The trans women in womens racing issue

[Biggut]

Goes without saying that there's a margin of error in the calculation because it treats age 30 as a binary divide, the point is that the percentage of transgender people aged 29 or below is too high to treat there being 0 transgender athletes in the top-150 of women's cycling as an indicator of a level playing field.

The number would be a problem in terms of fairness if the percentage of top-level transgender athletes outpaces the percentage of transgender women overall in a statistically significant way. So the percentage of transgender women in cycling should increase as younger generations whose ability to identify as the people they are is less impeded by transphobia (and other forms of bigotry) become the generations who make up the peloton. In other words, a rising number of transgender women's cyclists will not necessarily indicate a problem.

In fact, if in a couple of decades we live in a world where 5% of younger adults identifies as trans and there is still zero trans representation higher up in the women's rankings, we're likely also looking at a statistically significant difference. That would also be a problem in terms of fairness, either due to institutional transphobia in cycling or due to the relative strictness of the rules under which transgender athletes are allowed in this sport giving them an inherent disadvantage compared to cisgender athletes.

We'll cross either of those bridges if we get there, but right now there is a lack of proof to conclude that transgender women have an unfair (dis)advantage. That includes not only the presence of transgender women at the highest level of sport, but also the body of peer-reviewed scientific work in this field, which has produced mixed evidence in spite of what some people will claim.

You achieve the burden of proof the wrong way around. We know that male developement is advantageous. That’s why we have the categories in the first place. The burden now is on the claim that lowering T negates the benefits of androgenised male development. the evidence does not currently support this.

The only two papers that purport to show data to support the negation of advanatge are Chicarelli and Roberts. Both used USAF fitness test data. Thats’s not a valid data set to use As its a test to see if a target can be hit not what the participants maximal performances is. As Chicarelli puts it “This is a fundamentally different question as military fitness testing aims to set a standard above which individuals demonstrate basic physical performance capabilities and maximize medical readiness, rather than quantifying the ceiling of human performance in a cohort.”

It is further invalid because as soon as trans women a start to fail to meet the male target they are moved to only having to hit the female target. It is therefor no surprise that once their target is lowered theit performance drops to me that new lowered standard.

No other studies claim to have data showing the negation of benefit. Gooren showed that hgb is equalised but that same study showed that cross sectional muscle mass remains above female levels.

 

[Biggut]

If you don't understand your own argument don't blame others.

So clarify it once and for all.

Pick one,

a) Trans women should be banned from competing with women
b) Trans women should be allowed to compete with women as long as they meet whatever criteria the sports governing body deems fit?

Gender identity is irrelevant. Males with benefit from androgenised male development should not be permitted in the female category. That is my position. I think thats pretty clear. You may wish to try to straw man my position in order for you to be able to reel out talking points but that is my actual position and the position of most serious actors calling for change in the regulations.

 

[Netserk]

You also bring Semenya to the fore but she is a very different case. She is not 'intergendered' like you put it she is intersex but was born with external female genitals and always identified as a women. Not saying that's fair that she competed with women but as far as I know she was considered a women since she was born.

She has testicles and have benefitted from (partial) androgenisation, just to be clear.

 

[Netserk]

If you don't understand your own argument don't blame others.

So clarify it once and for all.

Pick one,

a) Trans women should be banned from competing with women
b) Trans women should be allowed to compete with women as long as they meet whatever criteria the sports governing body deems fit?

b) phrased differently: The female category should exclude everyone who has benefitted from androgenisation.

 

[EliseeReclus]

If this is an issue of fairness, why aren't we concerned with fairness elsehwere? Going to private school confers a huge benefit in advancing as a sportsperson, should we ban all those who went to private school as well?

 

[Biggut]

If this is an issue of fairness, why aren't we concerned with fairness elsehwere? Going to private school confers a huge benefit in advancing as a sportsperson, should we ban all those who went to private school as well?

Lets be clear here, you are arguing that males should be allowed into the female category because some males have advanatge over other males. Is that your position? If so then your position only supports either 7 billion categories of one the or abandonment of all categories. Just try it out on any other category. Should 24 year olds be allowed in the Under 16s because some 24 year olds are taller than other 24 year olds? Should heavyweights be allowed in the middleweight category because some heavyweights have better access to training facilities than others?

No, the category exists to exclude the benefits of androgenised male development. It shoud therefor exclude the benefits of androgenised male development.

 

[Izzyeviel]

b) phrased differently: The female category should exclude everyone who has benefitted from androgenisation.

you could put it like that. But there's so many sports and so many scenarios etc that my original point is basically one big coverall

 

[EliseeReclus]

Lets be clear here, you are arguing that males should be allowed into the female category because some males have advanatge over other males. Is that your position? If so then your position only supports either 7 billion categories of one the or abandonment of all categories. Just try it out on any other category. Should 24 year olds be allowed in the Under 16s because some 24 year olds are taller than other 24 year olds? Should heavyweights be allowed in the middleweight category because some heavyweights have better access to training facilities than others?

No, the category exists to exclude the benefits of androgenised male development. It shoud therefor exclude the benefits of androgenised male development.

You haven't answered my question at all here, just put a load of words in my mouth. Maybe I'll try again, if we are excluding on the basis of fairness, why shouldn't that be applied to other categories which very clearly confer an advantage?

 

[Netserk]

If this is an issue of fairness, why aren't we concerned with fairness elsehwere? Going to private school confers a huge benefit in advancing as a sportsperson, should we ban all those who went to private school as well?

Only if you hate excellence, Harrison Bergeron style.

 

[Biggut]

You haven't answered my question at all here, just put a load of words in my mouth. Maybe I'll try again, if we are excluding on the basis of fairness, why shouldn't that be applied to other categories which very clearly confer an advantage?

Not true. I have answered your question. The category exists to exclude male advantage. Other advanatge is irrelevant to the category.

If you want to create categories for all forms of advantage this will indeed mean 7 billion categories as we are all unique. In category advantage is not per se unfair. The question that is really being asked is whether its fair to have a category that excludes male advanatge. I say it is. If you disagree then why do we have a female category at all? If male advantage should be permitted in the female category then all males should be permitted to compete there. It cant be a category based on gender identity as gender identity is irrelevant to Physiology and all sports categories are based on physiology.

 

[yaco]

I am certain that if you surveyed CIS professional athletes whether they wanted transgender athletes in their sport, you will find a resounding no - This will be based on what they see as fairness - Ultimately, it may get to a stage where CIS athletes refuse to perform against transgender athletes.

 

[Biggut]

I am certain that if you surveyed CIS professional athletes whether they wanted transgender athletes in their sport, you will find a resounding no - This will be based on what they see as fairness - Ultimately, it may get to a stage where CIS athletes refuse to perform against transgender athletes.

Cis is irrelevant, its a gender identity statement. Many people dont even have a gender identity. And any male refusing to compete against a trans woman or a trans man in the male category is not doing so on the grounds of fairness. So its not about cis v trans. It is purely about males competing in the female category.