• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

RE: transgender women racing against women.

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Re:

rick james said:
King Boonen said:
Mod hat on:

Hi all, this a very emotive discussion for many and we are aware there will be strong opinions. We're going to let the thread stay as we think it's a topic worth discussion but we are going to keep a very close eye on it. Any transphobic comments may result in a very long, if not permanent ban. Transgender women are women and so use of male pro-nouns is transphobia. Do not do it. Repeatedly stating you opinion when someone posts actual facts or research for discussion without taking this into account is trolling.

Cheers,

KB.


that's lies

No, it isn't. The terms man and woman in this case are based on gender which is a social construct. You are thinking of a persons sex.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
rick james said:
who knew I could be womens world champion if I just said I was a women
If you undergo the hormone therapy that the IOC currrently requires and you’re good enough, have at it.

which is absolutely ridiculous imho as it clearly is not just about hormones...
those women should be boycotting this comedy on the bigger scale at first place but i fear they might just be too afraid to speak up (except few of them) cause of the PC stuff.
or maybe they're are even fine with it - in that case it's all cool i guess.
 
Re: Re:

Mayomaniac said:
Red Rick said:
I don't see how you could argue that women and trans women are biologically the same and will not perform different in sports

I don't see how it's fair cis women that trans women can compete if they have a biological advantage, which I'm pretty sure they do.

I feel like we're only waiting for a trans woman to dominate a really big mainstream sport before **** really hits the fan with this discussion
A few years ago women's MMA had Fallon Fox Who argued that it was her right to compete against woman. Some of her opponents that got beaten complained about her sheer strength
All the fuzz stopped when she lost her 4th fight and pretty much faded away into obscurity, but the fact that it was a combat sport made the whole discussion even more heated.
If someone's body went through puberty as a man, then you will retain some muscle mass and bone density, those things and a few other biological differneces aren't that easy to change.
I understand that she just wants to live as a woman and that she wants to compete, but I don't know if it's fair.
She's also clearly pushing her own agenda as a professor with a focus on gender studies (I have been obligated to visit a few gender studies courses at university and I have my opinions when it comes to a decent amount of those classes, but I that's not the point of this discussion): "She believes hormone suppression is against human rights and that testosterone testing is insensitive."
Sorry, but I have to say it, that's pretty ignorant and stupid, I think that trans woman should have to undergo a few years of hormonal therapy before being allowed to compete against a women's field, there are biological advantages that aren't just a social construct.
In Thailand it's actually not that strange to have transgender and trans women compete in Muay Thai, but they compete against men, so it's something rather differnet.
Very true. You cannot argue there aren't biological differences between cis women and trans women. Now they just correct for hormones and hope there aren't any differences that are too big.

Yeah, first thing is that people engaging in the discussion should actually use fair arguments damnit.
 
I'll bring up Renee Richards. She played college tennis as a man, even entering the US Open a few times, transitioned at the age of 40/41, and proceeded to play the USO in women's singles and doubles in her mid 40s.

She fought for the right to play in the women's game, but has reconsidered her position, saying that if she had transitioned in her early 20s no woman would've been close to her

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9e_Richards
 
Re:

King Boonen said:
Clearly? That’s the issue though isn’t it, because Rachel lost a lot of races that many people think she should have “clearly” won.


From what I’ve read the majority are absolutely fine with it. What do you think of Chris Mosier?

Well there are sports in which top women are on par with mid-tier men - so should they compete together? Or was Mosier regularly among top 5 in the world-level races after his transformation? Did he win any WCH medals? Maybe he did... I admit I didn't search much outside that wiki link. If he did not, was it because he wan't good enough or because it was simply impossible cause it's clearly not just about hormones after all?
Maybe if I'll have some more time to spare I can look for some scientific/medical studies about the matter and find out I was completely wrong...
 
Sexual dimorphism of the human species is not limited to just reproductive organs and overall size. By body weight, men tend to have a more powerful CV system and a more massive, stronger musculoskeletal system.

And there are architectural differences throughout that go to making men the more powerful. Hold your arms straight out from your shoulders, parallel to the floor with palms up. Go ahead, do it now, ...I'll wait.

