately 5% after 1 year of treatment. Thus, current evidence shows that the biological advantage enjoyed by transgender women is only minimally reduced when testosterone is suppressed. Sports organizations may therefore be compelled to reassess current policies regarding participation of transgender women in the female category of sport.

It says that in some men's sports (eg baseball and field hockey) the advantage over traditional women's categories is 50% (in pitching speed and strength of flick respectively). 40% for combat sports. That's a LOT. Rugby (a big sport here) is not mentioned (perhaps it's not an olympic sort, I can't recall), but I would think that there are significant issues there.

 

[Jarhyn]

Transgender Women in The Female Category of Sport: Is the Male Performance Advantage Removed by Testosterone Suppression?

Longitudinal studies examining the effects of testosterone suppression on muscle mass and strength in transgender women consistently show very modest changes, where the loss of lean body mass, muscle area and strength typically amounts to approximately 5% after 1 year of treatment. Thus, current evidence shows that the biological advantage enjoyed by transgender women is only minimally reduced when testosterone is suppressed. Sports organizations may therefore be compelled to reassess current policies regarding participation of transgender women in the female category of sport.

It says that in some men's sports (eg baseball and field hockey) the advantage over traditional women's categories is 50% (in pitching speed and strength of flick respectively). 40% for combat sports. That's a LOT. Rugby (a big sport here) is not mentioned (perhaps it's not an olympic sort, I can't recall), but I would think that there are significant issues there.

Not to mention that like DrZ, Trausti is still not kicking between the goalposts.

The bar is single puberty. I don't see *anyone* here endorsing the position of the OP. Nobody in any sane position would, because the OP position is not sane.

What is being asked by reasonable people is instead the inverse: that gender identity ought have NOTHING to do with it, NOR should sex. And as one of the most aggressive defenders of trans people and their rights on these forums, even I am on the side of only allowing SINGLE PUBERTY athletes, barring strong evidence that the time frame in contention is sufficient to remove meaningful exposure-based advantages.

But apparently, there's no way to argue against that, Mostly because it's a reasonable position based on evidence and the shape of reality. So I guess people have to argue against a straw man instead.

 

[Emily Lake]

My argument is, there is no evidence I have seen presented that SINGLE ESTROGEN PUBERTY transitioners have MEANINGFUL (statistically significant) competitive advantages over non-transitoned single-estrogen-puberty individuals.

This is a very narrow and specific argument. Are you aware of any transwomen athletes who were hormone suppressed throughout their entire puberty? I don't, but I also don't really know how to google that. All of the cases I've seen have been post-puberty transitioners.

I suspect we're discussing very different topics here.

 

[Emily Lake]

It says that in some men's sports (eg baseball and field hockey) the advantage over traditional women's categories is 50% (in pitching speed and strength of flick respectively). 40% for combat sports. That's a LOT. Rugby (a big sport here) is not mentioned (perhaps it's not an olympic sort, I can't recall), but I would think that there are significant issues there.

Not to mention that like DrZ, Trausti is still not kicking between the goalposts.

The bar is single puberty. I don't see *anyone* here endorsing the position of the OP. Nobody in any sane position would, because the OP position is not sane.

What is being asked by reasonable people is instead the inverse: that gender identity ought have NOTHING to do with it, NOR should sex. And as one of the most aggressive defenders of trans people and their rights on these forums, even I am on the side of only allowing SINGLE PUBERTY athletes, barring strong evidence that the time frame in contention is sufficient to remove meaningful exposure-based advantages.

But apparently, there's no way to argue against that, Mostly because it's a reasonable position based on evidence and the shape of reality. So I guess people have to argue against a straw man instead.

Honestly, I think you may have put up your goalposts in a basketball court. Your position on this is interesting, I don't have any strong view on it, because I really don't have any information at all about it. I don't know if complete testosterone suppression through the entirety of puberty and replacement with estrogen would negate the effects of male biology. It might... but I just don't know of enough people who have done so for me to have any information. I actually don't know of any. So far as I know, hormone suppression and the delay of puberty for suspected transgender teens is a pretty new thing.

