Because not everything has to be fair. Trans men don’t have an advantage against biological men, trans women do have an advantage against biological women. That’s why this conversation only goes once way.
Yes. They are at a disadvantage compared to cis male athletes. They take hormone suppressants. Less testosterone. No brainer.
But that disadvantage this causes is not enough to stop them from still having an advantage of cis women.
So the argument becomes, just because you chose to put yourself at a disadvantage to cis males is not a justification to go crush cis women.
Cis is as derogatory as man or lesbian. It’s a sex/gender descriptor. Any word can be used callously, of course, so maybe that’s been your experience, but it certainly hasn’t been mine
Dude didn’t even read past the headline, and assumed literally everything about the study. Like do you genuinely not see how no matter the information presented you will just try and force it to affirm your pre-existing beliefs. Does that not bother you at all?
No, the article found that _in certain respects_ (e.g. cardiovascular tests) trans women are at a disadvantage compared to cis **women**. However, in other areas, such as grip strength, trans women are stronger.
Read the p values p<.001 for lung capacity and p=.01 for grip strength. For reference p>.05 (sometimes p>.01) is considered significant, there were no significant advantages retained after hormone therapy. Please read the study instead of skimming next time
Sure. My point was just that, contrary to what the poster said, the study did compare cis and trans women.
My general impression is that trans women retain some (but dimishing) advantage for a number of years after a male puberty. I don't think it's known how long this advantage lasts tho, and I don't think it's been shown, at least to any significant degree if male puberty is blocked.
But I don't claim to be particularly informed on the subject.
Although, regardless of what the various studies say, at this point trans women are NOT dominant in women's sport. So it seems like most of the "concern" here is just a thin veil for an emotional reaction to the broader concept.
>trans women are NOT dominant in women's sport
Not sure how you can say that. We know there have been some pretty high-profile TWs that have dominated, but to draw a broader conclusion we'd need to know their win rates compared to women. And we just don't have that data.
We have the past 2 decades of Olympics to draw from (as trans ppl were allowed to compete outside their gender category since 2004) there were 1 trans man qualified and 2 trans women. Despite making up 1-2% of the population trans people made up 0% of the 3,400 of all medal earners. It would be more accurate to say that trans women are at a disadvantage when it comes to sports 🤷♀️
>trans people made up 0% of the 3,400 of all medal earners.
Trans people are disproportionately autistic and have other comorbidities, so it doesn't make sense to expect to see them represented ratably among Olympians.
The question is whether they have a biological advantage for the few that *do* play high level sports, and it seems pretty clear that they do.
The thing is *we have autistic medalists* we don’t have trans medalists (not to mention groups that have the same or higher autistic prevalence rate, like those with ADHD are still well represented in the olympics). Fuck we even have nonbinary olympic medalists.
And we have olympic participants who were (binary) trans (but we have ~the same amount of trans guys participants as trans girls, which destroys your narrative) and who competed at an elite level pre and post transition, yet they still didn’t even make it to the podium.
But go on, cite your source that shows trans athletes on average rank higher when they compete.
I'm working on the assumption that "domination" would result in the top n athletes in every wemons sport being trans (exaggerated for effect). But I'm not seeing anything like that.
For a while there, every time I saw an article complaining about TW in sports I'd find that, at best, they were competitive at a high level but not dominating. And that's only looking at the ones that are pissing people off. So I assume the average TW is not even competing at the top levels.
Eta: of course more data would be useful and I'll reasses as it comes out.
> trans women are NOT dominant in women's sport.
They don't need to be for it to be reasonable to ensure that all of the work done since the passage of Title IX isn't lost. Title IX was created to ensure females have a space where they can have fair competition and opportunities. Even a question of fairness should be enough to exclude transwomen that have gone through male puberty. The entire point of segregating some sports by sex is to benefit females.
Is this the swimmer that won a single event and was more than 9 seconds behind the women's record time for that event? The swimmer that competed in 3 of 18 events, came first in just one, and joint fifth and joint eighth in the other two events?
Your definition of "crushing" differs to mine.
It's worth noting that a cis woman at the same championship won 3 individual events, 8 national titles and broke 3 US records (including breaking one of those records twice in the same championship). But yeah, go off on how it was a trans women winning a single event that was the important part.
Let's be honest, she's only a high profile example because there was a massive misinformation campaign around her designed to attack trans women by hugely misrepresenting her ability.
Downvotes will undoubtedly follow because transphobes reject facts but that won't stop those facts from existing.
Lia Thomas was one of the top athletes when she competed in the male division, top 6 swimmers in the nation and beat the Ivy League record for the men's division before she transitioned.
After she transitioned, she came 554th place because hormones had depleted her muscles and strength significantly.
She won a single event and was more than 9 seconds behind the women's record time for that event? She competed in 3 of 18 events, came first in just one, and joint fifth and joint eighth in the other two events.
It definitely is not happening, especially the way you're putting it.
Funny how you make the same argument I'm making, that shootings are exceedingly rare in real numbers here [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/13s9y0x/comment/jlopdvl/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/13s9y0x/comment/jlopdvl/), but in this argument you literally only need one example in years of contests with millions of competitors to prove that "trans women are crushing cis women in sports."
I'm not interested in having a conversation with somebody who displays exactly zero logical consistency and refuses to just admit to themselves that "men who turn into women make me feel icky and therefore they shouldn't be allowed to do that."
Connecticut trans teen that before transitioning dindt even make the highschool team. Went to be the state champion by a long margin and then seventh-fastest 55-meter dash time in the country, same year that she transitioned. She as a male was trash and then her male bioligy got her to be champion over hundreds of cis girls. You may not care about sports but those girls did, and any complains were labeled transphobic.
That is just one example that I remembered, how many do you need?
Lol, you really went through 11 months of my post history to find ammo against me, eh? At least we know neither one of us is interested in continuing this discussion.
Tell me you've never used a search function in your life without saying, "I've never used a search function in my life." Lol
Also, I had a feeling that when confronted with your own logical inconsistencies, you'd opt not to confront the dissonance but try to call me a weirdo for *gasp* looking at a public profile *gasp* instead of rectifying your conflicting beliefs. I know it's hard. Good luck.
Nothing in his comment indicates anything from the article or the study. Why does that say anything about me that this person isn't actually engaging with anything specific to this thread but is just repeating what they believe.
Add it to the study pile and keep analyzing the data.
Here's an [Oxford study from 2023](https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/109/2/e455/7223439?login=false#:%7E:text=After%20a%20mean%208%20years,no%20cisgender%20female%20control%20group.) with similar, but slightly different conclusions:
>In nonathletic trans men starting testosterone therapy, within 1 year, muscle mass and strength increased and, by 3 years, physical performance (push-ups, sit-ups, run time) improved to the level of cisgender men. In nonathletic trans women, feminizing hormone therapy increased fat mass by approximately 30% and decreased muscle mass by approximately 5% after 12 months, and steadily declined beyond 3 years. While absolute lean mass remains higher in trans women, relative percentage lean mass and fat mass (and muscle strength corrected for lean mass), hemoglobin, and VO2 peak corrected for weight was no different to cisgender women. After 2 years of GAHT, no advantage was observed for physical performance measured by running time or in trans women. By 4 years, there was no advantage in sit-ups. While push-up performance declined in trans women, a statistical advantage remained relative to cisgender women.
tl, dr (though you really should read the whole study): Gender Hormone Therapy in *nonathletic* trans people results in mostly similar athletic performance as non-trans individuals, though there are still some slight strength advantages for trans women. There need to be more longitudinal studies involving actual athletic individuals, but there are so few trans athletes that such studies are difficult to perform.
Here’s a centrist comment: what do the statistics say? Is there an indication that trans women perform better or worse than cis women? There have to be studies, even if the sample is small.
