So what, men and woman can compete in the same class as long as they're both the same height/weight?
Why would that happen if they're the same weight? Doesn't that imply the same level of muscle mass?What if men 5'9 and 170 lbs dominated the class then? Why would women or trans compete? I'm pretty sure that's what would happen especially in power lifting.
pretty muchSome of the responses in this thread are fascinating to me.
There is a clear Staff post and yet...
Why would that happen if they're the same weight? Doesn't that imply the same level of muscle mass?
People trying to correct for testosterone - which, true, is an anabolic steroid, but a naturally occurring one for cis men - are creating more complexity than maybe there needs to be.
I'll confess ignorance on the particulars of the biology but just making it about body mass and skipping the fretting over trans/cis/testosterone seems way more fair and simple. Not all trans people are on hormone treatments for their transition so that whole issue seems like a red herring, and they already do "class" divisions within the genders anyway.
It's like ya'll never been in a mixed P.E class while growing up or something. As a cis girl I knew quite well the strength differences between genders, I was very active in sports and always wanted to compete and play rough with the boys in elementary school. By the time middle and high school started it was a different story. At 18 my smaller 12/13 year old male cousin was already beating me in arm wrestling... There is a biological difference that is beyond just size and height. Can we stop advocating for destroying women's competition by merging them all together?Why would that happen if they're the same weight? Doesn't that imply the same level of muscle mass?
People trying to correct for testosterone - which, true, is an anabolic steroid, but a naturally occurring one for cis men - are creating more complexity than maybe there needs to be.
I'll confess ignorance on the particulars of the biology but just making it about body mass and skipping the fretting over trans/cis/testosterone seems way more fair and simple. Not all trans people are on hormone treatments for their transition so that whole issue seems like a red herring, and they already do "class" divisions within the genders anyway.
That's an insane law... Holy shit, how ignorant can people be?
It is more related to place of birth, not skin pigment but it is not uncommon for black people to OWN long distance running for example, usually because of blood oxygenation above average.
And the original article in the op mentions that it is not uncommon that bone density of black cis woman is much bigger than those of white cis woman or even white cis man
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/82/2/429/2823249
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1863580/
Regular sunday sports maybe.
Olympic medal level sports? Nope.
Genetic lotery can do a lot to destroy that meritocracy. I mean have you SEEN michael phelps ? =P
I wholeheartedly disagree. There's plenty of areas where divisions exist only because society likes splitting men and women by default, but you can't tell me that not having a women's and men's division for tennis would be a good thing. I only use this sport as an example because it's what I've played my whole life and I've been on both sides of that line (as you know). The game has become so physical that It would not be fair to anyone with a majority estrogen in their system. I don't think denying that helps anyone.
That is the whole point of that argument. Even on trans people, the studies focus on people who already went through puberty.
If someone went through the right puberty, there will be ZERO differences. Not taller, not wider, not anything.
I honestly think the distinction, if we even need one, should not be between trans and cis women but those who had untypical hormone levels during puberty for a woman. No matter if cis or trans.
It was an allusion to arguments made in this thread about a presumed edge trans women athletes have in "bone density", whereas it was pointed out that black cis women have been shown to possess even greater bone density than cis men. In other words, the reasoning for excluding trans women on these grounds is as faulty as excluding black cis women.
I would rather have competition in which priorities are kept in their proper perspective. Yes, how the participants finish is important. Their humanity and right to stand on the field of play alongside their peers (cis, trans, non-binary, intersex, black, brown, white, Christian, Muslim, atheist, etc.), though, should be paramount.Ok. It is very important that everyone can sport. But if I can read it correct. You would rather have a competition without standings? A bit like the olympic spirit. It is more important to compete then to win.
And I'm saying making it a mixed league would have 0 difference on the makeup of the men's league. It would be a purely semantic distinction. I'd be willing to bet real money that the top 500 ATP tennis players would still be men. It wouldn't be worth it for women to try when they would most likely not even break out of qualifiers in the ATP, but could place higher in the women's league and make more money. Based on history this theoretical woman doesn't exist. It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.I'm not saying that gendered divisions should not exist. I'm saying that a woman who could, in theory, be competitive in a men's league could not participate.
Because some people are transphobic
Ok it wasn't clear you were alluding only to the bone density arguments made earlier. Yeah the bone density thing isn't particularly relevant as we don't really know bone density impact on sports performance or what role it has to play in conjunction with (or separately from) other maybe more important factors.It was an allusion to arguments made in this thread about a presumed edge trans women athletes have in "bone density", whereas it was pointed out that black cis women have been shown to possess even greater bone density than cis men. In other words, the reasoning for excluding trans women on these grounds is as faulty as excluding black cis women.
And I'm saying making it a mixed league would have 0 difference on the makeup of the men's league. It would be a purely semantic distinction. I'd be willing to bet real money that the top 500 ATP tennis players would still be men. It wouldn't be worth it for women to try when they would most likely not even break out of qualifiers in the ATP, but could place higher in the women's league and make more money. Based on history this theoretical woman doesn't exist. It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
And the only reason I could see that terminology as a bad thing is for non-binary people, which has nothing to do with women playersBut the worst-case scenario is that nothing changes. We still have men's and women's divisions.
could just make a trans category for them to compete with each other
Ok yeah. You always have to have an opportunity to compete. I agree.It was an allusion to arguments made in this thread about a presumed edge trans women athletes have in "bone density", whereas it was pointed out that black cis women have been shown to possess even greater bone density than cis men. In other words, the reasoning for excluding trans women on these grounds is as faulty as excluding black cis women.
I would rather have competition in which priorities are kept in their proper perspective. Yes, how the participants finish is important. Their humanity and right to stand on the field of play alongside their peers (cis, trans, non-binary, intersex, black, brown, white, Christian, Muslim, atheist, etc.), though, should be paramount.
Some of the responses in this thread are fascinating to me.
There is a clear Staff post and yet...
I will say however that the mod post of studies misrepresents the conclusions of those publications. As an academic I am fairly pedantic on how people attempt to present their research. If a researcher presented those papers the way the mod post does it wouldn't make it past review, you'd miss your conference deadline and get in trouble with the department. Those papers don't conclude anything. It's irresponsible to present them as evidence of any kind.
There is no evidence that justifies the ban. Suggesting otherwise is transphobic. That's all that needed to be said by the admins. Sorry I'm just really nitpicky about papers n stuff since its kinda my life lol.
It's almost like some people think ordering posters to accept a couple isolated studies that are either being misinterpreted or have obvious, previously-explained limitations as the Only Valid Viewpoints is a dangerous, anti-scientific practice that deserves objection despite threatened consequences.
Theories and studies gain credibility through discussion and defense - you try to poke holes in a premise and see how it stands up; you provide evidence for your viewpoint and see how it withstands peer review and scrutiny. They don't gain credibility through fiat or through shouting at those with questions to shut their mouths and stop thinking. Demanding that all posters accept the very dicey conclusion in the OP and banning anyone who asks questions is an incredibly anti-intellectual, authoritarian practice.
These post after the Staff post aren't trying to discuss a damn thing.
Weight and height seem like better tiers of competition than gender. If one 5'9 person weighing 170 lbs can lift more than another person weight 5'9 person weighing 170 lbs, that seems like a fair comparison.
It's almost like some people think ordering posters to accept a couple isolated studies that are either being misinterpreted or have obvious, previously-explained limitations as the Only Valid Viewpoints is a dangerous, anti-scientific practice that deserves objection despite threatened consequences.
Theories and studies gain credibility through discussion and defense - you try to poke holes in a premise and see how it stands up; you provide evidence for your viewpoint and see how it withstands peer review and scrutiny. They don't gain credibility through fiat or through shouting at those with questions to shut their mouths and stop thinking. Demanding that all posters accept the very dicey conclusion in the OP and banning anyone who asks questions is an incredibly anti-intellectual, authoritarian practice.
These post after the Staff post aren't trying to discuss a damn thing.
If you disagree with what was posted by staff then you are more than welcome to post theories and studies that disprove it. All you've done so far is complain about it, so post away.
I do huh? What exactly was I "moderating" here, genius?
Oh nothing, just collating a bunch of posts and reminding them that they are not listening to the staff post and all.
The staff post had all kinds of information in it. If it wasn't by staff people would still be saying that you should read it before posting ignorant takesOh nothing, just collating a bunch of posts and reminding them that they are not listening to the staff post and all.
Ah see, you are the genius that I thought you were. Those two posters were banned before I made my post. Those posts were examples of people who were banned for ignoring the mod post and posting that nonsense anyway.Oh nothing, just collating a bunch of posts and reminding them that they are not listening to the staff post and all.
Ah see, you are the genius that I thought you were. Those two posters were banned before I made my post. Those posts were examples of people who were banned for ignoring the mod post and posting that nonsense anyway.
If you had actually read what I was responding to, you would know it was in response to a claim that people making valid points were being banned, which those posts clearly were not. Good job genius.
Backseat modding is against the TOS, so you are more than welcome to report my posts.
Quite the intelligent response, but that's par for course with you, now isn't it.
Quite the intelligent response, but that's par for course with you, now isn't it.
You should go back to defending racism in the Liam Neeson thread when it opens back up.
Man, where did all of the "You're a backseat mod." energy go?
It's almost like some people think ordering posters to accept a couple isolated studies that are either being misinterpreted or have obvious, previously-explained limitations as the Only Valid Viewpoints is a dangerous, anti-scientific practice that deserves objection despite threatened consequences.
Theories and studies gain credibility through discussion and defense - you try to poke holes in a premise and see how it stands up; you provide evidence for your viewpoint and see how it withstands peer review and scrutiny. They don't gain credibility through fiat or through shouting at those with questions to shut their mouths and stop thinking. Demanding that all posters accept the very dicey conclusion in the OP and banning anyone who asks questions is an incredibly anti-intellectual, authoritarian practice.
Like, 3 or 4 dummies have done that so why get hung up on it. There are quite a few more people being a little bit more critical in their thinking.This post is good
(in a thread where the people who don't agree with the studies have nothing but "common sense" and "makes sense" as retorts to the ban)
Like, 3 or 4 dummies have done that so why get hung up on it. There are quite a few more people being a little bit more critical in their thinking.
I can understand your idea .... but in practice it means that you can only compete if you did blood tests on puberty.
Which means that
1) you need to know that you want to be pro at puberty
2) you need to have that kind of money to pay for the blood tests
and that is a huge gatekeeping
That is not an irrational belief at all. People will do all kinds of shady shit to "win".
*Headdesk*Seems like the logical solution is to ban gender categories in sports and segregate just by weight and/or height, if not you're either transphobic or a hypocrite.
Almost all competitive sports are separated by birth gender. On average (and when comparing elite with elite) men score higher in physical competition. World (or any) records are kept separate for a reason.
If you are supporting trans athletes going around this historical standard then it seems you would also be in support of no gender lines in sports at all.
Some of the responses in this thread are fascinating to me.
There is a clear Staff post and yet...
No. The goal is for sports to be separated by current gender, not birth gender. That's a specification you're throwing on top as thought that's the way it's always been and always must be, but I don't see why? After all, clearly in this organization it wasn't always about birth gender, hence the change.
That said, like you I'm going to go out on a limb and put words in someone else's mouth: presumably you believe that there would be a problem with allowing transpeople to compete as their gender (rather than the gender they were assigned at birth). Presumably you believe this because you expect that the biological advantages that men have over women persist through the transition process. And if you look in the very opening post of this thread, you'll find several studies indicating that that's not the case.
I understand that this thread is long and you don't want to read the whole thing if it doesn't seem to be addressing your concern, but the opening post is literally the least you could do. Especially when there's a big warning from the mods about how people seem to be ignoring it and getting banned for spreading misinformation.
No. The goal is for sports to be separated by current gender, not birth gender. That's a specification you're throwing on top as thought that's the way it's always been and always must be, but I don't see why? After all, clearly in this organization it wasn't always about birth gender, hence the change.
That said, like you I'm going to go out on a limb and put words in someone else's mouth: presumably you believe that there would be a problem with allowing transpeople to compete as their gender (rather than the gender they were assigned at birth). Presumably you believe this because you expect that the biological advantages that men have over women persist through the transition process. And if you look in the very opening post of this thread, you'll find several studies indicating that that's not the case.
I understand that this thread is long and you don't want to read the whole thing if it doesn't seem to be addressing your concern, but the opening post is literally the least you could do. Especially when there's a big warning from the mods about how people seem to be ignoring it and getting banned for spreading misinformation.
Richards has since expressed ambivalence about her legacy, and came to believe her past as a man provided her with advantages over her competitors, saying "Having lived for the past 30 years, I know if I'd had surgery at the age of 22, and then at 24 went on the tour, no genetic woman in the world would have been able to come close to me. And so I've reconsidered my opinion."
" If you are supporting trans athletes going around this historical standard then it seems you would also be in support of no gender lines in sports at all. What would a sports landscape of that nature look like? "Not sure how you could derive what I have and have not read from my post. There are a lot of comments throughout the thread that lead to the point I was making.
Many were arguing outside of the trans argument and equating men and women physically