That said... I have personal hesitation about delaying or interfering with puberty. I have a god-daughter with Kallman Syndrome, and there are a LOT of risks and considerations if puberty doesn't trigger as expected. Maybe hormone replacement would mitigate those risks, but bodies are awfully complex. I'm not the one with the dysphoria, nor do I know any teens going through it, so it's more academic to me.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Transgender Women in The Female Category of Sport: Is the Male Performance Advantage Removed by Testosterone Suppression?

Longitudinal studies examining the effects of testosterone suppression on muscle mass and strength in transgender women consistently show very modest changes, where the loss of lean body mass, muscle area and strength typically amounts to approximately 5% after 1 year of treatment. Thus, current evidence shows that the biological advantage enjoyed by transgender women is only minimally reduced when testosterone is suppressed. Sports organizations may therefore be compelled to reassess current policies regarding participation of transgender women in the female category of sport.

It says that in some men's sports (eg baseball and field hockey) the advantage over traditional women's categories is 50% (in pitching speed and strength of flick respectively). 40% for combat sports. That's a LOT. Rugby (a big sport here) is not mentioned (perhaps it's not an olympic sort, I can't recall), but I would think that there are significant issues there.

Rugby sevens is now Olympic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_sevens_at_the_2016_Summer_Olympics

 

[Jarhyn]

My argument is, there is no evidence I have seen presented that SINGLE ESTROGEN PUBERTY transitioners have MEANINGFUL (statistically significant) competitive advantages over non-transitoned single-estrogen-puberty individuals.

This is a very narrow and specific argument. Are you aware of any transwomen athletes who were hormone suppressed throughout their entire puberty? I don't, but I also don't really know how to google that. All of the cases I've seen have been post-puberty transitioners.

I suspect we're discussing very different topics here.

I don't think we are talking about different things at all. I just took the most conservative possible position on the subject that doesn't dismiss trans people out-of-hand.

I don't really care what people are asking for. I care about that which is actually reasonable to ask.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's hard to quantify since transexual women are less sporty than women in general and are therefore competing less overall. Of those who are sporty they are winning more than CIS women proportionally. But doesn't prove anything, since it's a self selected group. It can also be argued that people with hangups about their gender and apearance are perhaps less likely to engage in activities where their bodies can be seen by people in general, which might explain the lesser degree of sportiness. So it's difficult to tease out the numbers.

But there's a shortcut. What I argued in the beginning of this thread is that the numbers we should be comparing is how often trans men are winning competitions. And compare that number to how often trans women are winning things. It turns out that when women transition to men, that is typically the end of their sports career. It's extremely rare that it isn't. Trans women typically just keep going.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_people_in_sports#Notable_trans_athletes

If the moment a woman transitions to a man he doesn't have a chance in hell to win anything, but a man transitioning to a woman does, then the prior gender is a significant factor. I'd argue to a huge degree, just based on the numbers.

Nice try moving your goalposts.

I'm going to just file this in the circular file for now.

Let me reiterate:

My argument is, there is no evidence I have seen presented that SINGLE ESTROGEN PUBERTY transitioners have MEANINGFUL (statistically significant) competitive advantages over non-transitoned single-estrogen-puberty individuals.

Your bar of evidence, your goalpost, as a result of this position is to provide peer reviewed study that shows a meaningful, statistically significant advantage over single puberty non-transitioners.

You may find some evidence amid basketball. It may be the case that additional caveats may apply there, due to height acquired from delayed puberty. But this isn't an argument to disallow "trans" people and more of an argument for denying individuals who have chemically delayed the onset of puberty/termination of long bone growth beyond 5 STD of time. This applies to people who are not trans, as well.

Good luck.

I don't think I've moved the goalpost. You are demanding a number that proves nothing, yet claim its the only number that matters.

Why do you think that the sports careers of trans men is over once they transition? What's your theory for this?

I'd also like to point out that a sex change is a huge change in a persons life. It's very stressful. For many reasons. So is being an athlete. It's remarkable that transwomen find the mental power to keep training at an elite level even during and after a transition. Yet, so many trans women keep competing and place well. It's remarkable

 

[Jarhyn]

It's hard to quantify since transexual women are less sporty than women in general and are therefore competing less overall. Of those who are sporty they are winning more than CIS women proportionally. But doesn't prove anything, since it's a self selected group. It can also be argued that people with hangups about their gender and apearance are perhaps less likely to engage in activities where their bodies can be seen by people in general, which might explain the lesser degree of sportiness. So it's difficult to tease out the numbers.

But there's a shortcut. What I argued in the beginning of this thread is that the numbers we should be comparing is how often trans men are winning competitions. And compare that number to how often trans women are winning things. It turns out that when women transition to men, that is typically the end of their sports career. It's extremely rare that it isn't. Trans women typically just keep going.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_people_in_sports#Notable_trans_athletes

If the moment a woman transitions to a man he doesn't have a chance in hell to win anything, but a man transitioning to a woman does, then the prior gender is a significant factor. I'd argue to a huge degree, just based on the numbers.

Nice try moving your goalposts.

I'm going to just file this in the circular file for now.

Let me reiterate:

My argument is, there is no evidence I have seen presented that SINGLE ESTROGEN PUBERTY transitioners have MEANINGFUL (statistically significant) competitive advantages over non-transitoned single-estrogen-puberty individuals.

Your bar of evidence, your goalpost, as a result of this position is to provide peer reviewed study that shows a meaningful, statistically significant advantage over single puberty non-transitioners.

You may find some evidence amid basketball. It may be the case that additional caveats may apply there, due to height acquired from delayed puberty. But this isn't an argument to disallow "trans" people and more of an argument for denying individuals who have chemically delayed the onset of puberty/termination of long bone growth beyond 5 STD of time. This applies to people who are not trans, as well.

Good luck.

I don't think I've moved the goalpost. You are demanding a number that proves nothing, yet claim its the only number that matters.

Why do you think that the sports careers of trans men is over once they transition? What's your theory for this?

I'd also like to point out that a sex change is a huge change in a persons life. It's very stressful. For many reasons. So is being an athlete. It's remarkable that transwomen find the mental power to keep training at an elite level even during and after a transition. Yet, so many trans women keep competing and place well. It's remarkable

Yes, you have moved a goalpost. I am not demanding something that proves nothing, I am demanding you to disprove the final position on which I stand.

There are facts in play here: the fact that it is unfair to ask someone to allow into competition an athlete who would have access to the benefits of a well known and well studied competitive advantage that the entire league was created to not have to deal with; that there is a population of people who do have not been exposed meaningfully to that advantage that would be excluded by a blanket ban on "trans persons" competing in that league, for whom it would be unfair to ask to compete against those who have aforementioned advantage.

Further, you moved a goalpost right in this post. We aren't talking about trans men (except perhaps those who have yet to start their hormonal transition). If people want to start taking testosterone at prescribed levels, there will need to be an additional regulatory hurdle to pass in "men's" sports deciding what an acceptable level may be, but that is not insurmountable.

Now, in the last bit, you seem to flop back and forth with your positions. Are you saying here now that trans-women should be competing with women? Or that they should be competing with (those who have been exposed to testosterone)? Your statement at the end says nothing and leverages nothing. It stands on no position and argues no point other than "being trans is hard". Of course being trans is hard. That doesn't make any difference on what competitive league one has a right to attempt competing in.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes, you have moved a goalpost. I am not demanding something that proves nothing, I am demanding you to disprove the final position on which I stand.

There are facts in play here: the fact that it is unfair to ask someone to allow into competition an athlete who would have access to the benefits of a well known and well studied competitive advantage that the entire league was created to not have to deal with; that there is a population of people who do have not been exposed meaningfully to that advantage that would be excluded by a blanket ban on "trans persons" competing in that league, for whom it would be unfair to ask to compete against those who have aforementioned advantage.

You are claiming that transwomen who never underwent a male puberty do not have any of the advantages that flow to natal males in sports.

Prove it.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yes, you have moved a goalpost. I am not demanding something that proves nothing, I am demanding you to disprove the final position on which I stand.

There are facts in play here: the fact that it is unfair to ask someone to allow into competition an athlete who would have access to the benefits of a well known and well studied competitive advantage that the entire league was created to not have to deal with; that there is a population of people who do have not been exposed meaningfully to that advantage that would be excluded by a blanket ban on "trans persons" competing in that league, for whom it would be unfair to ask to compete against those who have aforementioned advantage.

You are claiming that transwomen who never underwent a male puberty do not have any of the advantages that flow to natal males in sports.

Prove it.

You claim a positive and statistically significant effect. You can't prove a negative. Nice try shifting a burden of proof, bit it doesn't work that way.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes, you have moved a goalpost. I am not demanding something that proves nothing, I am demanding you to disprove the final position on which I stand.

There are facts in play here: the fact that it is unfair to ask someone to allow into competition an athlete who would have access to the benefits of a well known and well studied competitive advantage that the entire league was created to not have to deal with; that there is a population of people who do have not been exposed meaningfully to that advantage that would be excluded by a blanket ban on "trans persons" competing in that league, for whom it would be unfair to ask to compete against those who have aforementioned advantage.

You are claiming that transwomen who never underwent a male puberty do not have any of the advantages that flow to natal males in sports.

Prove it.

You claim a positive and statistically significant effect. You can't prove a negative. Nice try shifting a burden of proof, bit it doesn't work that way.

You are making the positive claim: that the only thing that counts is the form of the puberty. The burden of proof is entirely on you. You want to disrupt the sex segregation of sports, not me.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't think I've moved the goalpost. You are demanding a number that proves nothing, yet claim its the only number that matters.

Why do you think that the sports careers of trans men is over once they transition? What's your theory for this?

I'd also like to point out that a sex change is a huge change in a persons life. It's very stressful. For many reasons. So is being an athlete. It's remarkable that transwomen find the mental power to keep training at an elite level even during and after a transition. Yet, so many trans women keep competing and place well. It's remarkable

Yes, you have moved a goalpost. I am not demanding something that proves nothing, I am demanding you to disprove the final position on which I stand.

There are facts in play here: the fact that it is unfair to ask someone to allow into competition an athlete who would have access to the benefits of a well known and well studied competitive advantage that the entire league was created to not have to deal with; that there is a population of people who do have not been exposed meaningfully to that advantage that would be excluded by a blanket ban on "trans persons" competing in that league, for whom it would be unfair to ask to compete against those who have aforementioned advantage.

Further, you moved a goalpost right in this post. We aren't talking about trans men (except perhaps those who have yet to start their hormonal transition). If people want to start taking testosterone at prescribed levels, there will need to be an additional regulatory hurdle to pass in "men's" sports deciding what an acceptable level may be, but that is not insurmountable.

I took it up because I think comparing the sports results of transmen and transwomen is a great way to glean how transition affects performance in sports.

Also "prescribed levels". There's no definition of what is cool or not. The transexuals get to decide themselves what levels to chose. "What feels right for them". People are inherently self serving. We can't blame anybody for doing so. Obviously trans athletes will fuck around with their hormone levels to give them an edge. If they wouldn't, they wouldn't be serious about their athletic performance.

Now, in the last bit, you seem to flop back and forth with your positions. Are you saying here now that trans-women should be competing with women? Or that they should be competing with (those who have been exposed to testosterone)? Your statement at the end says nothing and leverages nothing. It stands on no position and argues no point other than "being trans is hard". Of course being trans is hard. That doesn't make any difference on what competitive league one has a right to attempt competing in.

The trans community has been going on endlessly about transexuals being neither men nor women. It's a third gender. Why not listen to them, and take their opinion to heart? They would know. They are the transexuals. And then we can stop debating whether or not it's fair for transexual women to compete on equal grounds with cis women. How about transexuals competing in their own league?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Also "prescribed levels". There's no definition of what is cool or not. The transexuals get to decide themselves what levels to chose. "What feels right for them".

Typically medical transition is supervised by an endocrinologist or some other medical professional. Prescriptions are based on medical guidelines coupled with with the patient's medical history, lab work and response to the medication. While patients can opt to take less medication, it's atypical a doctor would prescribe any amount with no upper limit. It can present increased health risks, and it can can actually be counterproductive to transition.

That said, transgender patients can self-medicate if they have a supply, and they can fuck with their own dosing. But so can anyone, really. That's why athletics regulatory bodies have restrictions in place.

Obviously trans athletes will fuck around with their hormone levels to give them an edge. If they wouldn't, they wouldn't be serious about their athletic performance.

That doesn't follow. HRT for transition prioritizes transition. Fucking with your regimen can fuck with your outcomes. For some that may not be a deterrent, but for others it really is. Every athlete can fuck around with their hormone levels and various forms of doping. Many do. Many don't.

The trans community has been going on endlessly about transexuals being neither men nor women. It's a third gender. Why not listen to them, and take their opinion to heart? They would know. They are the transexuals. And then we can stop debating whether or not it's fair for transexual women to compete on equal grounds with cis women. How about transexuals competing in their own league?

I think Jarhyn has a very close connection to someone trans. I may be the only actual 'transexual' person who has participated in this thread.

Generally, no.
First, 'trans' as an umbrella term and 'transexual' are different. The former includes a range of identities pertaining to gender which include binary and non-binary gender alike. This is not typified by a statement that transgender people are a third gender. It's characterized by a recognition that gender identity falls along a spectrum. One of the common slogans amongst the trans community is 'trans women are women/ trans men are men's.

'Transexual' is an older term which some preserve in present-day usage for those who medically transition from one side of the binary to the other, typically including genital surgery as well as hrt. It isn't always used that way, but generally, there is a distinction. Transexuals, of all groups counted amongst the trans umbrella, are probably the least likely on average to identify with or even recognize non-binary gender. While some may regard their biological characteristics as being not purely male or female, I doubt you would find a great number who consider themselves a third gender. You likely would find some. You can also find some MtF transexuals who refer to themselves as men or males. It's a big world.

 

[Emily Lake]

My argument is, there is no evidence I have seen presented that SINGLE ESTROGEN PUBERTY transitioners have MEANINGFUL (statistically significant) competitive advantages over non-transitoned single-estrogen-puberty individuals.

This is a very narrow and specific argument. Are you aware of any transwomen athletes who were hormone suppressed throughout their entire puberty? I don't, but I also don't really know how to google that. All of the cases I've seen have been post-puberty transitioners.

I suspect we're discussing very different topics here.

I don't think we are talking about different things at all. I just took the most conservative possible position on the subject that doesn't dismiss trans people out-of-hand.

I don't really care what people are asking for. I care about that which is actually reasonable to ask.

I don't think most posters in this thread are dismissing trans people out of hand though.

I don't know who you're arguing with, or what it is that you think you're arguing against.

 

[Emily Lake]

There are facts in play here: the fact that it is unfair to ask someone to allow into competition an athlete who would have access to the benefits of a well known and well studied competitive advantage that the entire league was created to not have to deal with; that there is a population of people who do have not been exposed meaningfully to that advantage that would be excluded by a blanket ban on "trans persons" competing in that league, for whom it would be unfair to ask to compete against those who have aforementioned advantage.

Who are you arguing with? On the first point (that there is a well established advantage due to male physiology) isn't something that I think any of us disagree on. On the second point (a blanket ban on trans persons competing) I think only Metaphor has argued for, and I think it's almost entirely premised on the impact of puberty.

So far as I know, you're the only person who has proposed that people who do not go through a male puberty at all, presumably including children that take hormone blockers starting at about 12 and them do HRT and testosterone suppression, should be allowed to compete in female leagues. You seem as if you feel that everyone is arguing with you about that position... but I don't think anyone is, because we don't have any examples to look to for it. I have no opinion for or against that, I don't know of anyone who has done it. Most of the people in this thread have been satisfied with reasonable testosterone limits in place for competition in a female sport, even if that isn't really sufficient to eliminate all of the advantages of a testosterone puberty.

Like I said, I really don't know who you're arguing with, or why. But you're clearly very passionate about it.