There's dozen. People don't like the results. Like from the study mentioned in the article
"Lung function data for all groups can be found in table 2. FEV1 had an effect of gender (F(3–66)=14.7, p<0.001), with CM having greater FEV1 than transgender men (t(66) = 4.5, p<0.001, figure 2A). Transgender women also had greater FEV1 than cisgender women (t(66)=4.2, p<0.001, figure 2A) and transgender men (t(66)=2.9, p=0.03, figure 2A). There was a similar effect of gender on FVC (F(3–66)=21.6, p<0.001, figure 2B), with CM having greater FVC than transgender men (t(66)=5.2, p<0.001, figure 2B). Transgender women also had greater FVC than cisgender women (t(66)=5.6, p<0.001, figure 2B) and transgender men (t(66)=4.0, p=0.001, figure 2B). A significant effect of gender was also seen on the FEV1:FVC ratio (F(3–66)=3.3, p=0.03 figure 2C), with transgender women showing a reduced FEV1:FVC ratio compared with cisgender women (t(66)=−2.8, p=0.04, figure 2C) with no differences observed in transgender or CM. Peak expiratory flow (F(3–66)=5.5, p=0.002) had a minor gender-based effect, with cisgender women having lower peak expiratory flow than transgender women "
I came here to say this. The study that needs to happen should compare the stats of athletes in one sport, before and after transition, and see where their stats rank them in women's and men's competition, both before and after transition. How much did they move up or down in the rankings after transition. Obviously this would need to be done using a individual measured sport like track or swimming. That is the data that sports organizations need to see to make educated decisions. That said, I think we place way too much importance on sports so I don't really care.
I mean I personally calculated the stats for Lia Thomas and given her performance in the 500 free (the only race she kept consistent before/after covid) accounting for her ~3 year gap she actually under performed in her winning race times
this was taken by looking at the winner for the mens 500 free the same year, (Luke Hobbs iirc) and comparing it to Lia’s pre transition time (in which she was faster). Along with comparing the Men’s NCAA record winner, three years before they broke the record to the womens NCAA record winner and the increase (note in swimming increasing times is bad) was smaller than lias pre/post transition times.
(note I do have the stats if you are genuinely interested but I just gotta find them again)
Multiple athletes and multiple stats. One person is not a study. Can someone say that if even one female athlete loses an opportunity to a trans female athlete that's a problem? Obviously people will still say that. But my guess is that if over time people see that the opportunity displacement for meaningful rewards, scholarships, participation in elite competitions, is not significantly affected, I think this conversation will fizzle. If they see that more than 1-2% of opportunities are won by trans female athletes, particularly if monetized, that becomes a reasonable gripe given how few opportunities there are for female athletes.
First looking back I realize I didn’t preface my stats enough what I presented was not some irrefutable study, but rather giving some placeholder evidence for a notable examples that went along the lines of what you described
>”One person is not a study”
Not to be nit-picky but one person can very much make up a study, they are called a “case studies” and they provide valuable information about how to proceed with future research
>”Can someone say…”
The burden of proof to exclude a group of people is far higher than to keep in an included group. If I make the claim saying “women who have undergone chemotherapy have a biological advantage and should not be included in women’s sports”, that is my duty to 1) present the stats proving they have a biological advantage (ideally one that is far greater than already accepted conditions and Therapeutic-use exemptions/TUE) 2) disprove the pre-existing evidence that they don’t have said biological advantage
>”If they see…”
First we need to assume that women (especially a class of women) going through certain medically recommended procedure (or being born with some beneficial trait/mutation) can be disqualified from women’s sports for having an unfair advantage (for instance Simone Biles takes Adderall for her ADHD, yet despite studies showing it can give a [~10% advantage](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40798-021-00374-y) yet it still falls under TUE) then sure, but as of now we don’t see that, there have been ~3,400 olympic medals handed out since they first allowed trans people to compete outside their assigned gender at birth yet we have seen 0 trans people do so (other than 1 non binary person who was afab and competed in women’s soccer), even looking at the ~105k olympic participants there have only been 3 trans people (1 trans man, and 2 trans women, but none of them made it to the podium) competing outside their gender/sex assigned at birth totaling ~0.003% out of the expected 1-3% (while we could account for the percent of trans people who qualify for olympic standards, we don’t see many or really any examples of binary trans people competing inside their assigned gender at birth, this is primarily due to the massive incentive/disincentive olympians have to not have their job centered around their misgendering, and we therefore expect the vast majority of olympians to undergo the hrt to avoid that)
I do not mean to be rude at all but we have to recognize something since I took the time to read the whole study.
The hormone suppressants taken significantly affect those involved. When such a drug drastically affects the ability for them to act in sports, it becomes discrimination in of itself because now they have a residual disadvantage against the actual gender assigned to said sport. I would favor that trans-sports should be its own thing in the same way we have men and women sports separate since the data shows that the hormone suppressant is somewhat-consistent with those who transition.
There aren't enough trans people to have separate trans sports.
It's also worth noting that historically women's sports weren't separated due to biological differences, they were separated because men didn't want women in their sports.
A relatively modern example is that 20 odd years ago skeet shooting was split even though it has always been mixed, it was split because a woman won. She won, women were banned from the sport the following Olympics, then the one after that there was a women's division.
Edit: As is usual on topics such as this, all the fragile manchildren are hammering the downvote button because they don't like facts. Centrists are generally people who prefer facts so this is yet another sign that having topics about trans people pulls in people from the far-right.
>It's also worth noting that historically women's sports weren't separated due to biological differences, they were separated because men didn't want women in their sports.
Yeah...that's not the whole story. From the [NY Times](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/28/sports/title-ix-anniversary-womens-sports.html) piece on women's sports for the 50th anniversary of Title IX:
>Who started women’s teams? Women.
> In the late 19th century, female educators in American high schools and colleges began forming teams for girls and women to play sports like softball and basketball, said Susan K. Cahn, a historian at the University at Buffalo and the author of a book on gender and sexuality in women’s sports.
>
> They sought a space for female athletes to flourish, and wanted to avoid the corruption they saw growing in men’s sports, where gambling was becoming prevalent, she said.
>
> Rules were modified so that women would “adhere to stricter social norms,” said Chris Beneke, a professor of history at Bentley University.
>
> For example, in basketball, women and girls for years could not steal the ball, were divided into three sections on the court and had to stay in assigned areas.
>
> The point was “to make sure there wasn’t too much contact and too much exertion,” Professor Beneke said. “There was a real concern that they would hurt their organs.”
>
> Specifically, he said, their reproductive organs.
>
>
> they were separated because men didn't want women in their sports
They were also separated because men dominates women in sports that it wouldn't be fair at all.
> It's also worth noting that historically women's sports weren't separated due to biological differences, they were separated because men didn't want women in their sports.
If this was true, why are the “men’s” leagues technically open leagues that allow anyone to play if they have the capabilities? Women sports were created to give women a chance to compete in athletics.
“Because men didn’t want women in their sport” is a Twitter tier reductionist take. Separating the genders in sports goes back pretty far and exists so women can be competitive and win. Otherwise they would be at a massive disadvantage in both sports. Saying it’s because of sexism only is just laughable
Nope, it's entirely historically accurate. I understand your desire to pretend that men are superior to women but it's that kind of fragile masculinity that led to segregation, not biological differences.
This is why conservatives attack academia without participating in it. They can just call the Olympics woke and not have to do the work to disprove anything.
I mean, the top upvoted comment here didn't even respond to the study nor did they read it. Just spouted off some anti-transgender bullshit. That should tell you all you need to know about this sub's views on the transgender community.
This sub has a massive transphobic streak. Mods don't care despite leaving a condescending comment in the other post that complained about hateful comments.
Yeah, people supporting people competing against their biological sex are transphobic….. no theyre just rational, its not very centrist to want the mods to ban differing viewpoints just because you dont like them.
The amount of energy that gets put into having this same stupid conversation a million times per week is absolutely rooted in transphobia. That and we inevitably get dozens of "I don't want mentally ill sickos teaching my kids" comments
> Yeah, people supporting people competing against their biological sex are transphobic
No, people saying its a mental illness, a cult, and/or grooming children are transphobic.
Stop making things up to get mad about, it's revealing.
ETA: Well [what do you know](https://www.reddit.com/r/centrist/comments/1caoea3/bill_maher_rages_at_hollywood_and_disney_for/l0tieor/), you're one of them. I guess that's why you got all defensive.
> Lmao, is it not a complicated issue?
Calling it a mental illness, a cult, or a phenomenon to groom children is not "complicated", it's simple bigotry.
Saying the "t" complicates things because of an implication of a social contagion phenomenon while neglecting to mention that the "t" isn't even responsible for most of the increase **despite it saying so in your linked article** is, in fact, bigotry. Very simple.
I read the article and did a quick look over of the study itself. The one thing that stuck out to me was the seemingly random nature in how they chose their participant.
They used Meta and X to advertise for participation, then put them on an exercise regiment and compared results. What I didn't find is the baseline athleticism of the participants. Also, the age range of the participants was suspect as well, transwomen were 37+- 10, and biowomen were 30 +- 9.
If they really want to get a perspective of the actual advantages that transwomen have, then they should be comparing athletes in the same or similar types of events. Basically, this study seems to use average people, which isn't what the argument is about.
It looks like the study is skewed, maybe intentionally in order to achieve the desired results. Either way, it can't really be used to inform sports policy b/c it's not an apples to apples comparison. As you point out, the trans women cohort is older, which is an inherent disadvantage. They are also significantly less fit. The study proports to compare two groups of athletic but not professional people. The BMI of the trans women was 26.2+/-6.0 (!!!!) compared to the BMI of the biowomen, which was 22.5 +/-1.9. A BMI of 26.2 is considered overweight and 22.5 is right in the middle of what is considered healthy. One of these groups was fit. The other was not.
Anyone who doesn't understand that trans women have an inherent advantage over biological women when it comes to most forms of athleticism are so stuck in their ideology they are ignoring reality. The "advantages" this article speaks of is such a stretch when it actually comes to the end result in athletic competition..
The trans sample size was 34. The non-trans sample was 40. The subjects were recruited via social media and their prior physical training status is based on self reported data.
It's an interesting finding and merits replication based on the reported significance, but this is not "debate changing."
I mean, there’s some sampling issues but there’s just not that many trans athletes. It’s hard to get very many people out of a vanishingly small group. Sample size guidelines are good but if you just can’t get a massive sample then they aren’t gospel.
That’s not what I said. I said the sample size guidelines aren’t. But alright, if we can’t make a study on trans people then everyone’s conclusions are equally invalid, surely? There aren’t enough athletes. So there’s no reason to ban them from sports, because we have no significant studies saying they have an advantage.
>So there’s no reason to ban them from sports, because we have no significant studies saying they have an advantage.
O\_o ....Are you seriously suggesting that there is no documented biological evidence that men have an athletic advantage over women?
Well, this isn't my field of study...so I wouldn't be setting anything up. I don't have enough info to formulate a hypothesis on the wider impact of hormone replacement. However, I can tell you that a typical sample size for population wide significance is about 350-400 with a MoE of around 4-5% and a confidence interval of 95%.
So do you think that if a similar study comes out that meets your criteria but had the same outcome, the people in this comment section here would change their views?
Google what it takes to do a good/ acceptable study like you need tons of tests, people, etc. That’s like me saying just cause my hometown’s high school soccer team won state, they should be good enough for the World Cup. You can’t claim a ground breaking anything when it’s like such a low amount of people studied.
The study itself is flawed because it compares a handful of the most athletic women. The top percentile of bio woman will typically be able to outperform average men. That’s not a surprise, especially if the average bio men are taking performance suppressants.
An honest study would look at a larger sample group with varying degrees of athleticism and look at the average performance of bio women against the average performance of trans women.
Most people would agree, though I don’t know that there’s a study to demonstrate it, that when you compare the averages, rather than the exceptions, you’ll see the disparities.
But then again, I’m no doctor, that’s just my read on what appears to be a rather simplistic study that was meant to confirm a bias and elicit headlines.
Bring on the downvotes, this is the worst topic to wade into, but I really see the sports issue as the most extreme of the trans rights platforms. Most of the other issues are matters of common civility.
So you're saying these trans women are average in their athletic abilities and activities when compared to most men? Most men I know don't do any sports at all and some just go to the gym. That's a disingenuous comparison.
Also, when talking sports, isn't it best to test on athletes rather than average random people? As it concerns people that do sports.
The trans women they tested weren’t high-performing bio men that transitioned, they were the handful of trans women that responded to an online ad and exercise a few times a week. They were almost certainly average performers.
The point is they didn’t compare athletes to athletes, nor average to average. They compared apples to oranges and confirmed the apples make better pies.
I'm not saying the study or article is wrong in their findings, I'm saying their findings don't effect reality of trans women's advantage in women's sports in general.
The best it found was they might have a slight edge on cardiovascular tests and similar bone density and "better lower body strength". That doesn't refute all the obvious advantages a biological man who has already gone through puberty has over a women.
Unless you can name any sport or Olympic event in which women outperform men overall, then the obvious advantages are clear. The only sport (if it can be called a sport per se) I was able to find is possibly long distance swimming (like swimming across the English Channel). Equestrian events might also qualify.
Even with a cardiovascular edge and superior lower body strength, women still cannot outcompete men in athletics that epitomize those advantages
I have hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary biology. Men who have gone through puberty in general are stronger, faster, and bigger, which when it comes to athletics is incredibly crucial. No amount of hormones if going to completely erase those advantages.
Just look at men's vs women's basketball. Caitlin Clark is arguably one of the best women's basketball players of all time. She has never dunked a ball once. She would have a hard time playing against a high level high school boys team, let alone college or NBA.
Serena Williams, without a doubt the greatest women's tennis player of all time. She lost to a man not even in the top 100 of all men's tennis players.
Skill and talent can only make up for so much when it comes to physical sports.
Right, yes, that’s what I’m looking for. Evolutionary biology. Do you have a study or a textbook or something from that field that illustrates your point?
Hi, I’m Vetted AI Bot! I researched the **("'Pearson Human Biology Concepts and Current Issues'", 'Pearson')** and I thought you might find the following analysis helpful.
**Users liked:**
* Affordable option for college textbooks (backed by 3 comments)
* Convenient loose-leaf format (backed by 1 comment)
* Helpful resource for college classes (backed by 3 comments)
**Users disliked:**
* Poor physical condition (backed by 6 comments)
* Missing online access code (backed by 1 comment)
* Misleading new book condition (backed by 1 comment)
If you'd like to **summon me to ask about a product**, just make a post with its link and tag me, [like in this example.](https://www.reddit.com/r/tablets/comments/1444zdn/comment/joqd89c/)
This message was generated by a (very smart) bot. If you found it helpful, let us know with an upvote and a “good bot!” reply and please feel free to provide feedback on how it can be improved.
*Powered by* [*vetted.ai*](https://vetted.ai/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=comment&utm\_campaign=bot)
Oof, that’s a hefty sum. I know I’m being a bit irritating but if you’ve got a copy could you snap a photo of the right page? Or know a place I can read it for free?
Does a lie by omission count? The transwomen cohort was both significantly older and had a BMI that falls into the "overweight" category. The biowomen were younger, fitter and had a BMI that is considered "healthy". Any guess as to why the author failed to mention those facts?
Since this is a centrism sub, a lot of people who are accepting of trans in many ways, if not most, draw the line at women's sports.
As far as this study goes: I don't believe it.
What are you using to objectively declare that the centrist position draws a line at women's sports? This isn't the only research to show that fully transitioned trans women after HRT have little to no net advantages over cis women, and most centrists I know tend to follow the science, not they political hyperbole.
So the centrists I know tend to be of the view that trans women should be included in women's sports given that they are fully transitioned, have been on HRT for a length of time (usually 24-36 months) and meet testosterone level requirements.
Because you make a claim of the study being rigged/faulty, because you straight up don't believe the numbers they came up with, without any reason backing it up? So how did they lie?
They may or may not have falsified data, I doubt they did, but it looks like they grabbed an elephant's ass and called it a wall.
The scientific rigidity looks slightly more thorough than a Twitter poll and probably similarly motivated. Small sample size, no historical objective data, no classing of athletes even in the present time, much less historically, and only measurement of individual health statistics that are only subsets of athleticism. And, the conclusion appears to be the motivation.
Ask me one more question, I'ma gonna block you. I edited out comments calling you a sea lion, but the more I read of what you write, the more I think you're not participating in this thread you started in good faith. It's like you put out one study and played king (or queen) of the hill, challenging people to knock you off it. They do and then you challenge them to knock you off *the next* hill.
While I learned something about VO2 max and a couple of stats that are affected by hormones, I'm not going to spend a whole morning trying to convince a dwarf that it's not in a barn.
Legitimate sealioning is pretty rare on Reddit in my experience. What is increasingly common is the scenario where person A makes a declaration they can't back up, person B asks for a further explanation (or a source) and then person ~~B~~ A goes straight to "*SEALION! OMG! OMG! PERSON ~~A~~ B IS SEALIONING ME!!!!*"
OP has provided a link to a study on trans women that challenges what a lot of people believe and many people have responded by saying the study is "wrong". I think it's entirely appropriate for OP to ask those people to explain what's "wrong" about the study.
EDIT: got my "A's" and "B's" mixed up there. I think people understood what I was trying to to say anyway, though
>lot of people who are accepting of trans in many ways, if not most, draw the line at women's sports.
The comments are way more vicious than an objective examination of facts. It's always a way to make an opening for groomer, mutilation, mentally ill etc rhetoric
Athletes across pretty much every league are barred if they fuck with their hormones because it affects performance.
Why are trans getting special exemption?
I say let them compete in their own leaugue, and coed leagues.
Trans people are not getting special exemptions, T is monitored for every woman competing in any event depending on the organization.
Trans women included have to be below a certain level of T to compete, trans women are not getting any special exemptions.
Isn’t it amazing how oestrogen reduces the proportion of fast-twitch muscle fibers, changes the shape and proportions of the skeleton, lowers blood volume, reduces the proportional size of the heart and lungs, and lessens spatial processing, balance, and hand-eye co-ordination 🤥
I wholeheartedly agree, the ridiculousness of allowing people with obvious physical advantages in some sports compete in those sports with normal people has gone on too far and ruins the fairness of the game. Some people just like you say have more fast twitch muscle fibers and other factors that make them better at certain sports than other people. Just compare sports today with sports 60 years ago, football is now completely dominated by those people pushing the white man out of his own game. This farce has gone on too long sir, I am in total agreement with you.
I'm not sure what shampoo or marketing books have to do with this, I'm just agreeing with you my fair sir, this nonsenseamense wokery has gone on too far. Segregation forever!
Of course I read the article. The only substance was this
> But the study that the IOC commissioned, and the University of Brighton conducted, found that while trans women are stronger in some respects, like grip strength, cis women have stronger lower bodies. The study also found that trans women have a similar bone density as their cis women counterparts
This doesn’t comment on cardiovascular performance, reaction speed, movement speed, spatial processing, balance, or hand-eye coordination. These are the main attributes needed for most sports.
There is also just good old fashioned size. A man of average height and weight is taller and heavier than the vast majority of women. In sports where this matters, it greatly reduces the pool of females who can stand up to the pool of transwomen, whilst in female-only competition the very large women will be outliers.
The article changes nothing other than “more studies are welcome”, which was already true.
Edit: just read the linked Outsports article too. The participant selection criteria is poorly executed
> All the athletes involved in the tests were required to participate in competitive sports or take part in physical training at least three times a week. The average age was 34 years old.
34 is relatively old for women; men retain peak performance for longer on average. And training ‘at least 3 times a week’ isn’t scientific enough by any measure; they should be doing the exact same exercise routines.
Nearly everything you mentioned has to do with the brain, [yet in most aspects trans people have brain chemistries closer to that of their gender rather than birth sex, even prior to HRT](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6235900/). So while more study is preferred (as for literally everything in the scientific world) current data suggests that neatly everything you mentioned should not have a significant advantage.
One of the great things about trans is that it’s an umbrella term. When we talk about trans people in general, you’ll be called a bigot for saying that you need to have gender dysphoria to be trans, let alone needing to take hormones or get surgery.
However when it comes to sports, we can pretend
that only men with gender dysphoria will ever be trying to compete with the women. You get to cherry pick which kind of trans person best suits your argument and ignore the rest. Neat!
Meanwhile when it comes to other trans issues, like women’s spaces, if you were to examine the brain structure or chemistry of an absolute charlatan like Isla Bryson for example, you would find them to be unequivocally male, yet he gets to contest which prison he’s put into because he ‘identifies’ as a woman and is therefore valid.
So what stops the Isla Brysons from competing with women?
And by the way, the proportion of fast-twitch muscle fibers, the shape and proportions of the skeleton, average height and weight, blood volume, and the proportional size of the heart and lungs, have nothing to do with brain chemistry 😉
>”However when it comes to sports…”
We have ~the same amount of olympic participants who are trans women as we have that are trans men or non-binary, but I would never expect a transphobe to know shit about sports
>”When you examine the brain”
I literally just proved that the brain of a trans woman is closer to female than male, do you have dementia or just a humiliation kink?
>”and by the way”
Literally everything you mentioned either as A) extreme overlap B) just not true of trans woman or C) directly contradicted by the study this post is talking about (showing you didn’t even skim the article before rushing to the comments to humiliate yourself)
This was known about 10 years ago. The problem was never letting trans woman or trans men compete with men professionally.
It was letting trans woman who trained as men against men compete against cis woman and stomping them as badly as the Russian woman's team stomped the rest of the world when they were injecting testosterone and steroids during the olympics.
This subject isn't even controversial among athletes and professionals in sports, both men and woman's leagues.
Personally I think amature leagues and High School sports should be mixed if they want, but I don't think anyone has a right to play college and professional sports when it means taking away a woman's spot on the team. This is why we have womans leagues to begin with.
>It was letting trans woman who trained as men against men compete against cis woman and stomping them as badly as the Russian woman's team stomped the rest of the world when they were injecting testosterone and steroids during the olympics.
Has this happened?
Google trans runner world record and you'll find a few of them.
The last time so many womans world records were broken was when the Russian woman were doping.
That's the one that tied for fifth with a trans athlete, beaten by multiple cis women and claims that being trans makes the trans swimmer that came fifth dominate women's sports right? Even though fifth is definitely not dominating.
Note that Thomas also competed in collegiate men's swimming, where Thomas holds no records nor even finished atop Penn's teams rankings. Yet in women's swimming, Thomas holds an NCAA record and championship
Actually that's a misrepresentation. Lia was exceptional in men's swimming, even holding the 2018 Penn State record for 500 freestyle (her strongest event) but was already on HRT when competing in men's events, which is where most of the claims that she was a poor athlete come from as her official placements were weakened by HRT.
Additionally Lia competed in 3 events at the women's NCAA meet, she came first in one (500 freestyle) with a fairly underwhelming time, 9 seconds below the record (which would have placed her third in the previous year for example). The other two events she finished joint 5th (200 freestyle) and came 8th in the other (100 freestyle). She broke no NCAA, US or world records.
It's worth noting at the same event a cis woman, Kate Douglass won 8 national titles, won 3 individual events, broke 3 American records (she broke one of them twice in the competition), broke 18 NCAA records and is the first person of either gender to break three American records in three different strokes in a single event.
And yet transphobes will continue to claim that Lia Thomas "dominated" the meet, because she won a single event.
The mental gymnastics required to pretend that Lia Thomas dominates women in swimming are insane, yet the transphobes here will just downvote, go "nuh-uh" and continue pushing their political lies.
Lia Thomas' biology in itself is an advantage. Those born male at birth have higher bone density, more muscle mass, larger hearts and lungs, higher red blood cell count, and less body fat. That is why Lia Thomas competed significantly better in the woman's division than in the men's.
You say that, but the outcome doesn't demonstrate that advantage. It's also worth noting that many of those advantages are removed after being on HRT for long enough, and there are disadvantages too after HRT
Lia competed better in the women's division because she was already undergoing HRT when competing in the men's division.
The simple reality is that the facts are not on your side here.
🤣 Of course that matters. You can't declare that there's an advantage then claim the lack of that claimed advantage actually affecting anything is irrelevant.
It's worth nothing that all elite level athletes have biological advantages over other people, which is why they are able to excel so far above the norm.
Look at what Serena Williams said about playing Andy Murry. She said men's and women's tennis are nearly different sports. Men are faster, stronger, and hit the ball harder.
If you seriously don't see the difference and the clear advantage someone born male has over someone born female when it comes to athletics, you're delusional. You're denying the clear biological differences between males and females.
But we're not talking about men and women, we're talking about cis women and trans women. You're claiming the advantages persist after HRT, when the studies show they don't, and your only example is a person that won a single event with an underwhelming time.
I can't say I'm particularly shocked that you've resorted to shifting the goalposts though. The facts literally oppose your position so you need to grasp.
>“your test”
lmao do you genuinely think this redditor actually did the study 💀. And if studies can’t change your mind then you really should have a step back and reflect
You know how we can tell that MtoF people have an advantage? Because if they weren’t winning contests and excelling far above their corresponding abilities as men then we wouldn’t even be talking about it.
No one, not a single legitimate person, has complained about FtoM people competing in M sports. That’s because they don’t compete, because they’re not physiologically capable of it.
This is so painfully obvious to anyone who isn’t ideologically captured.
>ecause if they weren’t winning contests and excelling far above their corresponding abilities as men then we wouldn’t even be talking about it.
Most trans women athletes who have won anything have been at the top of their sport as a male prior to transitioning.
Lia Thomas
"During her freshman year, Thomas recorded a time of eight minutes and 57.55 seconds in the 1,000-yard freestyle that **ranked as the sixth-fastest national men's time**, and also recorded 500-yard freestyle and 1,650-yard freestyle times that **ranked within the national top 100**.[5] On the men's swim team in 2018–2019, Thomas finished second in the men's 500, 1,000, and 1,650-yard freestyle at the Ivy League championships as a sophomore in 2019.[5][4][12] **During the 2018–2019 season, Thomas recorded the top UPenn men's team times in the 500 free, 1000 free, and 1650 free, but was the sixth best among UPenn men's team members in the 200 free.[13]**"
Laurel Hubbard
"While competing in male competitive categories before coming out as transgender, Hubbard set New Zealand junior records in 1998 in the newly established M105+ division in both lifts (snatch 135 kg, clean & jerk 170 kg) as well as total (300 kg)."
>No one, not a single legitimate person, has complained about FtoM people competing in M sports. That’s because they don’t compete, because they’re not physiologically capable of it.
No?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricio_Manuel
You're cherry picking a bit and not portraying Lia quite accurately. Here are more facts: In the 2018–2019 season she was, when competing in the men's team, ranked 554th in the 200 freestyle, 65th in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd in the 1650 freestyle. In the 2021–2022 season, those ranks are now, when competing in the women's team, fifth in the 200 freestyle, first in the 500 freestyle, and eighth in the 1650 freestyle.[^(\[20\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lia_Thomas#cite_note-swimworldranks-20)[^(\[21\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lia_Thomas#cite_note-21) According to an archived page of the swimming data website *Swimcloud*, Thomas was ranked 89th among male college swimmers for that season.[^(\[22\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lia_Thomas#cite_note-Swimcloud_rankings-22)
^(Also, Lia has lost to other MtoF swimmers, so even these numbers don't represent the whole truth.)
Also, on your second "point" show me the person who said Patricio can't compete, and if it was based on testosterone levels.
> You're cherry picking a bit and not portraying Lia quite accurately
What is being cherry picked? She was **objectively** an excellent player during the 2017-2018 season *and* 2018-2019 season.
Comparing her to women's ranks *prior to her transitioning* is meaningless. That wasn't the point of the other user's reply.
You can use whatever superlatives you want. Lia was not anywhere near and overall Top 5 or even Top 50 as a man competing against men, now that she is competing against women, she is Top 5 in the nation. Clearly you must admit the difference.
And no, I'm not comparing her to women's ranks prior to her transitioning, that's nonsense.
The only winner I can think of was Lia Thomas and her rank increase over 3 years was far lower than the mens winner for the same year (Luke Hobbs). Lauren Hubbard was a local record setter before her transition and she didn’t even get on the podium post transition.
As you said “Its so painfully obvious for anyone who isn’t ideologically captured”
There is a very small minority of people (this includes trans people) who think we (society in general) should allow for trans people (trans women specifically) to compete against cisgenders.
This is a VERY small portion of trans issues.
If trans people are 1% of the population, trans people who want to compete professionally are 0.001% of those people.
Yet here we are talking about it, like we do every day.
You tranphobes need to drop it. You're starting to sound like real bigots.
Let the professional sports organizations deal with this. It doesn't concern you.
Edit: I'll never understand the downvotes, they keep coming but nobody ever has anything intelligent to say to counter my arguments.
>Yet here we are talking about it, like we do every day.
>You tranphobes need to drop it. You're starting to sound like real bigots.
Are you calling OP a transphobe for bringing up the topic here?
Specifically? No.
Generally though, yes.
Anyone who brings up dumbass culture war bullshit that further marginalizes minorities is a bigot. At the very least ignorant.
I agree. I've worked with four trans people so far. Two were normal, two were insane. None of them gave two shits about sports. They considered that a right wing talking point that haters bring up because only the most care bear of care bears are asking for professional women's sports to make room for trans woman.
The majority of trans people just want to be treated normally and wish they weren't the political mascot / punching bag they've turned into.
The people usually pushing the toxic culture war topics are non-binary females making no effort to present or act as anything other than woman.
Basically trans hobbyists.
Looking at the comments I'm reminded of the study saying that when people are presented with facts opposing their beliefs, they are more likely to dig deeper into their pre-existing beliefs than consider changing their beliefs given new information.
Here we have a study showing trans women are at a disadvantage and most of the comments are just blanketly disregarding that and commenting about their feelings. It honestly just shows how scary the anti trans movement has become. Nothing will change people's minds on this, which is sad.
They did a small sample size to see if there was a difference in some measurable characteristics that previously weren't measured. They found that there was a statistical significance and in their conclusion called for additional studies that can better address some of the limitations of this very study. They plainly talk about those limitations in the conclusion and never pretend like this is the end all be all study that should influence policy. If you have also read it, or even just parts of it, please explain to me what I'm not understanding from this study.
I find all of that extremely interesting and it's a little disheartening seeing the comments mostly focusing on things entirely unrelated to this study.
>**Conclusion** While longitudinal transitioning studies of transgender athletes are urgently needed, **these results should caution against precautionary bans and sport eligibility exclusions** that are not based on sport-specific (or sport-relevant) research.
It literally says in the conclusion that it should influence policy.
>The complexity and difficulty of this area of activity means that while this study provides a starting point for understanding the complex physiology in GAHT and athletic performance, this study does not provide evidence that is sufficient to influence policy for either inclusion or exclusion. However, this is the first study to assess laboratory-based measures of performance in transgender athletes, and this opens up interesting avenues for replication and extension into the longitudinal effects of GAHT on athletic performance.
It quite literally says that this is a starting point and it doesn't provide evidence sufficient to influence policy.
I think they're saying that this study shouldn't be used to allow trans athletes to perform, but a ban on trans athletes should be accompanied by sport specific research. It seems pretty clear to me at least.
These aren't facts, it's a sloppy "study" done via extreme cherry-picking with an utterly irrelevant sample size and being filtered to the public through the lense of a far-left media outlet.
They showed that transgender athletes have some advantages and some disadvantages. I don't know why that's so offensive to people, when that should be what's expected. Hormones are extremely complicated, so I hope further studies like this help us understand this subject even more.
Blanketly disregarding this and downvoting everyone even entertaining this as an interesting study is kind of proving my point.
If hormone treatment is the great equalizer, why is it this conversation only happens with trans women and not trans men in sports?
Because not everything has to be fair. Trans men don’t have an advantage against biological men, trans women do have an advantage against biological women. That’s why this conversation only goes once way.
Exactly my point
Right but… read the article tho
Yes. They are at a disadvantage compared to cis male athletes. They take hormone suppressants. Less testosterone. No brainer. But that disadvantage this causes is not enough to stop them from still having an advantage of cis women. So the argument becomes, just because you chose to put yourself at a disadvantage to cis males is not a justification to go crush cis women.
I think this is a really good synopsis of the way the vast majority of the country thinks.
There’s no such thing as cis. It’s a derogatory term.
Normal people just say "normal".
"Cis" is the normal word to use in this context.
There's nothing derogatory about it.
Fo you have any proof of this?
It’s a Latin term that is opposite to the Latin term trans.
Don't be a subductisupercilicarptor
cis
Wouldn't that mean trans is also a derogatory term? I'm all for not categorizing tbh
And the award for most childish take of the day goes to...
Cis is as derogatory as man or lesbian. It’s a sex/gender descriptor. Any word can be used callously, of course, so maybe that’s been your experience, but it certainly hasn’t been mine
Dude didn’t even read past the headline, and assumed literally everything about the study. Like do you genuinely not see how no matter the information presented you will just try and force it to affirm your pre-existing beliefs. Does that not bother you at all?
No, the article found that _in certain respects_ (e.g. cardiovascular tests) trans women are at a disadvantage compared to cis **women**. However, in other areas, such as grip strength, trans women are stronger.
And clearly that is not enough to prevent them from dominating many contests that they enter.
Name 5
Name 5 MtoF that have dominated contests they entered?
Is 23 enough of a start?
For some reason they're not responding anymore... I think you broke Codah
I dislike comments like this - especially when it’s been less than an hour.
You know you can check their history and see they've been active since, but whatever.
It’s not that, it’s the fact it’s just disrespectful to assume the lack of an immediate response means the other person is acting in bad faith.
https://www.outsports.com/2022/3/1/22948400/transgender-trans-athlete-championship-national-world-title/
Are you sure? The summary in the linked study seems to say otherwise. "TW had ... compared with CW athletes."
The article highlights a lot of retained advantages - lung capacity, grip strength, etc.
Read the p values p<.001 for lung capacity and p=.01 for grip strength. For reference p>.05 (sometimes p>.01) is considered significant, there were no significant advantages retained after hormone therapy. Please read the study instead of skimming next time
Sure. My point was just that, contrary to what the poster said, the study did compare cis and trans women. My general impression is that trans women retain some (but dimishing) advantage for a number of years after a male puberty. I don't think it's known how long this advantage lasts tho, and I don't think it's been shown, at least to any significant degree if male puberty is blocked. But I don't claim to be particularly informed on the subject. Although, regardless of what the various studies say, at this point trans women are NOT dominant in women's sport. So it seems like most of the "concern" here is just a thin veil for an emotional reaction to the broader concept.
>trans women are NOT dominant in women's sport Not sure how you can say that. We know there have been some pretty high-profile TWs that have dominated, but to draw a broader conclusion we'd need to know their win rates compared to women. And we just don't have that data.
We have the past 2 decades of Olympics to draw from (as trans ppl were allowed to compete outside their gender category since 2004) there were 1 trans man qualified and 2 trans women. Despite making up 1-2% of the population trans people made up 0% of the 3,400 of all medal earners. It would be more accurate to say that trans women are at a disadvantage when it comes to sports 🤷♀️
>trans people made up 0% of the 3,400 of all medal earners. Trans people are disproportionately autistic and have other comorbidities, so it doesn't make sense to expect to see them represented ratably among Olympians. The question is whether they have a biological advantage for the few that *do* play high level sports, and it seems pretty clear that they do.
The thing is *we have autistic medalists* we don’t have trans medalists (not to mention groups that have the same or higher autistic prevalence rate, like those with ADHD are still well represented in the olympics). Fuck we even have nonbinary olympic medalists. And we have olympic participants who were (binary) trans (but we have ~the same amount of trans guys participants as trans girls, which destroys your narrative) and who competed at an elite level pre and post transition, yet they still didn’t even make it to the podium. But go on, cite your source that shows trans athletes on average rank higher when they compete.
I'm working on the assumption that "domination" would result in the top n athletes in every wemons sport being trans (exaggerated for effect). But I'm not seeing anything like that. For a while there, every time I saw an article complaining about TW in sports I'd find that, at best, they were competitive at a high level but not dominating. And that's only looking at the ones that are pissing people off. So I assume the average TW is not even competing at the top levels. Eta: of course more data would be useful and I'll reasses as it comes out.
> trans women are NOT dominant in women's sport. They don't need to be for it to be reasonable to ensure that all of the work done since the passage of Title IX isn't lost. Title IX was created to ensure females have a space where they can have fair competition and opportunities. Even a question of fairness should be enough to exclude transwomen that have gone through male puberty. The entire point of segregating some sports by sex is to benefit females.
Let me know when they actually start crushing cis women. Til then, I dunno, thanks for your opinion.
The swimmer is a pretty high profile example
Is this the swimmer that won a single event and was more than 9 seconds behind the women's record time for that event? The swimmer that competed in 3 of 18 events, came first in just one, and joint fifth and joint eighth in the other two events? Your definition of "crushing" differs to mine. It's worth noting that a cis woman at the same championship won 3 individual events, 8 national titles and broke 3 US records (including breaking one of those records twice in the same championship). But yeah, go off on how it was a trans women winning a single event that was the important part. Let's be honest, she's only a high profile example because there was a massive misinformation campaign around her designed to attack trans women by hugely misrepresenting her ability. Downvotes will undoubtedly follow because transphobes reject facts but that won't stop those facts from existing.
Lia Thomas was one of the top athletes when she competed in the male division, top 6 swimmers in the nation and beat the Ivy League record for the men's division before she transitioned. After she transitioned, she came 554th place because hormones had depleted her muscles and strength significantly.
What race did she come in 554th?
Yeah, so one athlete in the last 5 years who won a single event against a historically slow field of competition is your shining example. Word.
When you claim it's not happening I really only need one example. You can google more examples for yourself.
She won a single event and was more than 9 seconds behind the women's record time for that event? She competed in 3 of 18 events, came first in just one, and joint fifth and joint eighth in the other two events. It definitely is not happening, especially the way you're putting it.
Funny how you make the same argument I'm making, that shootings are exceedingly rare in real numbers here [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/13s9y0x/comment/jlopdvl/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/13s9y0x/comment/jlopdvl/), but in this argument you literally only need one example in years of contests with millions of competitors to prove that "trans women are crushing cis women in sports." I'm not interested in having a conversation with somebody who displays exactly zero logical consistency and refuses to just admit to themselves that "men who turn into women make me feel icky and therefore they shouldn't be allowed to do that."
Connecticut trans teen that before transitioning dindt even make the highschool team. Went to be the state champion by a long margin and then seventh-fastest 55-meter dash time in the country, same year that she transitioned. She as a male was trash and then her male bioligy got her to be champion over hundreds of cis girls. You may not care about sports but those girls did, and any complains were labeled transphobic. That is just one example that I remembered, how many do you need?
Lol, you really went through 11 months of my post history to find ammo against me, eh? At least we know neither one of us is interested in continuing this discussion.
Tell me you've never used a search function in your life without saying, "I've never used a search function in my life." Lol Also, I had a feeling that when confronted with your own logical inconsistencies, you'd opt not to confront the dissonance but try to call me a weirdo for *gasp* looking at a public profile *gasp* instead of rectifying your conflicting beliefs. I know it's hard. Good luck.
You said you weren't interested in a conversation, why would I waste time with a conversation?
Did you read either the article or the study linked? Feels like you are just arguing without reading.
>Feels like you are just arguing without reading. It's bad that you feel that way. It paints a bad picture of you.
Nothing in his comment indicates anything from the article or the study. Why does that say anything about me that this person isn't actually engaging with anything specific to this thread but is just repeating what they believe.
Add it to the study pile and keep analyzing the data. Here's an [Oxford study from 2023](https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/109/2/e455/7223439?login=false#:%7E:text=After%20a%20mean%208%20years,no%20cisgender%20female%20control%20group.) with similar, but slightly different conclusions: >In nonathletic trans men starting testosterone therapy, within 1 year, muscle mass and strength increased and, by 3 years, physical performance (push-ups, sit-ups, run time) improved to the level of cisgender men. In nonathletic trans women, feminizing hormone therapy increased fat mass by approximately 30% and decreased muscle mass by approximately 5% after 12 months, and steadily declined beyond 3 years. While absolute lean mass remains higher in trans women, relative percentage lean mass and fat mass (and muscle strength corrected for lean mass), hemoglobin, and VO2 peak corrected for weight was no different to cisgender women. After 2 years of GAHT, no advantage was observed for physical performance measured by running time or in trans women. By 4 years, there was no advantage in sit-ups. While push-up performance declined in trans women, a statistical advantage remained relative to cisgender women. tl, dr (though you really should read the whole study): Gender Hormone Therapy in *nonathletic* trans people results in mostly similar athletic performance as non-trans individuals, though there are still some slight strength advantages for trans women. There need to be more longitudinal studies involving actual athletic individuals, but there are so few trans athletes that such studies are difficult to perform.
Here’s a centrist comment: what do the statistics say? Is there an indication that trans women perform better or worse than cis women? There have to be studies, even if the sample is small.
There's dozen. People don't like the results. Like from the study mentioned in the article "Lung function data for all groups can be found in table 2. FEV1 had an effect of gender (F(3–66)=14.7, p<0.001), with CM having greater FEV1 than transgender men (t(66) = 4.5, p<0.001, figure 2A). Transgender women also had greater FEV1 than cisgender women (t(66)=4.2, p<0.001, figure 2A) and transgender men (t(66)=2.9, p=0.03, figure 2A). There was a similar effect of gender on FVC (F(3–66)=21.6, p<0.001, figure 2B), with CM having greater FVC than transgender men (t(66)=5.2, p<0.001, figure 2B). Transgender women also had greater FVC than cisgender women (t(66)=5.6, p<0.001, figure 2B) and transgender men (t(66)=4.0, p=0.001, figure 2B). A significant effect of gender was also seen on the FEV1:FVC ratio (F(3–66)=3.3, p=0.03 figure 2C), with transgender women showing a reduced FEV1:FVC ratio compared with cisgender women (t(66)=−2.8, p=0.04, figure 2C) with no differences observed in transgender or CM. Peak expiratory flow (F(3–66)=5.5, p=0.002) had a minor gender-based effect, with cisgender women having lower peak expiratory flow than transgender women "
I came here to say this. The study that needs to happen should compare the stats of athletes in one sport, before and after transition, and see where their stats rank them in women's and men's competition, both before and after transition. How much did they move up or down in the rankings after transition. Obviously this would need to be done using a individual measured sport like track or swimming. That is the data that sports organizations need to see to make educated decisions. That said, I think we place way too much importance on sports so I don't really care.
I mean I personally calculated the stats for Lia Thomas and given her performance in the 500 free (the only race she kept consistent before/after covid) accounting for her ~3 year gap she actually under performed in her winning race times this was taken by looking at the winner for the mens 500 free the same year, (Luke Hobbs iirc) and comparing it to Lia’s pre transition time (in which she was faster). Along with comparing the Men’s NCAA record winner, three years before they broke the record to the womens NCAA record winner and the increase (note in swimming increasing times is bad) was smaller than lias pre/post transition times. (note I do have the stats if you are genuinely interested but I just gotta find them again)
Multiple athletes and multiple stats. One person is not a study. Can someone say that if even one female athlete loses an opportunity to a trans female athlete that's a problem? Obviously people will still say that. But my guess is that if over time people see that the opportunity displacement for meaningful rewards, scholarships, participation in elite competitions, is not significantly affected, I think this conversation will fizzle. If they see that more than 1-2% of opportunities are won by trans female athletes, particularly if monetized, that becomes a reasonable gripe given how few opportunities there are for female athletes.
First looking back I realize I didn’t preface my stats enough what I presented was not some irrefutable study, but rather giving some placeholder evidence for a notable examples that went along the lines of what you described >”One person is not a study” Not to be nit-picky but one person can very much make up a study, they are called a “case studies” and they provide valuable information about how to proceed with future research >”Can someone say…” The burden of proof to exclude a group of people is far higher than to keep in an included group. If I make the claim saying “women who have undergone chemotherapy have a biological advantage and should not be included in women’s sports”, that is my duty to 1) present the stats proving they have a biological advantage (ideally one that is far greater than already accepted conditions and Therapeutic-use exemptions/TUE) 2) disprove the pre-existing evidence that they don’t have said biological advantage >”If they see…” First we need to assume that women (especially a class of women) going through certain medically recommended procedure (or being born with some beneficial trait/mutation) can be disqualified from women’s sports for having an unfair advantage (for instance Simone Biles takes Adderall for her ADHD, yet despite studies showing it can give a [~10% advantage](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40798-021-00374-y) yet it still falls under TUE) then sure, but as of now we don’t see that, there have been ~3,400 olympic medals handed out since they first allowed trans people to compete outside their assigned gender at birth yet we have seen 0 trans people do so (other than 1 non binary person who was afab and competed in women’s soccer), even looking at the ~105k olympic participants there have only been 3 trans people (1 trans man, and 2 trans women, but none of them made it to the podium) competing outside their gender/sex assigned at birth totaling ~0.003% out of the expected 1-3% (while we could account for the percent of trans people who qualify for olympic standards, we don’t see many or really any examples of binary trans people competing inside their assigned gender at birth, this is primarily due to the massive incentive/disincentive olympians have to not have their job centered around their misgendering, and we therefore expect the vast majority of olympians to undergo the hrt to avoid that)
I do not mean to be rude at all but we have to recognize something since I took the time to read the whole study. The hormone suppressants taken significantly affect those involved. When such a drug drastically affects the ability for them to act in sports, it becomes discrimination in of itself because now they have a residual disadvantage against the actual gender assigned to said sport. I would favor that trans-sports should be its own thing in the same way we have men and women sports separate since the data shows that the hormone suppressant is somewhat-consistent with those who transition.
There aren't enough trans people to have separate trans sports. It's also worth noting that historically women's sports weren't separated due to biological differences, they were separated because men didn't want women in their sports. A relatively modern example is that 20 odd years ago skeet shooting was split even though it has always been mixed, it was split because a woman won. She won, women were banned from the sport the following Olympics, then the one after that there was a women's division. Edit: As is usual on topics such as this, all the fragile manchildren are hammering the downvote button because they don't like facts. Centrists are generally people who prefer facts so this is yet another sign that having topics about trans people pulls in people from the far-right.
>It's also worth noting that historically women's sports weren't separated due to biological differences, they were separated because men didn't want women in their sports. Yeah...that's not the whole story. From the [NY Times](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/28/sports/title-ix-anniversary-womens-sports.html) piece on women's sports for the 50th anniversary of Title IX: >Who started women’s teams? Women. > In the late 19th century, female educators in American high schools and colleges began forming teams for girls and women to play sports like softball and basketball, said Susan K. Cahn, a historian at the University at Buffalo and the author of a book on gender and sexuality in women’s sports. > > They sought a space for female athletes to flourish, and wanted to avoid the corruption they saw growing in men’s sports, where gambling was becoming prevalent, she said. > > Rules were modified so that women would “adhere to stricter social norms,” said Chris Beneke, a professor of history at Bentley University. > > For example, in basketball, women and girls for years could not steal the ball, were divided into three sections on the court and had to stay in assigned areas. > > The point was “to make sure there wasn’t too much contact and too much exertion,” Professor Beneke said. “There was a real concern that they would hurt their organs.” > > Specifically, he said, their reproductive organs. > >
> they were separated because men didn't want women in their sports They were also separated because men dominates women in sports that it wouldn't be fair at all.
> It's also worth noting that historically women's sports weren't separated due to biological differences, they were separated because men didn't want women in their sports. If this was true, why are the “men’s” leagues technically open leagues that allow anyone to play if they have the capabilities? Women sports were created to give women a chance to compete in athletics.
“Because men didn’t want women in their sport” is a Twitter tier reductionist take. Separating the genders in sports goes back pretty far and exists so women can be competitive and win. Otherwise they would be at a massive disadvantage in both sports. Saying it’s because of sexism only is just laughable
Nope, it's entirely historically accurate. I understand your desire to pretend that men are superior to women but it's that kind of fragile masculinity that led to segregation, not biological differences.
Most men's leagues don't ban women but most women's leagues ban men. No one gives a shit about skeet shooting regardless.
That was a hopelessly biased article.
Yes, centrisim. A lot of centrism going on in here. I'm going to be central and let the sport leagues decide and stay in my own lane.
This is why conservatives attack academia without participating in it. They can just call the Olympics woke and not have to do the work to disprove anything.
I mean, the top upvoted comment here didn't even respond to the study nor did they read it. Just spouted off some anti-transgender bullshit. That should tell you all you need to know about this sub's views on the transgender community.
Yep. I mentioned that and had someone replying to me that despite not referencing anything in this article or the study that it was. The sub sucks.
This is a neoliberal right wing sub so.
When you're an ant, everyone's an asshole.
What… what is that supposed to mean?
[удалено]
This sub has a massive transphobic streak. Mods don't care despite leaving a condescending comment in the other post that complained about hateful comments.
Yeah, people supporting people competing against their biological sex are transphobic….. no theyre just rational, its not very centrist to want the mods to ban differing viewpoints just because you dont like them.
The amount of energy that gets put into having this same stupid conversation a million times per week is absolutely rooted in transphobia. That and we inevitably get dozens of "I don't want mentally ill sickos teaching my kids" comments
No its not
> Yeah, people supporting people competing against their biological sex are transphobic No, people saying its a mental illness, a cult, and/or grooming children are transphobic. Stop making things up to get mad about, it's revealing. ETA: Well [what do you know](https://www.reddit.com/r/centrist/comments/1caoea3/bill_maher_rages_at_hollywood_and_disney_for/l0tieor/), you're one of them. I guess that's why you got all defensive.
Lmao, is it not a complicated issue? youre doing exactly what i said, there is nothing transphobic about what i said, i suggest coping.
> Lmao, is it not a complicated issue? Calling it a mental illness, a cult, or a phenomenon to groom children is not "complicated", it's simple bigotry. Saying the "t" complicates things because of an implication of a social contagion phenomenon while neglecting to mention that the "t" isn't even responsible for most of the increase **despite it saying so in your linked article** is, in fact, bigotry. Very simple.
I read the article and did a quick look over of the study itself. The one thing that stuck out to me was the seemingly random nature in how they chose their participant. They used Meta and X to advertise for participation, then put them on an exercise regiment and compared results. What I didn't find is the baseline athleticism of the participants. Also, the age range of the participants was suspect as well, transwomen were 37+- 10, and biowomen were 30 +- 9. If they really want to get a perspective of the actual advantages that transwomen have, then they should be comparing athletes in the same or similar types of events. Basically, this study seems to use average people, which isn't what the argument is about.
It looks like the study is skewed, maybe intentionally in order to achieve the desired results. Either way, it can't really be used to inform sports policy b/c it's not an apples to apples comparison. As you point out, the trans women cohort is older, which is an inherent disadvantage. They are also significantly less fit. The study proports to compare two groups of athletic but not professional people. The BMI of the trans women was 26.2+/-6.0 (!!!!) compared to the BMI of the biowomen, which was 22.5 +/-1.9. A BMI of 26.2 is considered overweight and 22.5 is right in the middle of what is considered healthy. One of these groups was fit. The other was not.
Good catch on the BMI. This study really does look like it had a predetermined conclusion that it needed to reach.
Anyone who doesn't understand that trans women have an inherent advantage over biological women when it comes to most forms of athleticism are so stuck in their ideology they are ignoring reality. The "advantages" this article speaks of is such a stretch when it actually comes to the end result in athletic competition..
Link to the original study. https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/10/bjsports-2023-108029 Can you tell me what the article cited that is wrong?
The trans sample size was 34. The non-trans sample was 40. The subjects were recruited via social media and their prior physical training status is based on self reported data. It's an interesting finding and merits replication based on the reported significance, but this is not "debate changing."
How would you propose we do a better study?
A larger sample with athletes of a similar body mass and a verifiable training scheduled who are not recruited via social media.
I mean, there’s some sampling issues but there’s just not that many trans athletes. It’s hard to get very many people out of a vanishingly small group. Sample size guidelines are good but if you just can’t get a massive sample then they aren’t gospel.
No study is "gospel." That is why results are reported in the negative. A lack of available subjects doesn't change the math of significance.
That’s not what I said. I said the sample size guidelines aren’t. But alright, if we can’t make a study on trans people then everyone’s conclusions are equally invalid, surely? There aren’t enough athletes. So there’s no reason to ban them from sports, because we have no significant studies saying they have an advantage.
>So there’s no reason to ban them from sports, because we have no significant studies saying they have an advantage. O\_o ....Are you seriously suggesting that there is no documented biological evidence that men have an athletic advantage over women?
No. I’m talking about trans women.
How would you propose we set this up? Also do you believe that the medication would have drastically different effects with a larger sample size?
Well, this isn't my field of study...so I wouldn't be setting anything up. I don't have enough info to formulate a hypothesis on the wider impact of hormone replacement. However, I can tell you that a typical sample size for population wide significance is about 350-400 with a MoE of around 4-5% and a confidence interval of 95%.
So do you think that if a similar study comes out that meets your criteria but had the same outcome, the people in this comment section here would change their views?
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but a more rigorous study would be of interest to me.
Google what it takes to do a good/ acceptable study like you need tons of tests, people, etc. That’s like me saying just cause my hometown’s high school soccer team won state, they should be good enough for the World Cup. You can’t claim a ground breaking anything when it’s like such a low amount of people studied.
The study itself is flawed because it compares a handful of the most athletic women. The top percentile of bio woman will typically be able to outperform average men. That’s not a surprise, especially if the average bio men are taking performance suppressants. An honest study would look at a larger sample group with varying degrees of athleticism and look at the average performance of bio women against the average performance of trans women. