RE: transgender women racing against women.

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

frenchfry said:
King Boonen said:
frenchfry said:
King Boonen said:
No one is conflating them. You wanted to divide people in competition on biological sex. I merely pointed out that this is either impossible, or you ban lots of people from competing. I don't like the idea of denying people their rights.

...
I don't see how requiring competition based on biological gender is denying anyone their "rights". That is not the criteria transgender athletes would normally prefer, but it doesn't keep them from competing. It is also anything but impossible to do. A real difficulty is how to classify intersex athletes (like Caster Semenya) who are so from birth, but that is a significantly different situation.
So you want transmen to compete against cis-women? I would think that is much more likely to damage women’s sport.
I don't "want" anything. I am trying to understand the different points of view. It is a complicated subject, I had to google the term "cis-women" - life is a lot more complicated these days. If athletes are required to compete based on their "bioligical" gender, then I suppose that logically transmen would compete against cis-women.
Sorry, want was the wrong word. Transmen competing against women is much more of an issue. to transition they are given testosterone which will almost certainly give them an advantage. The "birth certificate rule" as it gets called in places where it's enacted leads to things like this:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/25/transgender-wrestler-mack-beggs-wins-texas-girls-title

It would also lead to people like Chris Mosier, a trans man who made the US duathlon squad, competing against women. This would be unfair.

Similarly, transwomen suppress their testosterone, so forcing them to compete against men would be unfair.

I can understand the arguments from both sides, but I certainly don't agree with your statements of opinion as if they are facts. This is a complicated debate with, in my opinion, no obvious outcome.
You’ll have to point out where I’ve done this, it’s certainly not my intention and I don’t think I have, but I’ll happily clarify/retract where appropriate.
You say that "dividing" people based on their biological sex is either impossible or will lead to banning them from competing. I am not a doctor, but I don't think it is impossible to classify people by their biological sex (except for certain rare cases like intersex individuals) and in any case the trans individuals would not be banned from competition, they would have to compete based on their biological sex. This may not be acceptable to them, or yourself, but it wouldn't be impossible.
You've even pointed out yourself why a binary division based on sex isn't possible. By population intersex people (as a general term, there are lots of genetic variations) are thought to occur about 3 times more often than trans people (1.6% intersex Vs. 0.6% trans). Many of these variations are not obvious at birth or even until later life. This division would require that everyone is genotyped. Intersex people have a much bigger impact on women's sport than trans people do if we're going to divide sport based on a binary definition.

In this discussion the "fair" part of the right to competition seems to have been lost. It is part of it.

I also don't see the relevance of constantly using examples of transgender athletes that don't succeed in dominating their sport.
Because that’s what the problem is isn’t it? Or are you saying that they shouldn’t be allowed to compete against women at any level?
I personally don't see that as the problem at all, but maybe I am missing something.

:Edited for quotes by KB. Hope you don't mind, it's just easier to follow.
This part I don't understand. You don't see transwomen dominating women's sport as a problem? That's pretty much where this discussion originated. I actually don't see it as a problem either.
 
In today's news on Cyclingnews.com:

Policing Gender Boundaries: Testosterone, sex-testing, and human rights

IOC, IAAF, UCI guidelines highlight the need for science and education

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/policing-gender-boundaries-testosterone-sex-testing-and-human-rights/

-0-

Two (at least) different complex issues.


1st is Caster Semenya's situation, where She was born a certain way and hasn't done anything to manipulate Her body.

2nd is McKinnon's case where He was born a certain way and has medically manipulated His body to something else.

For Me,
The 1st is easier to consider still requiring lots of thought, however, the 2nd seems very straight forward and doesn't unfairly treat men who have medically manipulated their body and wish to compete against women who have not medically manipulated their body.

Men who have used medical manipulation to become women should not be unfairly allowed to compete against women who have not medically manipulated their body.

Some people will attempt to argue it's unfair to prohibit man/woman vs woman but that is twisting it around from the fact that WHAT'S UNFAIR IS THE TREATMENT OF WOMEN.
 
Reactions: nevele neves
The GCW said:
In today's news on Cyclingnews.com:

Policing Gender Boundaries: Testosterone, sex-testing, and human rights

IOC, IAAF, UCI guidelines highlight the need for science and education

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/policing-gender-boundaries-testosterone-sex-testing-and-human-rights/

-0-

Two (at least) different complex issues.


1st is Caster Semenya's situation, where She was born a certain way and hasn't done anything to manipulate Her body.

2nd is McKinnon's case where He was born a certain way and has medically manipulated His body to something else.

For Me,
The 1st is easier to consider still requiring lots of thought, however, the 2nd seems very straight forward and doesn't unfairly treat men who have medically manipulated their body and wish to compete against women who have not medically manipulated their body.

Men who have used medical manipulation to become women should not be unfairly allowed to compete against women who have not medically manipulated their body.

Some people will attempt to argue it's unfair to prohibit man/woman vs woman but that is twisting it around from the fact that WHAT'S UNFAIR IS THE TREATMENT OF WOMEN.
Thank you. I agree 100%. The rights of the extreme majority (women born as women) need to take precedence ahead of the rights of an extreme minority (men who undergo medical conversion to women). If they wish to compete they should do so with men or else in a separate class for transsexual athletes.

Fair is not black and white. A line needs to be drawn. Making rules fair for a small minority does not work if it makes it unfair for the overwhelming majority of women who were born that way.

This is just how it is and people should accept it. It is like me complaining I wasn't born with the physiological capacity to win a grand tour so I should be allowed to dope and compete with more naturally gifted individuals. Slippery slopes.
 
Re:

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.
All that is wrong with the world is right there in the moderator's opening statement...

Encourages a debate on the issue.
Then threatens a permanent ban for "Wrongthink". Wow.
I would suggest the moderator should remain independent and not be taking such an extremist left wing position on the issue.
 
Re: Re:

Polyarmour 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.
All that is wrong with the world is right there in the moderator's opening statement...

Encourages a debate on the issue.
Then threatens a permanent ban for "Wrongthink". Wow.
I would suggest the moderator should remain independent and not be taking such an extremist left wing position on the issue.
No one has been banned as a result of this thread and you'll notice many posts that I've personally disagreed with.

My post was in line with a discussion between the mods and relates to other situations where people have actively mis-gendered people/been abusive. You are free to think whatever you want, that doesn't mean you're free to post whatever you want. My post clarifies the rules, no abuse, no trolling.

If you have a problem with any moderator on this forum you are free to raise the issue with another moderator or the publishers.
 
Re: Re:

Polyarmour 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.
All that is wrong with the world is right there in the moderator's opening statement...

Encourages a debate on the issue.
Then threatens a permanent ban for "Wrongthink". Wow.
I would suggest the moderator should remain independent and not be taking such an extremist left wing position on the issue.
Disagree entirely with this.....even the suggestion that the promotion of rights of trans women in sport
is a left wing issue. It isnt. There are plenty of left-wing feminists who hold very strong views that are not supportive of trans women.

King Boonen is doing an admirable job of modding AND posting in this thread. Nobody has been censured by him or other mods and he is debating his points comprehensively, intelligently and calmly. I dont agree with all his points, even his central point, but his approach to the discussion is unimpeachable.

If you think the threat of action against trans phobic comments is stifling free speech then you are either a bigot or (far more likely) misunderstanding what KB means by transphobia.

By way of example a statement such as " I dont believe that trans women are women" is unlikely to be regarded as trans phobic in the context of this thread, especially if there is a reasoned argument to support the view. However, a statement such as "I hate trans women because really they are just faggots in drag" will be regarded as trans phobic.

If you feel you want to utter the last phrase you are probably a bigot.
 
I'd like to reply. -And agree, A+
"King Boonen, is doing an admirable job of modding AND posting in this thread. Nobody has been censured by him or other mods and he is debating his points comprehensively, intelligently and calmly. I dont agree with all his points, even his central point, but his approach to the discussion is unimpeachable."

I feel as though this is an important topic that will become even more relevant & the discussion is comfortable here.
 
It's been interesting how in the recent months of boiling up to the UK general election, trans rights have been a lightning rod for right wing discontent. It's almost as if it is the last area of sexual politics where they can let their bigoted hatred run free.

Its a bit of a problem for me because I cant stand their bitterness and hatred, and I recognise that trans people have a *** time. I dont want them victimised, I hope for people to be who they want to be, love who they want to love, and yet, for me, there are huge philosophical holes in their arguments as to why they are women.

I guess that means I dont think they should compete against women.

(exact same argument applies to trans men)
 
Reactions: red_flanders
...misunderstanding what KB means by transphobia.

By way of example a statement such as " I dont believe that trans women are women" is unlikely to be regarded as trans phobic in the context of this thread, especially if there is a reasoned argument to support the view. However, a statement such as "I hate trans women because really they are just faggots in drag" will be regarded as trans phobic.
King Boonen defined exactly what he/she/they mean by "transphobia".

King Boonen said:
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.
That's a long, long way away from your "I hate trans women" example which I (or anyone I think) would agree is hate speech. Permanently banning someone for using the wrong pronoun is an extreme position IMO, whether they did it intentionally and repeatedly or not. Some people simply do not regard trans people as the new gender, particularly in a discussion about sport. In general it's a dumb position and disrespectful, but in the specific context of sport and fair competition, it's an entirely understandable view. As stated, I would entirely agree with Poly that this position by KB is "Wrongthink", and stifles reasonable discussion in favor of a view which is entirely debatable. I agree with you that it's not a left/right thing, it's simply an attempt at controlling the narrative in favor of a point of view. A terrible development for public discourse and free thought.

While I respect the right of the mod team to make rules, I don't respect this ruling. Respectfully, I think it needs more consideration.

Homophobia, transphobia, etc. are words people use to attack others. If you want to get someone to see the point of view that we're all humans and all deserving of the same kind of respect, making up phobias and assigning them to people isn't the way to engage. It's inaccurate, divisive, and counter-productive. Unless the intent is to degrade the target.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm...I see your point.

I have said, or implied, repeatedly that I dont think trans-women are women, or at least I am unconvinced by the arguments I have seen thus far. I remain unbanned.

I viewed KB's statement as more nuanced, in that he would censure blatant baiting. It's a bit of a non-issue (just like trans people in sports :) )as nobody has been sanctioned.

Having read and pondered this issue, I'm not even convinced that all trans women would necessarily regard a view that they are not women as 'transphobic'.

Probably shouldn't have reignited this thread, but for the fact it seems to ge a bugbear of the british right, along with halal meat (but not kosher), climate denial, prosecution of murderers who murdered whilst in uniform, oh and Brexit.
 
Hmmm...I see your point.

I have said, or implied, repeatedly that I dont think trans-women are women, or at least I am unconvinced by the arguments I have seen thus far. I remain unbanned.

I viewed KB's statement as more nuanced, in that he would censure blatant baiting. It's a bit of a non-issue (just like trans people in sports :) )as nobody has been sanctioned.

Having read and pondered this issue, I'm not even convinced that all trans women would necessarily regard a view that they are not women as 'transphobic'.

Probably shouldn't have reignited this thread, but for the fact it seems to ge a bugbear of the british right, along with halal meat (but not kosher), climate denial, prosecution of murderers who murdered whilst in uniform, oh and Brexit.
Agree it's a theoretical discussion until someone gets put in the cooler for it, but just reading through the posts, I was taken aback by the mod stance. Agree that KB would and has handled it in a nuanced fashion, but as stated...not good.

I disagree that trans people in sports is a non-issue, 'cause if I'm a woman losing money or medals or endorsements to someone with an unfair advantage, I'm not happy. It's an issue to them. Of course you're right that some segments of society will make it the "outrage of the day" and froth and moan about it as a political situation.

If we see a trans athlete win a major Olympic medal, it's going to be an issue. And that's where we seem to be headed. So I think it worthy of discussion.
 
Last edited:
King Boonen defined exactly what he/she/they mean by "transphobia".



That's a long, long way away from your "I hate trans women" example which I (or anyone I think) would agree is hate speech. Permanently banning someone for using the wrong pronoun is an extreme position IMO, whether they did it intentionally and repeatedly or not. Some people simply do not regard trans people as the new gender, particularly in a discussion about sport. In general it's a dumb position and disrespectful, but in the specific context of sport and fair competition, it's an entirely understandable view. As stated, I would entirely agree with Poly that this position by KB is "Wrongthink", and stifles reasonable discussion in favor of a view which is entirely debatable. I agree with you that it's not a left/right thing, it's simply an attempt at controlling the narrative in favor of a point of view. A terrible development for public discourse and free thought.

While I respect the right of the mod team to make rules, I don't respect this ruling. Respectfully, I think it needs more consideration.

Homophobia, transphobia, etc. are words people use to attack others. If you want to get someone to see the point of view that we're all humans and all deserving of the same kind of respect, making up phobias and assigning them to people isn't the way to engage. It's inaccurate, divisive, and counter-productive. Unless the intent is to degrade the target.
Sorry for the late reply, I was on an internet hiatus over Christmas and New Year.

I'm afraid I don't agree with this. Mis-gendering people deliberately is being deliberately harmful. The discussion in here has progressed fine without anyone being banned and I don't think anyone has even had a post deleted. It is perfectly possible to discuss this whole topic without misgendering people. As an example:

I can talk about red_flanders without using gendered pronouns. They have never told me which ones to use and as I wouldn't want to offend them I'll make sure I don't do it. I'm still perfectly able to discuss red_flanders and their valuable contribution to the forums and there is no need to mis-gender them in this discussion. Should they ask me to use specific pronouns when referring to them I can, or if I disagree I can refer to them without gender or by their username, red_flanders. What I wouldn't do is deliberately mis-gender them and if I happened to use the wrong gender pro-noun and it was pointed out I would apologise and make the effort to remember which pronouns to use in future.



It is perfectly possible for you to say that you believe trans women have an unfair advantage stemming from the differences in their biology. I think every user (no gender again) posting in this thread has been, and is, more than capable of making their arguments without posting anything specifically offensive. You've mentioned trying to get someone to see your point of view by showing respect, but misgendering people is not showing people respect is it? I'll refer you to a recent case of someone, Maya Forstater, whose contract was not renewed for being transphobic. They were misgendering people along with tweeting things. She decided to take the decision to court. The judges ruling contained the following:

“I conclude from … the totality of the evidence, that [Forstater] is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.”


I disagree that trans people in sports is a non-issue, 'cause if I'm a woman losing money or medals or endorsements to someone with an unfair advantage, I'm not happy. It's an issue to them. Of course you're right that some segments of society will make it the "outrage of the day" and froth and moan about it as a political situation.

If we see a trans athlete win a major Olympic medal, it's going to be an issue. And that's where we seem to be headed. So I think it worthy of discussion.
This has been discussed but again, what unfair advantage and what is your evidence? As for a trans athlete winning a major Olympic medal, no trans athlete has even qualified for the Olympics in all the years they have been able to compete. Why do you think that we are suddenly now headed in that direction?
 
It's been interesting how in the recent months of boiling up to the UK general election, trans rights have been a lightning rod for right wing discontent. It's almost as if it is the last area of sexual politics where they can let their bigoted hatred run free.

Its a bit of a problem for me because I cant stand their bitterness and hatred, and I recognise that trans people have a *** time. I dont want them victimised, I hope for people to be who they want to be, love who they want to love, and yet, for me, there are huge philosophical holes in their arguments as to why they are women.

I guess that means I dont think they should compete against women.

(exact same argument applies to trans men)
It's certainly a wedge issue, particularly the issue of trans women competing against other women. I think I've mentioned it before in this thread but it's eay to see why it's brought up. As you've pointed out, it's not a left/right issue. People on both sides of the political spectrum have opposing views on this (although I must say it's harder to find right wing politicians who are supportive of trans rights, it seems to be an issue that divides the left more). This issue is being used to to attack other basic rights, we've all seen where "separate but equal" leads. What is a small issue in the grand scheme of things is being used to drive hate against a vulnerable group of people.
 
The topic of allowing transgender women to race against women, (that is, men who have medically changed to women) should not be characterized as driving hate.
It's ultimately a conversation regarding fairness.

That's why I started this post.

I hope policy and laws are not created which legally mandate allowing transgender woman (that is, men who have medically changed to women) to race against women.

At present time there may be little evidence substantiating a reason to prohibit allowing transgender women (that is, men who have medically changed to women) to race against women, however, creating laws forcing women to race against them may be difficult to remove or change back, in the future once there is additional evidence of unfairness, manipulation etc. -Yet I fear that's where We're headed if allowed.

-0-

I'm all in favor of allowing transgender women (that is, men who have medically changed to women) to race.

It seems the population of transgender women / men who have medically changed to women, is growing and it would unquestionably be fair for men who have medically changed to women to race against other men who have medically changed to women.

-0-

This is not a live and let live comparison, -this is something else. All people should expect to live and not be bullied by bullies.
 
Reactions: nevele neves
Sorry for the late reply, I was on an internet hiatus over Christmas and New Year.


I'm afraid I don't agree with this. Mis-gendering people deliberately is being deliberately harmful. The discussion in here has progressed fine without anyone being banned and I don't think anyone has even had a post deleted. It is perfectly possible to discuss this whole topic without misgendering people.
I hear what you’re saying. I called it disrespectful and dumb, though I should have used the term “ingnorant” rather than dumb. For some people they just don’t grow up in a part of the culture where this is accepted or even understood. They genuinely have trouble getting their heads around this issue, and in particular, they are reacting to a genuine feeling where they perceive real unfairness. Calling a man who has become a woman “she” is genuinely uncomfortable and feels...wrong...to some people. Given this fact, attributing malice in a blanket fashion and threatening lifetime bans felt very wrong to me. It assumes you understand intent, which I find surprising. I understand you haven’t banned anyone, and I think this is a very good thing. I wouldn't bring it up again, but you also appear not to be moving off your right to do so in the future. A right you as a mod team certainly have, but to me feels like it would be an overreaction.

You also use the word “Transphobia”, which sounds like an attempt to shame people for not being comfortable with something they don’t understand. This clearly and unequivocally isn’t a phobia, and arguably not a fear in any way. You don’t have to be afraid of transgender athletes to object to them competing in gender-based competitive classes. You just have to think they have an unfair advantage.

It is perfectly possible for you to say that you believe trans women have an unfair advantage stemming from the differences in their biology. I think every user (no gender again) posting in this thread has been, and is, more than capable of making their arguments without posting anything specifically offensive. You've mentioned trying to get someone to see your point of view by showing respect, but misgendering people is not showing people respect is it? I'll refer you to a recent case of someone, Maya Forstater, whose contract was not renewed for being transphobic. They were misgendering people along with tweeting things. She decided to take the decision to court. The judges ruling contained the following:

“I conclude from … the totality of the evidence, that [Forstater] is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.”
Yes, I agree and again I said above, it’s “disrespectful and dumb", or more accurately ignorant”. And while many will comment in this way out of malice, not all do. Ignorance is not malice, despite how it may feel to those on the other end of it. And again, my reaction here is not to the assertion that it's disrespectful, but to the stated threat of a perma-ban and the assertion of a phobia with no evidence for that assertion.

This has been discussed but again, what unfair advantage and what is your evidence? As for a trans athlete winning a major Olympic medal, no trans athlete has even qualified for the Olympics in all the years they have been able to compete. Why do you think that we are suddenly now headed in that direction?
Regarding unfair advantages:

https://www.wired.com/story/the-glorious-victories-of-trans-athletes-are-shaking-up-sports/

Transgender women’s performances generally decline as their testosterone does. But not every male advantage dissipates when testosterone drops. Some advantages, such as their bigger bone structure, greater lung capacity, and larger heart size remain, says Alison Heather, a physiologist at the University of Otago in New Zealand. Testosterone also promotes muscle memory—an ability to regain muscle mass after a period of detraining—by increasing the number of nuclei in muscles, and these added nuclei don’t go away. So transgender women have a heightened ability to build strength even after they transition, Heather says.
Does this not map directly to what we see played out in sport? Bigger, stronger, faster women, who place much higher than they ever did as men appear to retain advantages not covered by testosterone level only. Why would that single advantage be imagined to be the only advantage when the other ones are obvious to the naked eye or a simple x-ray? Regarding the Olympics, it's something that seems likely to happen if the current rule structure stays in place. Though it's good that recent changes to the testosterone levels seem to be addressing, in part, that aspect of the advantage.

I applaud the search for fairness on the part of the sporting bodies. I also have no issue with those who wonder if it has gone too far, and who wonder if the search for fairness has rule-makers erring too far on the side of inclusion over fair competition.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Red Rick

nevele neves

BANNED
Jun 3, 2019
315
83
880
Not sure it's a search for fairness. Honestly think the only reason to include them is to not get a *storm of bad PR.

They need seperate categories.
it is hard to understand how there are not separate categories. this is just another example of discussion or disagreement becomes hate in some really weak minded people. bad PR is all that drives it.
 
Reactions: GVFTA
I hear what you’re saying. I called it disrespectful and dumb, though I should have used the term “ingnorant” rather than dumb. For some people they just don’t grow up in a part of the culture where this is accepted or even understood. They genuinely have trouble getting their heads around this issue, and in particular, they are reacting to a genuine feeling where they perceive real unfairness. Calling a man who has become a woman “she” is genuinely uncomfortable and feels...wrong...to some people. Given this fact, attributing malice in a blanket fashion and threatening lifetime bans felt very wrong to me. It assumes you understand intent, which I find surprising. I understand you haven’t banned anyone, and I think this is a very good thing. I wouldn't bring it up again, but you also appear not to be moving off your right to do so in the future. A right you as a mod team certainly have, but to me feels like it would be an overreaction.

You also use the word “Transphobia”, which sounds like an attempt to shame people for not being comfortable with something they don’t understand. This clearly and unequivocally isn’t a phobia, and arguably not a fear in any way. You don’t have to be afraid of transgender athletes to object to them competing in gender-based competitive classes. You just have to think they have an unfair advantage.



Yes, I agree and again I said above, it’s “disrespectful and dumb", or more accurately ignorant”. And while many will comment in this way out of malice, not all do. Ignorance is not malice, despite how it may feel to those on the other end of it. And again, my reaction here is not to the assertion that it's disrespectful, but to the stated threat of a perma-ban and the assertion of a phobia with no evidence for that assertion.
You can debate semantics all you want but I'm afraid that's not something I'm going to get into. Phobia's don't have to be deliberate, in fact many are not, but by deliberately misgendering someone you are questioning their existence.

You seem to have cropped out the part of my post where I showed that it's perfectly possible for people to not use gendered pronouns if they are not comfortable doing it and not be offensive. We didn't let the thread continue and allow people to misgender others then come in and hand out lots of bans and delete posts. We made a clear decision and communicated that to the users. What was asked for has been followed. Discussion of things on here isn't a right, in fact this thread skirts the boundaries of what the new admin are comfortable with and it's only staying as it relates directly to cycling, and if people can't be civil it forces our hand.


Regarding unfair advantages:

https://www.wired.com/story/the-glorious-victories-of-trans-athletes-are-shaking-up-sports/

Transgender women’s performances generally decline as their testosterone does. But not every male advantage dissipates when testosterone drops. Some advantages, such as their bigger bone structure, greater lung capacity, and larger heart size remain, says Alison Heather, a physiologist at the University of Otago in New Zealand. Testosterone also promotes muscle memory—an ability to regain muscle mass after a period of detraining—by increasing the number of nuclei in muscles, and these added nuclei don’t go away. So transgender women have a heightened ability to build strength even after they transition, Heather says.

Does this not map directly to what we see played out in sport? Bigger, stronger, faster women, who place much higher than they ever did as men appear to retain advantages not covered by testosterone level only. Why would that single advantage be imagined to be the only advantage when the other ones are obvious to the naked eye or a simple x-ray? Regarding the Olympics, it's something that seems likely to happen if the current rule structure stays in place. Though it's good that recent changes to the testosterone levels seem to be addressing, in part, that aspect of the advantage.

I applaud the search for fairness on the part of the sporting bodies. I also have no issue with those who wonder if it has gone too far, and who wonder if the search for fairness has rule-makers erring too far on the side of inclusion over fair competition.
You've cropped the part of the article that confirms your belief but left the rest behind? The article you've chosen to support your claim of unfair advantage even states that there's little evidence of this being the case:

For all the hand-wringing about transgender women ruining women’s sport, so far there’s little evidence of that happening. Although CeCé Telfer and June Eastwood garnered attention for their outstanding performances on women’s collegiate running teams, they are hardly the only transgender athletes in the NCAA. Helen Carroll is a LGBTQ sports advocate who worked on the NCAA transgender handbook. Through her advocacy work, she has interacted extensively with transgender athletes and she estimates there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 to 200 transgender athletes currently competing in NCAA sports. Most of them “you don’t hear a thing about,” she says, because their participation hasn’t caused controversy.

Take Cece as an example. There are plenty of cis women who are bigger, stronger, faster or a combination of these things. Her times won't get her anywhere near the Olympics and she's unlikely to drop the 3-4 seconds she'd probably need to in the 400m hurdles to get a place (not to win, just to make the squad). Those cis women have advantages over many other cis women. There will be trans women who happen to be great athletes and there will be the majority of trans women who are not. Here's a different article, highlighting some more trans women athletes that's worth a read:



Scientifically, it's about whether trans women in particular get another, guaranteed advantage over cis women. The evidence says no, they don't. Maybe that evidence will change, but that doesn't mean we should ban people from participating on supposition. This is also why testosterone is generally the focus, because that's what is seen as the specific, additional advantage trans women have. Any other supposed male benefits where someone may want to specify limits are much harder to work with. The distribution within the sexes is much larger than between the sexes, so attempting to set limits on these becomes very difficult. Just look at the proposal for sport specific algorithms to determine competition bands. A suggestion like this would probably have Candace Parker playing in the NBA and Isiah Thomas in the WNBA...

And all this is because a few trans women have done reasonably well in sports?


So no, so far I don't think we've not seen that map directly to sport if you look at the overall data rather than the headline data. We've seen a few trans people do fairly well in their chosen sports (people always ignore trans men in these discussions but I think Chris Mosier is still one of, if not the most, successful trans athlete ever) but there is no evidence that trans athletes have a specific advantage over cis athletes.
 
You can debate semantics all you want but I'm afraid that's not something I'm going to get into. Phobia's don't have to be deliberate, in fact many are not, but by deliberately misgendering someone you are questioning their existence.
Semantics is a branch of linguistics concerned with meaning and logic. Probably worth getting those two things right, and use of "phobia" in this context is pointedly incorrect. I would have hoped that would matter to you, and you might recognize your use of the term "transphobic" comes across as an attempt to attack those who disagree with you. Dismissing this as "semantics" only reinforces that impression.

You seem to have cropped out the part of my post where I showed that it's perfectly possible for people to not use gendered pronouns if they are not comfortable doing it and not be offensive. We didn't let the thread continue and allow people to misgender others then come in and hand out lots of bans and delete posts. We made a clear decision and communicated that to the users. What was asked for has been followed. Discussion of things on here isn't a right, in fact this thread skirts the boundaries of what the new admin are comfortable with and it's only staying as it relates directly to cycling, and if people can't be civil it forces our hand.
I agreed with the part that I didn't quote and didn't have anything else to add. Nothing was meant by not including it other than point granted. I'm a male by the way, so you can call me "him" instead of "they". Regarding the latter, as I've said, your forum and your rules. I do agree this not only skirts the boundaries of what's been said isn't allowed, it seems clearly and specifically not allowed, unless one suggests this was started by staff.

G.R.A.P.E.S. (guns, religion, abortion, politics, economics, sexuality) subject matter discussion is prohibited, except where the topics are expressly related to core subject coverage and is initiated by staff. The moderation team reserves the right to remove any such posts and take action as warranted.
You've cropped the part of the article that confirms your belief but left the rest behind? The article you've chosen to support your claim of unfair advantage even states that there's little evidence of this being the case:
I included the part of the article I wanted you to see and linked the article's full text. I've left nothing "behind". Let me suggest that what you so far think are my views, seem to be rather off. I'm not looking to confirm anything, I'm looking to have a discussion. I agree that testosterone plays a role, that seems incontrovertible so I am not including that bit or debating it. But you seem to be ignoring the points made about muscles being able to rebuild faster, and about simple size of heart, lungs, and musculature.

Take Cece as an example. There are plenty of cis women who are bigger, stronger, faster or a combination of these things. Her times won't get her anywhere near the Olympics and she's unlikely to drop the 3-4 seconds she'd probably need to in the 400m hurdles to get a place (not to win, just to make the squad). Those cis women have advantages over many other cis women. There will be trans women who happen to be great athletes and there will be the majority of trans women who are not. Here's a different article, highlighting some more trans women athletes that's worth a read:
Cece is an anecdote. One does not make policy on anecdotes, but on groups as a whole, or trends, or bodies of evidence. Of course there will be trans women who are smaller. What point does that even make?



Scientifically, it's about whether trans women in particular get another, guaranteed advantage over cis women. The evidence says no, they don't. Maybe that evidence will change, but that doesn't mean we should ban people from participating on supposition. This is also why testosterone is generally the focus, because that's what is seen as the specific, additional advantage trans women have. Any other supposed male benefits where someone may want to specify limits are much harder to work with. The distribution within the sexes is much larger than between the sexes, so attempting to set limits on these becomes very difficult. Just look at the proposal for sport specific algorithms to determine competition bands. A suggestion like this would probably have Candace Parker playing in the NBA and Isiah Thomas in the WNBA...

And all this is because a few trans women have done reasonably well in sports?

So no, so far I don't think we've not seen that map directly to sport if you look at the overall data rather than the headline data. We've seen a few trans people do fairly well in their chosen sports (people always ignore trans men in these discussions but I think Chris Mosier is still one of, if not the most, successful trans athlete ever) but there is no evidence that trans athletes have a specific advantage over cis athletes.
I think your focus solely on testosterone does not address all of the facts in the situation. The claim of "no evidence" rings false to me. We have physiology and performance data, which is clearly evidence. You have not addressed the fact that some advantages, such as their bigger bone structure, greater lung capacity, and larger heart size remain, you have simply repeated your assertion that testosterone is all that matters. I agree it matters. It's the only thing? I am as yet unconvinced. Not even close, actually, but I'm certainly willing to hear an argument why muscular performance, bone structure size, lung capacity, and heart size don't matter.

You say "All this"? All of what? I'm sure I didn't suggest anything about the NBA or advocate for any particular policy or action. Very odd. Trans men? Of course people ignore trans men, because for most people this discussion is about unfair advantages, not about excluding trans people because they're trans.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts