Transgender sporting question

[EM2]

So what I read above about the rules being changed so that she soon won’t be allowed to compete based on testosterone giving her an unfair advantage is nonsense, is it?

But that has nothing to do with whether Semenya is transgender or not, just that the IAAF believe that testosterone above a certain level gives an advantage.

 

[Bromley boy]

That doesn't relate to your nonsense claim that she is/was a man and everything has been hushed up.
The real situation is extremely well reported.

I didn’t make that claim, I said I couldn’t conclude either way based on what I had read.

I agree with the poster above who felt that the photo looked strikingly masculine.

 

[Bromley boy]

But that has nothing to do with whether Semenya is transgender or not, just that the IAAF believe that testosterone above a certain level gives an advantage.

That opens up a related question.

If she indeed suffers from a disorder that gives her an abnormally high level of testosterone, and other female athletes would be disqualified from artificially boosting their testosterone to the same level, is it unfair that she should be asked to take drugs to suppress her’s to “normal” (for a cis female) levels?

 

[tony_mac]

I didn’t make that claim,

you kind of did...
"it seems likely it is a case of a biological male competing as a woman, but the whole thing has been hushed up"

There has been extensive testing, and the information is very well known, but you are choosing not to 'believe' it for your own reasons.

 

[Bromley boy]

And yet it is what the IOC and IAAF base their criteria on.
Let's look at Jillian Bearden:
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/07/first-female-transgender-pro-cyclist-colorado-classic-2017/

Fair enough, although I know there is quite a bit of controversy in the sporting world about how trans athletes may have an advantage over cis competitors.

I did multiple searches for trans, women, sport, record, champion, and various combinations thereof, as well as looked at the Wikipedia page for transgender sportspersons, then did searches for all the ones identified as trans women.
Nothing came up.

Ok.

Were women, not are.

That’s a matter of philosophical discussion. I don’t agree that someone suffering from gender dysphoria ceases to be male/female based purely on how they perceive themselves.

At the moment, the sample is infinitesimally small to be able to compare, as there doesn't appear to be any trans men at the top level of any sport.

Well then.

 

[Bromley boy]

you kind of did...
"it seems likely it is a case of a biological male competing as a woman, but the whole thing has been hushed up"

There has been extensive testing, and the information is very well known, but you are choosing not to 'believe' it for your own reasons.

That was based on what I read (briefly) above. I’ve subsequently asked a further question about based on the working assumption she is indeed a cis female.

There has been quite a bit of controversy from what I can see, so I will reserve my judgement on the matter. I like to deal in facts, evidence and analysis rather than PC soundbites.

 

[EM2]

If she indeed suffers from a disorder that gives her an abnormally high level of testosterone, and other female athletes would be disqualified from artificially boosting their testosterone to the same level, is it unfair that she should be asked to take drugs to suppress her’s to “normal” (for a cis female) levels?

Yes it is. Michael Phelps, for example, has an unusual physiology in a number of ways, such as a longer arm span than his height and hypermobile ankles, so should he have had surgery so that he didn't have those advantages?

 

[tony_mac]

Fair enough, although I know there is quite a bit of controversy in the sporting world about how trans athletes may have an advantage over cis competitors.

Are you talking about transgender or hyperandrogenous athletes?

I like to deal in facts, evidence and analysis

I haven't seen much evidence of that!

 

[amateur]

That was based on what I read (briefly) above. I’ve subsequently asked a further question about based on the working assumption she is indeed a cis female.

There has been quite a bit of controversy from what I can see, so I will reserve my judgement on the matter. I like to deal in facts, evidence and analysis rather than PC soundbites.

She was born female. And is female. She never transitioned.

 

[Bromley boy]

Are you talking about transgender or hyperandrogenous athletes?

Transgender.

I haven't seen much evidence of that

I think you’ve just seen some reasoned postings that don’t fit into your world view, and haven’t been able to respond in kind.

Yes it is. Michael Phelps, for example, has an unusual physiology in a number of ways, such as a longer arm span than his height and hypermobile ankles, so should he have had surgery so that he didn't have those advantages?

But that’s not a medical disorder, that’s a straightforward physical difference. I’m 6”3 which means, based on that characteristic alone, I might be better than someone whose 5”5 at basketball (although that’s highly doubtful, with my coordination!).

If I suffered from an unusual neurological disorder that gave me levels of a certain chemical in my body which it would be illegal for me to artificially replicate according to the rules of the sport, I agree it would be unfair for me to compete with athletes who didn’t have a similar condition.*

If I was 5”5 and had bionic legs fitted to make me taller, more agile, stronger, that also wouldn’t be fair.

Surely sport is supposed to be about testing the natural gifts, commitment, athletic training etc. of one human being against another, with a complete absence of performance enhancing drugs or surgical enhancements of any kind.

This thread opened with a posting about whether it’s right that a male school child who “identifies as female” (ie no surgery, no hormones), should compete with children of the same age, but the opposite sex/gender.

Another poster has said he doesn’t agree with segregated sports teams at all, and proposed their abolition.

The answer to both of the above should surely be “no”?

*I suppose it could be argued that this is still a “natural gift” of the athlete in question. However I’d counter that this scenario is still distinguishable from that of someone suffering a neurological disorder which leads them to having a lot of distinctly unnatural surgery and hormone therapy.

 

[EM2]

But that’s not a medical disorder, that’s a straightforward physical difference. I’m 6”3 which means, based on that characteristic alone, I might be better than someone whose 5”5 at basketball (although that’s highly doubtful, with my coordination!).

If I suffered from an unusual neurological disorder that gave me levels of a certain chemical in my body which it would be illegal for me to artificially replicate according to the rules of the sport, I agree it would be unfair for me to compete with athletes who didn’t have a similar condition.

If I was 5”5 and had bionic legs fitted to make me taller, more agile, stronger, that also wouldn’t be fair.

Phelps has hypermobility of his ankles, meaning that they can flex more and therefore get more power into his kick, that's surely a disorder?
Despite being overweight and doing very little exercise, I have a very slow resting heart rate, which means that my heart is not under strain and that gives me excellent stamina. Is that unfair?

Surely sport is supposed to be about testing the natural gifts, commitment, athletic training etc. of one human being against another human being, with an absence of performance enhancing drugs or surgical enhancements of any kind.

And Semenya hasn't taken any drugs, or had any surgery. She has a natural gift, which just happens to mean that she can run very fast.

This thread opened with a posting about whether it’s right that a male school child who “identifies as female” (ie no surgery, no hormones), should compete with children of the same age, but the opposite sex/gender.

I used to coach kids football, and up to the age of ten, we didn't segregate the group at all. Games were close, everyone developed their skills and honed their techniques. Apart from natural ability, there was pretty much nothing to choose between them.

Another poster has said he doesn’t agree with segregated sports teams at all, and proposed their abolition.

I don't agree with that.

 

[Bromley boy]

Phelps has hypermobility of his ankles, meaning that they can flex more and therefore get more power into his kick, that's surely a disorder?

Not really, it’s a natural gift. It hasn’t been given by any surgery or artificial enhancement.

Despite being overweight and doing very little exercise, I have a very slow resting heart rate, which means that my heart is not under strain and that gives me excellent stamina. Is that unfair?

The same category as above, it’s a natural gift.

And Semenya hasn't taken any drugs, or had any surgery. She has a natural gift, which just happens to mean that she can run very fast.

If that’s the case then I can accept why she is allowed to compete with women.

I used to coach kids football, and up to the age of ten, we didn't segregate the group at all. Games were close, everyone developed their skills and honed their techniques. Apart from natural ability, there was pretty much nothing to choose between them.

But prepubescent 10 year olds kicking a ball around after school is little different to elite adult athletics, no? Where the results speak for themselves and show that men out perform women in absolute terms, to the point where the best female equivalent would be little competition for Mo Farah, Usain Bolt, etc.

I don't agree with that.

Well then why do you agree with biological men (albeit with surgery/hormone therapy) competing with women?

Why not simply put them into a different category altogether?

 

[EM2]

But prepubescent 10 year olds kicking a ball around after school is little different to elite adult athletics, no?

Yes, but you referred to school children in your post above.
This thread opened with a posting about whether it’s right that a male school child who “identifies as female” (ie no surgery, no hormones), should compete with children of the same age, but the opposite sex/gender.

Well then why do you agree with biological men (albeit with surgery/hormone therapy) competing with women?
Why not simply put them into a different category altogether?

Because, as we've discussed at length, there appears to be no evidence that they are at any advantage.

 

[Bromley boy]

Yes, but you referred to school children in your post above.
This thread opened with a posting about whether it’s right that a male school child who “identifies as female” (ie no surgery, no hormones), should compete with children of the same age, but the opposite sex/gender.

Alright I’ll give you that - if there’s no risk or physical harm due to boys being bigger than the girls, for primary age kids, then where’s the harm?

The OP seemed to be discussing segregated teams, so perhaps they were discussing older children - we were certainly segregated from secondary age and above which is when the taller boys started shooting up in height.

Certainly by age 12 - 14 there were boys in my year approaching 6 feet, or even over that in one or two cases.

Because, as we've discussed at length, there appears to be no evidence that they are at any advantage.

But equally there’s no evidence that they aren’t at an advantage.

However, there’s an overwhelming body of evidence that cis male athletes, biological men (who, after all, male - female transgender athletes are, despite hormones/surgery), do have a significant advantage over cis females.

I don’t see what your objection is to creating a seperate category altogether for trans athletes.

 

[amateur]

Not really, it’s a natural gift. It hasn’t been given by any surgery or artificial enhancement.



The same category as above, it’s a natural gift.


?

Can the same be said of Semenya. Natural gift. No surgery. No artificial enhancement.

 

[EM2]

However, there’s an overwhelming body of evidence that biological men (who, after all, male - female transgender athletes are, despite hormones/surgery) do have a significant advantage over cis females.

But this supposed advantage doesn't translate into results, does it? There's is absolutely no evidence of it.

I don’t see what your objection is to creating a seperate category altogether for trans athletes.

Because it isn't necessary.

 

[Bromley boy]

Can the same be said of Semenya. Natural gift. No surgery. No artificial enhancement.

Yes - I slightly refined my argument in my previous post.

If it’s within’s someone natural gift (even if down to an unusual disorder) then yes, that should be allowed. A basketball player who suffers from gigantism is still naturally tall.

Any kind of surgery/enhancing drugs surely shouldn’t. Otherwise why don’t we simply allow all athletes to dose themselves up with whatever drugs they prefer and compete on that basis?

(The reason that we don’t, of course, is that sport is supposed to be down to a competition of natural ability).

 

[EM2]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-22/sport-is-in-transition-whether-you-like-it-or-not/9074436

Dr Ruth McNair is a member of the Victorian Government's LGBTI taskforce and is one of few experts working in the transgender space in Australia.

She, like others, was not consulted by the AFL before it made its decision to exclude Mouncey from this year's draft.

When women transition they take female hormones as well as testosterone blockers.

"Many trans women affirm their gender by using female hormones … so in trans women the testosterone level is usually suppressed well into the female range," Dr McNair says.

"Most transgender women get into that female testosterone range within the first couple of months of using estrogen … it stays in that range for as long as they continue their hormone treatment."

The big question is whether there is some overlapping benefit of having had the advantage of male levels of testosterone in the years leading up to a person's transition.

"The only benefit is the body shape that developed due to testosterone during adolescence," Dr McNair says.

"So trans women have developed their bodies in a masculine frame so they might have a larger bone mass and be taller, but in general that's the only ongoing effect … [due to treatment] their muscle mass and strength is reduced."

The AFL, in this week's decision, cited concerns of stamina, strength and physique.

Dr McNair believes the medical evidence does not support that view.

"No, I don't. Obviously with physique, Hannah can't change that, but the strength and stamina will have altered due to her hormonal treatments," she says.

It's a difference Bagger can attest to as she embarked on her professional golf career.

"I did notice [after transition] there was a significant difference," she says.

"I'd go and play the same golf course — and even playing from the same tees — I noticed I had to use a completely different club, so the change is very real and very significant.

"It does take a period of time, I'm not sure of the quantifiable length of time, obviously two years is one that's used a lot at the moment in most policies, but it is a gradual and very real effect on the body."
...
US-based medical physicist Joanna Harper, a trans woman and competitive runner, has written an academic paper on transitioning and the impact on sports performance.

"When I started to transition in 2004 … within nine months I had started running 12 per cent slower than I had been before and men run 10-12 per cent faster than women — and so in nine months, I had lost all of my male advantage," she says.

"I have spoken with Hannah off and on for over a year now and Hannah is absolutely a large, strong woman and transgender women are on average bigger and stronger, so of course transgender women have athletic advantages, but they also have disadvantages too.

"So the question is, can transgender women and cisgender women [those who identify as their sex assigned at birth' compete against each other in an equitable and meaningful competition?

"The science says 'yes'.

"Specifically with regard to Hannah, she's big … but one of the things is that she has a large skeletal system which hasn't reduced in size, but her muscles have substantially reduced in size and strength.

"So she now has a female-size engine trying to move this big skeletal frame around and that is going to cause her some substantial disadvantages."
...
Sports lawyer and gender equity and diversity specialist Catherine Ordway believes the AFL may be concerned about the legal repercussions of allowing trans women to play in the AFLW.

"That is the only argument I can imagine the AFL is running through to come up with this decision," she says.

"That they're concerned on the behalf of the other players, that they may be at higher risk of physical injury on the field.

"However, the fact is, Hannah has been playing in the local league in Canberra for the last season and her coach has publicly said that there hasn't been any issues, and from what he's observed there's no reason to think that there would be and the risk would be extremely low, if at all.

"In this particular case I can't understand why the argument would be that the AFL women are not strong enough to cope with playing with or against Hannah and yet it's OK for what is presumably a weaker competition in the local league for Hannah to continue to play.

"That seems to me to be a contradiction that they can't support."

 

[Bromley boy]

But this supposed advantage doesn't translate into results, does it? There's is absolutely no evidence of it.

Because it isn't necessary.

Which results? From the above discussion I think we have established the following (and please correct any of the statements below if they are wrong):

1. There’s overwhelming evidence that cis men have an innate sporting advantage over cis women (bigger, stronger, muscle mass, bone density, aggression etc.);

2. Non segregated teams of CIS male/female athletes are something you @EM2 don’t agree with (why?);

3. Trans women are biological men, with surgery and hormone therapy (including reduced testosterone, but potentially excluding other factors that are involved in sporting prowess, as noted above);

4. There isn’t much evidence that CIS athletes are outperformed by trans athletes but, equally, there isn’t much/any evidence they aren’t (since hardly any trans athletes compete);

5. This subject is currently a controversial issue within the sporting world, and within feminism generally.

So, based on the above why is it safe to conclude that one group of biological men (trans athletes) can compete on a level playing field with cis female athletes when we don’t really know anything about trans athletes (other than that they’re biological men), but we do know that another group of biological men (cis male athletes) cannot?

 

[Bromley boy]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-22/sport-is-in-transition-whether-you-like-it-or-not/9074436

I’m not sure this article helps your argument as much as you might think (it’s not the kind of high quality news source I’d usually use, but I’ll go with it anyway). Did you actually read it with a critical eye?

I’ve only quoted a couple of passages directly, for the sake of brevity. The rest I’m sure you can find for yourself:

The article commences from the premise that there is a great deal of controversy over trans women in sport (not exactly helping your case);

It continues by equating the advantages natural females may have in sport (longer limbs, mental strength) as being the same as advantages that may stem from being a “female” who was born male - simply not the same thing to most cis people, both female and male, I’m afraid;

Every day athletes are beaten by others with identifiable difference. And yet those differences are allowed.

It could be physical difference like longer limbs in sports like basketball or swimming; it could be better training facilities enjoyed by developed nations over developing nations; it could be superior mental strength over those who struggle with big occasions.

It mentions Caster Semenya whom you have repeatedly stated is not trans (see my revalation below, although that’s more for my following post!);

It states the benefits of naturally occurring male hormones ingested in the years leading up to transition, which equal a larger male physique, bigger frame, yet also acknowledges these benefits are retained for years after “transitioning”;

It also directly contradicts your previous statement that testosterone levels are lower in trans athletes than in cis females - it says they are the same, after the trans athlete has taken a number of hormones to artificiality produce that result);

It cites a paper from an author who moonlights as a trans female athlete (no bias there then);

I note you didn’t quote the following text from the above article (once again, you fail to appreciate the importance of the feminism lobby to all this);

A tertiary educated, former elite athlete, now working as a coach, summed up the thoughts of many.

"I don't think it's fair that anyone with the advantages of once being a male gets to compete against females," said the coach, who chose not to be named.

"I would not want to be beaten by someone like that after all the years of hard work I put in."

It also somehow chucks homophobia into the mix. A complete non sequitur which has nothing to do with it.

Care to comment on the above? If so, please really comment on it, in terms of a rigorous, line by line, analysis...

 

[Bromley boy]

Lo and behold!

How disappointing.

Having now followed a link in the article above, I discover that Caster Semenya is, in fact, intersex.

Despite the above disingenuous comments, this is not a woman with an abnormal level of testosterone at all. In fact, it is someone who could have been assigned either gender and raised accordingly and presumably still has a pair of balls somewhere, given testosterone levels?!

I wonder how “she” would be doing if competing against men had gender been “selected the other way”.

Kind of makes my point for me as to how there should be different categories for trans/intersex athletes.

 

[Bromley boy]

Can the same be said of Semenya. Natural gift. No surgery. No artificial enhancement.

No. Not if she hasn’t had her balls removed.

Apologies, I must confess, I read your above post in a wholly different light previously, I didn’t realise what you meant.

I’m obviously innocent in these matters as a (whisper it) “cis heterosexual white male”!

 

[EM2]

Which results?

Results from the competitions in which they have taken part.

1. There’s overwhelming evidence that cis men have an innate sporting advantage over cis women (bigger, stronger, muscle mass, bone density, aggression etc.);

Correct.

2. Non segregated teams of CIS male/female athletes are something you @EM2 don’t agree with (why?)

Because of the above.

3. Trans women are biological men, with surgery and hormone therapy (including reduced testosterone, but potentially excluding other factors that are involved in sporting prowess, as noted above);

While superficially correct, surgery and hormone therapy changes a person biologically too.

4. There isn’t much evidence that CIS athletes are outperformed by trans athletes but, equally, there isn’t much/any evidence they aren’t (since hardly any trans athletes compete);

Why do the trans athletes that do compete not win all the time, or even a majority of the time, if they have an advantage?

5. This subject is currently a controversial issue within the sporting world, and within feminism generally.

Correct.

So, based on the above why is it safe to conclude that one group of biological men (trans athletes) can compete on a level playing field with cis female athletes when we don’t really know anything about trans athletes (other than that they’re biological men), but we do know that another group of biological men (cis male athletes) cannot?

Because the biological changes and decrease in performance that occurs in trans women mean that they are competing equally with cis women. See the interview with Jillian Bearden earlier in the thread.

 

[farleigh]

It is an interesting debate, but pointless.

If I was a male tennis player ranked about 300 earning a pittance of about £50 000, I could just say I was a woman and become world no.1 over night earning millions. The top female players would be unranked if many men followed suit. Same for all other sports.

That is the reason.

 

[tony_mac]

Having now followed a link in the article above, I discover that Caster Semenya is, in fact, intersex.

You act like this is some revelation - it is the most basic fact about her that everybody else knows, and have been referring too throughout this thread.
She does not have any external male sexual organs, and has been treated as female since birth - it was only the detailed tests she has undergone since becoming an athlete that revealed this condition.

It seems you have been arguing for days about something, without knowing the most basic facts, which would have been obvious after a 1-minute search.

 

[Bromley boy]

Why do the trans athletes that do compete not win all the time, or even a majority of the time, if they have an advantage?

We don’t have a big enough sample to draw from. We do know that an intersex athlete is currently competing at an elite level but will soon not be allowed to.

Because the biological changes and decrease in performance that occurs in trans women mean that they are competing equally with cis women. See the interview with Jillian Bearden earlier in the thread.

But, as discussed, you don’t have any evidence for that conclusion.

Time to draw a line under it I think.

 

[tony_mac]

We don’t have a big enough sample to draw from. We do know that an intersex athlete is currently competing at an elite level but will soon not be allowed to.

It has already been mentioned - but all 3 medalists in the 800m olympics were intersex athletes. After the IAAF's study, there are only a few events where they are deemed to have a large enough competitive advantage to make intervention necessary.
(There is an option of taking drugs to reduce testosterone levels - which is what was happening in the years immediately prior to 2015)

 

[AlterEgo]

It has already been mentioned - but all 3 medalists in the 800m olympics were intersex athletes. After the IAAF's study, there are only a few events where they are deemed to have a large enough competitive advantage to make intervention necessary.
(There is an option of taking drugs to reduce testosterone levels - which is what was happening in the years immediately prior to 2015)

Intersex athletes clearly have a competitive advantage if they identify as women - they should have their own category. It’s not a level playing field.

 

[pemma]

It’s not a level playing field.

For a level playing field entrants would have to fit in to weight and height categories plus they would need equal access to training facilities regardless of where they came from. British athletes competing in events like the Olympics or Commonwealth Games don't have to work due to the hefty level of funding they get from the government and National Lottery fund, while athletes from other countries can have to work full time and train in their free time and even then don't have access to the same level of training facilities we have in the UK.

 

[AlterEgo]

For a level playing field entrants would have to fit in to weight and height categories plus they would need equal access to training facilities regardless of where they came from. British athletes competing in events like the Olympics or Commonwealth Games don't have to work due to the hefty level of funding they get from the government and National Lottery fund, while athletes from other countries can have to work full time and train in their free time and even then don't have access to the same level of training facilities we have in the UK.

So you reckon all sports should be genderless then?