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

[Metaphor]

No, you're truly not.

If you were to say that a trans woman was male, you would probably be right in the genetic sense not in the person sense. A man who undergoes castration and has his penis removed is still a man because not only his genetics but his brain is also wired to be a man.

What does it mean for a brain 'wired to be a man'?

For transgendered individuals, there's actually a difference in brain structures that makes male to female trans individuals more similar to women and female to men trans people more male than female.

What difference in brain structures? Do you mean their thoughts and preferences?

When Target or Kmart or whoever it was decided to stop segregating 'boys toys' and 'girls toys', there was a little bit of an outcry. It didn't bother me either way, because when I buy gifts for my nieces and nephews, I bug their parents to tell me the exact specific thing I should get, because who knows what chidren are interested in. I don't care if it's a 'boys toy' or a 'girls toy', because you should just let children play how they want to play and it doesn't change their sex or imply their brains are like the 'opposite' sex.

But it is interesting that so many of the words that are used to insult male homosexuals are female names: Nancy, Mary (which I had never heard), Queen to imply effeminacy which is silly. Not all gay men are effeminate and not all effeminate men are gay just as not all 'butch' women are gay and not all gay women are 'butch.'

No, but plenty of gay men are effeminate and plenty of lesbians are butch. This reality shouldn't bother people.

 

[ruby sparks]

"Faggot","girlyboy","Mary","queen" are all applied to men who are or perceived to be homosexual or effeminate. They are terms applied only to men.

A conservative would have to believe me to be a man to call me any of those things.

I don't find conservatives calling me any such thing though, though I notice you personally have said I'm a lesser man for being homosexual.

The first part seems to be missing the point, I think, because they are not, in at least some cases, male descriptors, therefore at the very least the person using them (and some do, whether they be conservatives or not) is, it seems, signalling that the person they are applying them to is not, as they see it or describe it (by using non-male descriptors) fully or really a proper man. That is the point.

The second part.....I personally don't actually think you are less of a man, I was just trying to make what I would say is a related (though not identical) comparison, as was ZiprHead, and indeed a few others, although their point might be slightly different to mine. I would not say that what the people who might use female descriptors for you, for example, are doing is the same thing as you are doing by saying that a trans woman is not a man. In one way, you are right, and imo in another way you are wrong, because they are a woman (better to say they are female) in at least one valid and crucial way, which I agree with you is not necessarily, imo, enough for them to either use women's changing rooms or compete against cis woman in physical sports. And as for insisting they be referred to simply as a woman, on a par with cis women, that is imo a bit problematical, although it might depend on individual instances and/or outliers.

I do not know what proportion of trans persons care about those aspects of the matter, or how much they care about them, or whether the majority just want to be treated with respect, dignity and tolerance and not have to suffer prejudice and so on, and for others to at least accept that the combination term trans woman (or man) is valid, and describes a real, actual and important feature of their personhood.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The solution is obvious. Either create a trans league, or force all trans (M2F and F2M) to compete upwards in the male league.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

The solution is obvious. Either create a trans league, or force all trans (M2F and F2M) to compete upwards in the male league.

Neither would resolve the issue of disparate biological advantage. The first 'solution' would have so little of a population to draw on* you might as well just have a rec league. This is not to suggest that it couldn't be done or that it would be the worst of all possible options. I just wouldn't say it's obvious that it even is a solution let alone an obvious solution.

Unless maybe you were joking?

*Somewhat speculative, I admit, but I wouldn't say unreasonable.

 

[Toni]

What does it mean for a brain 'wired to be a man'?



What difference in brain structures? Do you mean their thoughts and preferences?

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/research-on-the-transgender-brain-what-you-should-know/

“When we look at the transgender brain, we see that the brain resembles the gender that the person identifies as,” Dr. Altinay says. For example, a person who is born with a penis but ends up identifying as a female often actually has some of the structural characteristics of a “female” brain.

And the brain similarities aren’t only structural.

“We’re also finding some functional similarities between the transgender brain and its identified gender,” Dr. Altinay says.

In studies that use MRIs to take images of the brain as people perform tasks, the brain activity of transgender people tends to look like that of the gender they identify with.

Cleveland Clinic is extremely well regarded, with an excellent national and international reputation. Mentioned in case you are not familiar.

Here's another article I found: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan/

When Target or Kmart or whoever it was decided to stop segregating 'boys toys' and 'girls toys', there was a little bit of an outcry. It didn't bother me either way, because when I buy gifts for my nieces and nephews, I bug their parents to tell me the exact specific thing I should get, because who knows what chidren are interested in. I don't care if it's a 'boys toy' or a 'girls toy', because you should just let children play how they want to play and it doesn't change their sex or imply their brains are like the 'opposite' sex.

Toys, books and clothing have all become much more gender specific compared with when I was a child, although perhaps that is changing back now. Children of my parents' generation wore dresses until they were two or three regardless of gender. It made toileting easier. In my generation, girls were relegated to frilly dresses early on, at least for school but few girls I grew up with were particularly interested in having all pink everything. Or pink. At one time, a hundred or more years ago, pink was considered to strong a color for girls and therefore 'masculine' and assigned for boys and men. As a child, I played with dolls--and blocks and puzzles and building sets and my very favorite toy was a fire engine that ran on batteries and had flashing lights and at least in my memory (but maybe only my imagination) fired real water. Boys did not wear camouflage anything unless they were specifically playing 'army.' OTOH, today girls have many more opportunities to become involved in athletics than in the past.

But it is interesting that so many of the words that are used to insult male homosexuals are female names: Nancy, Mary (which I had never heard), Queen to imply effeminacy which is silly. Not all gay men are effeminate and not all effeminate men are gay just as not all 'butch' women are gay and not all gay women are 'butch.'

No, but plenty of gay men are effeminate and plenty of lesbians are butch. This reality shouldn't bother people.

It's pretty telling that it is insulting to call males by feminine names or to say things such as "you throw like a girl." Or " don't be such a girl about it" and so on. As a general insult. It seems that the worst thing that a male can be called is female. Try imagining it from the female side and you might get my point.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The solution is obvious. Either create a trans league, or force all trans (M2F and F2M) to compete upwards in the male league.

Neither would resolve the issue of disparate biological advantage. The first 'solution' would have so little of a population to draw on* you might as well just have a rec league. This is not to suggest that it couldn't be done or that it would be the worst of all possible options. I just wouldn't say it's obvious that it even is a solution let alone an obvious solution.

Unless maybe you were joking?

*Somewhat speculative, I admit, but I wouldn't say unreasonable.

I'm not joking. There are more and more trans athletes that we might be able to do so. The second solution is the real solution.

There are women who compete in the mens leagues. There are not men who compete in the womens leagues. There is a reason for that. For most sports, the male league is genuinely more challenging. As a result a separate league for women was created to give women their own chance to compete.

So if one person wishes to exceed the bounds of the womens league, and if there is no trans league, then that person should compete upwards. Competing upwards is the way to ensure the person doesn't have an unfair advantage.

My son is in high school. He is acquainted with a person who is a girl who joined the school football team. She was accepted too. She had to be tough enough to earn her way on. She did. It isn't impossible. She isn't even trans.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The solution is obvious. Either create a trans league, or force all trans (M2F and F2M) to compete upwards in the male league.

Neither would resolve the issue of disparate biological advantage. The first 'solution' would have so little of a population to draw on* you might as well just have a rec league. This is not to suggest that it couldn't be done or that it would be the worst of all possible options. I just wouldn't say it's obvious that it even is a solution let alone an obvious solution.

Unless maybe you were joking?

*Somewhat speculative, I admit, but I wouldn't say unreasonable.

I'm not joking. There are more and more trans athletes that we might be able to do so. The second solution is the real solution.

There are women who compete in the mens leagues. There are not men who compete in the womens leagues. There is a reason for that. For most sports, the male league is genuinely more challenging. As a result a separate league for women was created to give women their own chance to compete.

So if one person wishes to exceed the bounds of the womens league, and if there is no trans league, then that person should compete upwards. Competing upwards is the way to ensure the person doesn't have an unfair advantage.

My son is in high school. He is acquainted with a person who is a girl who joined the school football team. She was accepted too. She had to be tough enough to earn her way on. She did. It isn't impossible. She isn't even trans.

I have great compassion for Trans women and understanding. But I do think that it's very unfair for trans women to participate in women's leagues. Men have genetic advantages in terms of strength and size that make it unfair.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

There are women who compete in the mens leagues. There are not men who compete in the womens leagues. There is a reason for that. For most sports, the male league is genuinely more challenging. As a result a separate league for women was created to give women their own chance to compete.

Right, but of transgender competitors, biological advantage is highly variable. If a transgender female blocks testosterone from the onset of puberty, there isn't really a medical case to be made for advantage. If she underwent male puberty and subsequently suppressed testosterone levels, she may have some degree of advantage (though it may depend on the sport and the particulars of her case), but she would have a reduced level of advantage against cisgender men, and possibly transgender men who use testosterone for transition. If a transgender woman undergoes no medical aspects of transition, then her level of advantage is consistent with cisgender men, barring perhaps some sort of disorder of sexual development.

So in this 'obvious solution' we have a scenario where transgender women must 'compete upwards' or forego medical transition if they choose to compete, but cisgender women are not comparably required to 'compete upwards' or even on equal footing against the segment of transgender women who wouldn't have particular advantage. What is the rationale for who must compete upwards and who must not?

For the record, I would hope someday we can reach a level of scientific understanding where no one needs to compete upwards against inherent biological advantages. Currently, we may not have that level of understanding, which effectively means many transgender woman may not be able to meet reasonable criteria for competition with women, and yet may be similarly disadvantaged competing against cisgender and some transgender men.

 

[Jokodo]

There have actually been cases of cisgendered female athletes who were barred, or threatened to be barred, from their sport because of naturally occurring unusually high testosterone levels.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutee_Chand

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

There have actually been cases of cisgendered female athletes who were barred, or threatened to be barred, from their sport because of naturally occurring unusually high testosterone levels.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutee_Chand

It's an ongoing issue. I believe the current status in the IAFF is these women can compete if they suppress testosterone levels, but that may be specific to certain events. The issue has been debated for quite a few years now, and questions are certainly being raised on the nature of biological advantage and how much we should account for it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So in this 'obvious solution' we have a scenario where transgender women must 'compete upwards' or forego medical transition if they choose to compete, but cisgender women are not comparably required to 'compete upwards' or even on equal footing against the segment of transgender women who wouldn't have particular advantage. What is the rationale for who must compete upwards and who must not?

It is more fair to ask them to compete up than to ask them to compete down. The fact that cis-gendered women aren't asked to compete up but instead to compete with their own doesn't mean they are asked to compete down. They are asked to compete with their own. Transgendered people are in that special case where they can either compete up or compete down but cannot compete against their won with a league of their own. Given that their two choices (only two) are to compete up or compete down then it is only fair to ask them to compete up.

It is the obvious solution, because it is the fair solution. Until and unless a trans league is established, the right thing to do is compete upwards. The alternative are the headlines we see about how trans athletes are dominating womens sports and those who don't have the unfair advantage think it is unfair competition.

Do you think it would be fair if a professional athlete were to enter amateur sports events?

 

[ruby sparks]

I have great compassion for Trans women and understanding. But I do think that it's very unfair for trans women to participate in women's leagues. Men have genetic advantages in terms of strength and size that make it unfair.

I'm going to guess you switched from trans women in the first sentence to men in the second because effectively you see trans woman as men?

 

[ruby sparks]

So in this 'obvious solution' we have a scenario where transgender women must 'compete upwards' or forego medical transition if they choose to compete, but cisgender women are not comparably required to 'compete upwards' or even on equal footing against the segment of transgender women who wouldn't have particular advantage. What is the rationale for who must compete upwards and who must not?

It is more fair to ask them to compete up than to ask them to compete down. The fact that cis-gendered women aren't asked to compete up but instead to compete with their own doesn't mean they are asked to compete down. They are asked to compete with their own. Transgendered people are in that special case where they can either compete up or compete down but cannot compete against their won with a league of their own. Given that their two choices (only two) are to compete up or compete down then it is only fair to ask them to compete up.

It is the obvious solution, because it is the fair solution. Until and unless a trans league is established, the right thing to do is compete upwards. The alternative are the headlines we see about how trans athletes are dominating womens sports and those who don't have the unfair advantage think it is unfair competition.

Do you think it would be fair if a professional athlete were to enter amateur sports events?

On balance, and while it's an imperfect solution and sucks for trans sportswomen, I would slightly reluctantly tend to agree with you, with perhaps a caveat that if there is no advantage (either because of the nature of the sport or because of a high degree of transition, including perhaps reduced testosterone) that some trans women might be allowed to play against cis women, or better to say that some sports or some leagues or competitions might be able to allow it.

And it's not just to do with the sporting performance advantages or disadvantages, as might be the case in golf for example, or foot races. In a lot of contact sports, there are risks of injury, possibly severe injury. A smaller cis woman playing rugby or Gaelic football or American football against a larger trans woman who has a physically strong or bulky male body (perhaps with higher bone density) and aggression levels to match could be partly analogous to a non-adult playing those sports against an adult, and that is often not allowed simply for safety reasons.

ETA: one could make the general statement that in physical sports, unlike in other activities, the nature of the body can take more priority.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

So in this 'obvious solution' we have a scenario where transgender women must 'compete upwards' or forego medical transition if they choose to compete, but cisgender women are not comparably required to 'compete upwards' or even on equal footing against the segment of transgender women who wouldn't have particular advantage. What is the rationale for who must compete upwards and who must not?

It is more fair to ask them to compete up than to ask them to compete down. The fact that cis-gendered women aren't asked to compete up but instead to compete with their own doesn't mean they are asked to compete down.

All you're doing is shifting the obligation of accepting disadvantage from one demographic to another. The moral story is, the situation is fair as long as transgender women are the group disadvantaged by competition brackets. This way of thinking doesn't seek to remove disadvantage or equalize. This doesn't present a solution or fairness. At best, perhaps, it reflects an unfortunate status quo where there is not much which can be done with available resources and sorting.

Until and unless a trans league is established...

A transgender league makes no sense with regard to advantage. Transgender people run the gamut of biological advantage from female norms to male norms. Either you give a fuck about biological advantage or you don't. The idea that it only matters when you are cisgender is nonsense.

Do you think it would be fair if a professional athlete were to enter amateur sports events?

In many cases, yes. In some sports it's virtually required as the qualifying rounds won't all involve professional athletes.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

All you're doing is shifting the obligation of accepting disadvantage from one demographic to another.

Not just that. Female athletic leagues were established specifically because they could not compete against men. Now you want to eliminate that protection. You don't make the rules around the special cases. Well, I don't. apparently you do.

The moral story is, the situation is fair as long as transgender women are the group disadvantaged by competition brackets.

It isn't about disadvantaging trans women or trans men, but about not disadvantaging women.

This way of thinking doesn't seek to remove disadvantage or equalize.

Yes it does.

This doesn't present a solution or fairness.

Yes it does.

Until and unless a trans league is established...

A transgender league makes no sense with regard to advantage.

Yes it does.

Do you think it would be fair if a professional athlete were to enter amateur sports events?

In many cases, yes.

So if Corporation A is having an employee softball game against Corporation B, having Corporation A "hire" a few professional baseball players is perfectly fine?

 

[Toni]

Not just that. Female athletic leagues were established specifically because they could not compete against men. Now you want to eliminate that protection. You don't make the rules around the special cases. Well, I don't. apparently you do.



It isn't about disadvantaging trans women or trans men, but about not disadvantaging women.

This way of thinking doesn't seek to remove disadvantage or equalize.

Yes it does.

This doesn't present a solution or fairness.

Yes it does.

Until and unless a trans league is established...

A transgender league makes no sense with regard to advantage.

Yes it does.

Do you think it would be fair if a professional athlete were to enter amateur sports events?

In many cases, yes.

So if Corporation A is having an employee softball game against Corporation B, having Corporation A "hire" a few professional baseball players is perfectly fine?

Cough cough: Women’s leagues were created because women were not allowed to compete with men. Just like they weren’t allowed to have certain jobs (teacher, waitress, nurse, actress, seamstress, store clerk, prostitute) or make decisions for themselves or vote, etc. not that different in some ways from the reason baseball had the Negroe Leagues. Oh, women were allowed to play league baseball during WWII or to work in factories, welding, etc.

Women’s league baseball just disappeared as women were expected to give way to the men returning home. Other women’s sports leagues have been very slow to develope and are really pretty recent.

There are rev leagues in many sports where teams are co-ed these days. But so far, not pro or semipro.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Not just that. Female athletic leagues were established specifically because they could not compete against men.

As already explained, transgender women and transgender men do not categorically have advantage over cisgender women. It is variable based on steps taken to medically transition. Furthermore, transgender people do not have the same degree of advantage compared to one another.

Now you want to eliminate that protection. You don't make the rules around the special cases. Well, I don't. apparently you do.

I've not said anything of the sort.

Yes it does.

Ah, so I see. Fairness, solutions and advantage considerations are solely the entitlement of cisgender people. As long as they aren't disadvantaged or excluded (at least not on the basis of being cisgender), it's all good.

So if Corporation A is having an employee softball game against Corporation B, having Corporation A "hire" a few professional baseball players is perfectly fine?

You are honestly talking about bringing in ringers for an employee ballgame as f that is somehow relevant or analogous? Who gives a fuck? It's an employee ballgame. It would be unfair to have serious amateurs competing against total novices even without the introduction of pros. Or former pros or college athletes competing against weekend warriors. There are all sorts of scenarios where there would be sizeable gaps in advantage based on experience.

Is life an episode of the Simpsons to you?

 

[ruby sparks]

Other women’s sports leagues have been very slow to develop....

Some of the leagues might be recent, but at least the women themselves are often well-developed.





Question: Are men allowed to play in this league (I can imagine a few who might want to)? If not, is this unfair discrimination?

 

[ruby sparks]

One thing that makes this topic interesting, and complicated, is that many of those those who want to restrict trans women's participation in women's sports are trying to limit unfairness to women.

 

[J842P]

Ah, so I see. Fairness, solutions and advantage considerations are solely the entitlement of cisgender people. As long as they aren't disadvantaged or excluded (at least not on the basis of being cisgender), it's all good.

Not at all. It doesn't consider gender. Sports are segregated based on sex not on gender. So how is it unfair to transgender people?