RE: transgender women racing against women.

Page 9 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I haven't read the thread, just throwing this out there

Is it possible a female to make transgender could obtain enough TUEs to be competitive in the men's peloton?
Consider some of the most dubious world records in track&field:
Jarmila Kratochvila set a record in the 800m run in 1983 with 1:53,28; that still stands. The first male record at 800m was Ted Meredith in 1912 - 1:51,9.

Long jump women's record is Galina Chistyakova's 7,52 from 1988 - that barely qualified a man to even start in the Olympics in 2020.

Of course also Florence Griffith Joyner's 10.49 in the 100m still stands, the men's record is almost a full second faster by now. And all of those athletes undoubtedly were doped up as much as is possible.

Certain physiological differences can't be overcome by drugs.
 
Re: Re:

The definition of man and woman is a social construct and very hard to define when it comes to sport.
I rather think, technically speaking, man (andro) and woman (gyno) defined is firstly biological (unless men were to start being born with a uterus),* and secondly a gender (identification with either sex from the cultural not biological point of view) social construct. So I suppose the relevant issue to the discussion at hand is: does the categorization of sport hinge on biologically or socially defined parameters? If the former, then no, transgender women have no place in competition with biological women. By contrast, if it is the latter then the term "woman" is a culturally formed, self-defined identity (in this case enhanced with surgical and hormonal treatment), independent of sex, belonging to all who claim membership to the category and, consequently, transgender women should be allowed to compete with biological women.

As to the issue of being able to define biological sex at all?** Clearly we can, it does exist, the extremely rare instances when nature has deviated from the norm notwithstanding. Such cases are defined as "intersexual," but their existance in no way invalidates the definition of sex for those born into a specific condition of the overwhelming majority of humans. We could not have arrived at the exorbitant global population had it been otherwise. Lastly, and with all due respect, surgical and hormonal alterations do not convert the biological status. So, again, as to the original premise, it depends on how you establish the criteria for categorization. If sex, no, gender, yes

* A woman born without a uterus is a rare genetic deficiency, not a change in sex.
** And if the Gaurdian article (posted by MacBindle upthread) regarding what science says about biological sex has any merit, then we should do away with binary categorization in sport altogether, as there would be no natural basis for sex segregated competition.

Post Scriptum: Because I am a considerate person, not wanting to offend anyone, naturally I address a transgender woman as "she," but in reference to her gender, not sex.[/I][/I]
 
Last edited:

It's not complicated. Many millions of your most recent ancestors can all be categorised in one of two categories, males and females. Males and females are physiologically different, that is why we have a protected category for females. Male and female puberty are very different and transform the body in different ways. It is as of yet not technological possible to undo puberty, no hormone treatment ex post can change that.

Anyone is free to compete in the open category dominated by males, but a protected category that doesn't exclude isn't a protected category. Whom to exclude? Any and all males. That was the purpose of the protected category to start with. Sure, there are a few edge cases; that is the nature of biology. Just like there are edge cases between species, but that doesn't undermine the categorisation.

If one is against exclusion, a single open category for everyone is the solution - the end of segregation in sports.
 
Last edited:

It's not complicated...Males and females are physiologically different, that is why we have a protected category for females.
On the surface, and until now, this would seem elementary. However, since the entire norm of male vs female has been brought into question, I pointed out that defining parameters is the issue.

From the philosophical perspective, in a culture in which sex should not have any natural limitations, why should there be a protected category for females at all?
 
Last edited:
Reactions: JayKosta
Yes. Let's be so tolerant that we ban having seperate categories altogether, and in our tolerance disable women from competing sports at a high level. That seems fair.

If we consider men's sports an open category, and the womens sports a closed one, what's the problem with having seperate events for trans women?
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Cookster15
As to the issue of being able to define biological sex at all?** Clearly we can, it does exist, the extremely rare instances when nature has deviated from the norm notwithstanding. Such cases are defined as "intersexual," but their existance in no way invalidates the definition of sex for those born into a specific condition of the overwhelming majority of humans.
You can't dismiss a minority when the discussion is literally about a minority. A binary definition of sex is high school, simplified biology, and rigoursly adhering to this will exclude people. Attempting to find methods of inclusion would be far more platable. When people argue that male puberty can never be surpassed, they are laying the foundation for including trans men in womens sport. We've seen what happens when this is done with Mack Beggs (who many people convince themselves is a trans woman, clearly exposing their biases). Literally no-one with even a tiny amount of common sense in these discussions is arguing that the majority of people can't be classified based on a rigid, binary structure. They are arguing that you can't classify all people based on this and we need to accept this and work out how best we can wprk things so people can live as who they are.

On the surface, and until now, this would seem elementary. However, since the entire norm of male vs female has been brought into question, I pointed out that defining parameters is the issue.

From the philosophical perspective, in a culture in which sex should not have any natural limitations, why should there be a protected category for females at all?
Arguably there isn't at amateur level in lots of sports. If you go to many local cycling events you'll find men and women racing at the same time. They will likely award prizes to different categories, but everyone races together. If they insisted on separate events, then you'd only have enough racers for the mens. These events are split on ability, usually based on past results or where a rider feels they will fit best and it works incredibly well. You'll see the same at lots of running events too.

To be honest, the biggest issue is that trans women are currently a non-issue for womens sports, when compared to funding, exposure, facilities etc. They are not dominating, anyone making that claim needs to show much more comprehensive data than the cherry picked results seen in the news. Plenty of trans people take part in sport and never succeed, both trans men and trans women. I would guess there's maybe 2 people on this forum at most who would have heard about Lia Thomas' results if the press hadn't made a big deal of it. Almost everyone who is old enough to have been watching cycling when she was competing didn't, and maybe still doesn't, know Natalie Van Gough even exists and if you asked people to name a masters cycling champion that isn't Veronica Ivy (they'd likely still say Rachael McKinnon), if they were honest, they almost certainly wouldn't be able to.


It seems that lots and lots of people who have never cared about or done anything to help the development of womens sports are suddenly very concerned with banning a tiny minoity of women from a sport they have no intention of even watching. I do wonder why they would take that line, rather than arguing for things that would improve sports for all women.
 
Reactions: spalco
A binary definition of sex is high school, simplified biology, and rigoursly adhering to this will exclude people.
So the 'true' definition of sex is what? Ternary? Quaternary? Continuous? Biologically speaking, there's no difference between the categorisation of human sexes and chimpanzee sexes. Edge cases are only excluded if you choose to exclude them, that is the case with the partition of any set (and transgendered humans are not typically edge cases, their sex is usually as straightforward as cisgendered humans' sex). No human and no chimp can both sexually reproduce as male and female. That a particular element of a set cannot be determined with certainty to belong in either subset, doesn't necessarily mean that you need a third subset for the undetermined elements, only if you choose to.

No matter where you draw the line, you will have to exclude some from the female category. That doesn't mean that those would be excluded from sport, they would (ideally) be free to participate in the male category.

Then you have those who have received and continues to receive treatment with PEDs. Whether or not that counts as doping depends on the rules for TUEs, but I don't think it makes sense to include those who receives testosterone in the protected category of females. I think it's analogous to the case of Oscar Pistorius, who I don't think should have been allowed to compete against those without artificial limbs.

As for your snide remark about the motivation of others, it's hardly illegitimate to care about and discuss what free and fair competition is in general, even if one is disinterested in the specific sport of a case. The matter of discussion is not about a single sport, it's about sport as such.
 
You can't dismiss a minority when the discussion is literally about a minority.
Well I'd only be dismissing a minority if it were quantifiable in terms of women, not men. For tansgender women are sex wise a male minority who should have to compete accordingly. Everything else is ideologically motivated drivel. It is a choice to undergo surgical and pharmacological treatments, which come with certain consquences. If that places one at a disadvantage, it is what it is. But it really isn't fair to hang that on biologically born women.
 
Last edited:
Well I'd only be dismissing a minority if transgender women were the same as by birth women, but clearly they are not, for they are sex born men cosmentically and pharmacologically doctored up. Everything else is ideologically motivated drivel.
You did read what I said in what you quoted didn't you..?

The definition of man and woman is a social construct and very hard to define when it comes to sport.
Also, how do you know that some people who define themselves as trans couldn't also be classed as intersex?
 
You did read what I said in what you quoted didn't you..?



Also, how do you know that some people who define themselves as trans couldn't also be classed as intersex?
Yes, but I don't agree, in so far as biology is one thing, social construct another and in cases where this may perhaps not be the case, let them compete where they want. For surgically induced transgender, by contrast, keep it binary.
 
I modified my initial response, but as far as intersex goes in theory they should be eligible to comptete in both fields. It would thus be up to them to select which one or both, if the governing bodies consent.
Just read the edit. FYI, we're all biological, it's statements like this that muddy the waters. You've said if there is an advantage and I would agree with that, the issue is working out if there is one. Within our current categories there are obviously large differences. I love basketball but I'm 1.80m tall. I have a disadvantage against taller people because of this, but maybe I can run faster, turn quicker or shoot more accurately from distance. If it is possible to show that they have a generic, unfair advantage that could never be surpassed then maybe there would be an argument to start to these discussions. But banning people without that evidence? That's where I have a problem.

We should probably leave intersex to the side in most of this discussion, because they're not trans, but intersex atheletes have already been banned from specific events. We now have a situation where they are considered female in some distances, and male in other distances. This is clearly ridiculous.
 
Just read the edit. FYI, we're all biological, it's statements like this that muddy the waters. You've said if there is an advantage and I would agree with that, the issue is working out if there is one. Within our current categories there are obviously large differences. I love basketball but I'm 1.80m tall. I have a disadvantage against taller people because of this, but maybe I can run faster, turn quicker or shoot more accurately from distance. If it is possible to show that they have a generic, unfair advantage that could never be surpassed then maybe there would be an argument to start to these discussions. But banning people without that evidence? That's where I have a problem.

We should probably leave intersex to the side in most of this discussion, because they're not trans, but intersex atheletes have already been banned from specific events. We now have a situation where they are considered female in some distances, and male in other distances. This is clearly ridiculous.
I think you are muddying the waters, by insiting on equating transgender with born gender.
 
How could that be clear? It is, literally, what you stated
Indeed it is. Look, I find this sort of discussion tedious, when there are billions on the planet that don't have access to basic subsistance needs, while we are talking about something that only concerns a few folks benefiting from advanced cosmetic surgery. It is all so self-centered and lacks wider perspective of the real problems that afflict this world.
 
Indeed it is. Look, I find this sort of discussion tedious, when there are billions on the planet that don't have access to basic subsistance needs, while we are talking about something that only concerns a few folks benefiting from advanced cosmetic surgery. It is all so self-centered and lacks wider perspective of the real problems that afflict this world.
This is a whataboutery argument but if that's how you feel, why did you involve yourself in it? Or even bother posting on a cycling forum?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY