Fact #1: There is no question that, at a professional level by Olympic records, men are more physically able than women.
Fact #2: A Transgender from male to female, is no longer a man, is in fact a woman.
Fact #3: Fiscally transitioning is not done overnight, it's a process and by accounts that I read the timeframe varies from person to person.
Fact #4: Anabolic steroids, which increase testosterone and epitestosterone, are banned in most sports.
The way I see it is that, even when the androgens levels and ratios is just a part of the transition, it plays a big role in physical performance (hence the ban on the substances).That being said, it should exist a more logic, scientific and empathic way of approaching this matter than a BAN, but going with a test route is a slippery slope, as
SweetNicole points out: "
If the concern is that there should be "fair" competitions, then any form of genetic advantage should be banned across the board." And that's is a big No-No from me.
The question is, what to do or don't do while all the sports associations figures out the new rules.
A BAN is not a rule, is a lack of trying. Not doing anything is not that good either.
EDIT: and even if the associations decide to wait for a while to getter data of transgenders competing as
Nephtis suggests, it should be acknowledged, so it can't be used as a weapon to hurt the Transgender's collective.
EDIT2: Actually, double thinking about this, women transitioning to men present a way more complicated case for sports rules. Since testosterone injections is core to their transition, but there are at the same time banned from sports, calculating the proper threshold imposes a challenge, ethical and other wise.
EDIT3:
Zornack points out the
Olimpic ruling of testosterone acceptable levels, witch I wasn't aware.