If you were born male, your arms will be relatively straight at the elbow. If you were born female, there will be a pronounced inward bend at the elbow. This difference goes to the mechanical efficiency of that joint.

Men also tend to have narrower hips, which goes to a more nearly vertical femur, which goes to more efficient ambulation. When the women line up for the finals in the Olympic 100-metre dash, there won't be a single broad-hipped woman among them. It's essentially the same thing as the Q-factor of pedals, which I'm sure we as cyclists all are aware of the importance of. Women who are the fastest runners have an atypical hip architecture that is more nearly like a typical man's.

Because women tend to be narrower at the waist, their rib cage tends also to be narrower and of a more limited in capacity than a man's. And there are similar sex-related differences throughout the entire body, some major and some minute, but in terms of athletic performance, nearly all of them work to the man's advantage. And none of them -- these architectural advantages -- are removed during sex reassignment surgery.


And then there's this:

Muscle memory may be encoded in muscle fiber nuclei

http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/selections_8_16_10.shtml
A cellular memory mechanism aids overload hypertrophy in muscle long after an episodic exposure to anabolic steroids

Both speak to the possibility that the performance advantages gained from taking anabolic steroids even briefly could at the very least take years to completely dissipate, and might never be lost. So what does that say about a man who has been the beneficiary of the anabolic steroids that his own body had been producing for 15 years before undergoing sex reassignment? In the case of a (formerly) male competitive athlete, the superior CV system and more massive muscloskeletal system are natural advantages that will persist (to a certain extent) as long as she continues to train. And how can the competition against women who were born that way be fair when he had been self-administering substantial doses of anabolics since the first day of puberty?

If you were born male and reached maturity in that same state, it is unlikely you will ever lose all of the man's natural athletic performance advantages.


Since time immemorial the most powerful bovine draught animal has been the ox. The ox is a bull that was allowed to grow to maturity before being castrated. But just because the bullock lost its bollocks does not mean it becomes a cow.
 
Re:

rick james said:
who knew I could be womens world champion if I just said I was a women
If you're better than Annemiek van Vleuten and Anna van der Breggen, sure. I won't presume to know what kind of standard cyclist you are, but the level isn't so low. Did you read the article about Nathalie? She's been in the women's péloton for over a decade, has found a stable team which has accepted her and given her a place to ride, and has been able to enjoy a pro career that's lasted several years and helped her immensely on a personal level too. She's never come close to getting selected for the Worlds, let alone competing with the best at them. I'm sure should she have reached the point of being nominated for them, it could have raised this issue over again and in that respect the fact she's Dutch has likely prevented that since the Netherlands has such an abundance of top tier women's riders. While she dealt with a lot of resentment at first, especially once she started scoring decent results rather than just being buried in the bunch, and took a lot of abuse including dead-naming (a cardinal sin with trans people) within the péloton and outside of it too, she's managed to forge a path where now her position in the péloton is more or less accepted and other women's pros are accustomed to her presence. She's now won a good few races on the domestic calendar and while initially there was a lot of fuss about it, it died down with time as people got used to it. There wasn't even a massive amount of fuss when she won a stage of the Lotto Belgium Tour from a break in a race including a lot of very high end talent, or podiumed the Ronde van Gelderland, although the fact her sprint is so miserable she lost one to Kasia Niewiadoma might factor into that.
 
Re:

StyrbjornSterki said:
Sexual dimorphism of the human species is not limited to just reproductive organs and overall size. By body weight, men tend to have a more powerful CV system and a more massive, stronger musculoskeletal system.

And there are architectural differences throughout that go to making men the more powerful. Hold your arms straight out from your shoulders, parallel to the floor with palms up. Go ahead, do it now, ...I'll wait.

If you were born male, your arms will be relatively straight at the elbow. If you were born female, there will be a pronounced inward bend at the elbow. This difference goes to the mechanical efficiency of that joint.

Men also tend to have narrower hips, which goes to a more nearly vertical femur, which goes to more efficient ambulation. When the women line up for the finals in the Olympic 100-metre dash, there won't be a single broad-hipped woman among them. It's essentially the same thing as the Q-factor of pedals, which I'm sure we as cyclists all are aware of the importance of. Women who are the fastest runners have an atypical hip architecture that is more nearly like a typical man's.

Because women tend to be narrower at the waist, their rib cage tends also to be narrower and of a more limited in capacity than a man's. And there are similar sex-related differences throughout the entire body, some major and some minute, but in terms of athletic performance, nearly all of them work to the man's advantage. And none of them -- these architectural advantages -- are removed during sex reassignment surgery.


And then there's this:

Muscle memory may be encoded in muscle fiber nuclei

http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/selections_8_16_10.shtml
A cellular memory mechanism aids overload hypertrophy in muscle long after an episodic exposure to anabolic steroids

Both speak to the possibility that the performance advantages gained from taking anabolic steroids even briefly could at the very least take years to completely dissipate, and might never be lost. So what does that say about a man who has been the beneficiary of the anabolic steroids that his own body had been producing for 15 years before undergoing sex reassignment? In the case of a (formerly) male competitive athlete, the superior CV system and more massive muscloskeletal system are natural advantages that will persist (to a certain extent) as long as she continues to train. And how can the competition against women who were born that way be fair when he had been self-administering substantial doses of anabolics since the first day of puberty?

If you were born male and reached maturity in that same state, it is unlikely you will ever lose all of the man's natural athletic performance advantages.


Since time immemorial the most powerful bovine draught animal has been the ox. The ox is a bull that was allowed to grow to maturity before being castrated. But just because the bullock lost its bollocks does not mean it becomes a cow.

I wonder if Phillipa York is interested in chiming in. I'd love to get her perspective.
That said, the post quoted above makes a ton of sense to someone who is not familiar with the terms used to describe human physiology. .
 
Re: Re:

avanti said:
King Boonen said:
As I said, trans woman is fine if there is a need to differentiate in the discussion.

I chose size as the easiest metric as people can see it. Yes, there are plenty of other factors and these will also vary greatly across the sexes. It’s not about whether trans athletes have an advantage, it’s about whether that advantage is greater than the advantages other pro women have.

I once read that women are at a diadvantage to men as runners because of their hip-joint configuration. Could this also apply to female cyclists?


Interesting question, don't know the answer to it. However, women's hips do change if they've ever been pregnant and more so if they've given birth (naturally vs C-section).
 

FootyG

BANNED
Sep 27, 2018
9
0
1,530
Visit site
Trans always have the slight advantage that testosterone offers. Look at Semanya, she's dominating her field too. So yes, there should be a law for this
 
Martina Navratilova criticised over 'cheating' trans women comments

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/feb/17/martina-navratilova-criticised-over-cheating-trans-women-comments

-0-

allowing transgender women to compete in women’s sporting tournaments was “insane and cheating”.

“You can’t just proclaim yourself a female and be able to compete against women. There must be some standards, and having a penis and competing as a woman would not fit that standard.”

“To put the argument at its most basic: a man can decide to be female, take hormones if required by whatever sporting organisation is concerned, win everything in sight and perhaps earn a small fortune, and then reverse his decision and go back to making babies if he so desires.

-0-

3 arrow splitting bull's-eyes!

-0-!-0-

"Transphobic" is simply a label used in order to enable their agenda. However, I believe people are not "phobic" to transgender athletes; people simply think they should compete amongst themselves.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
rick james said:
King Boonen said:
Mod hat on:

Hi all, this a very emotive discussion for many and we are aware there will be strong opinions. We're going to let the thread stay as we think it's a topic worth discussion but we are going to keep a very close eye on it. Any transphobic comments may result in a very long, if not permanent ban. Transgender women are women and so use of male pro-nouns is transphobia. Do not do it. Repeatedly stating you opinion when someone posts actual facts or research for discussion without taking this into account is trolling.

Cheers,

KB.


that's lies

No, it isn't. The terms man and woman in this case are based on gender which is a social construct. You are thinking of a persons sex.

Seems to me that the issue is paradoxical. Men have a competitive advantage over women in most sports on the basis of biology not identity.
 
Re: Re:

macbindle said:
King Boonen said:
rick james said:
King Boonen said:
Mod hat on:

Hi all, this a very emotive discussion for many and we are aware there will be strong opinions. We're going to let the thread stay as we think it's a topic worth discussion but we are going to keep a very close eye on it. Any transphobic comments may result in a very long, if not permanent ban. Transgender women are women and so use of male pro-nouns is transphobia. Do not do it. Repeatedly stating you opinion when someone posts actual facts or research for discussion without taking this into account is trolling.

Cheers,

KB.


that's lies

No, it isn't. The terms man and woman in this case are based on gender which is a social construct. You are thinking of a persons sex.

Seems to me that the issue is paradoxical. Men have a competitive advantage over women in most sports on the basis of biology not identity.

You'll have to expand on this. Are you saying you think trans-women are men? Do you know what is currently required from someone who is born male to compete as female and what affect these requirements will have on their body?
 
I think a trans-woman is a trans-woman. Is she the same as cis women? I'm undecided. I'm fully aware of the debate and the theories around gender. I'm also aware of the violent nature of the debate and the real violence from which trans people suffer.

With regards to sport, yes, I am aware of the rules regarding trans women competing in sport as women and the effect this has on their bodies. However, I'm also aware that trans women may benefit from male physiology that lasts beyond their treatment and I can well understand why cis female athletes feel this is unfair.

I don't think the issues around trans people, identity and gender are at all resolved, actually, which is why I'm not accepting anybody telling me what a trans woman/man is, or isn't, from either side, however angrily they state it, and whatever accusatory epithets they may choose to apply to me. That said, I'm happy to call anybody by their preferred pronoun. It makes no difference to me. Fairness in sport is another matter, and as I said it is the biology that is crucial not the identity.
 
Re:

macbindle said:
I think a trans-woman is a trans-woman. Is she the same as cis women? I'm undecided. I'm fully aware of the debate and the theories around gender. I'm also aware of the violent nature of the debate and the real violence from which trans people suffer.

With regards to sport, yes, I am aware of the rules regarding trans women competing in sport as women and the effect this has on their bodies. However, I'm also aware that trans women may benefit from male physiology that lasts beyond their treatment and I can well understand why cis female athletes feel this is unfair.

I don't think the issues around trans people, identity and gender are at all resolved, actually, which is why I'm not accepting anybody telling me what a trans woman/man is, or isn't, from either side, however angrily they state it, and whatever accusatory epithets they may choose to apply to me. That said, I'm happy to call anybody by their preferred pronoun. It makes no difference to me. Fairness in sport is another matter, and as I said it is the biology that is crucial not the identity.

Do you have any evidence to support this? Words like "may" and "feel" don't help.

As for the discussion about trans-people, it's really not for this thread (and probably not for this forum to be honest). I can send you lots of good videos on the subject if you really want.

That said, I'm happy to call anybody by their preferred pronoun. It makes no difference to me.
This is an example of meta-physical skepticism and it's not really good position to hold (it used to be my position).
 
Ive really tried to read up on the whole transgender debate in recent weeks because I'm trying to get my head around it. I'm fully conversant with notions of gender as social construct, but there is something nagging about the nature of identity and gender that I can't quite put my finger on. Fully aware of the TERF wars too. I have a long time acquaintance on another cycling forum who is a trans woman and I've kept abreast of the developments over quite a few years (No pun intended). I had a real world teenage contact who transitioned, then reverted about 6 years later. So none of this stuff is new to me. I suppose the sport issue crystallizes my awareness that this is not something I've resolved in my own head.

I'm not sure I agree with you on my 'metaphysically sceptical' position. I don't see a pragmatic alternative, and frankly if I decided that I didn't consider trans-woman as women it would be a view I would keep to myself for fear of causing harm to people who are already in a difficult position. I can live with nuance and contradiction.

With regards to potential advantages that a post-puberty trans woman may have I can cite one very obvious unequivocal example...height.

There are others such as muscle mass and bone density, but I'd have to hunt around for some citations.

I think it is worth mentioning that there doesn't seem to be any controversy surrounding trans men having an unfair advantage when participating in male sports. I don't need to explain the implications of this to you, I'm sure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS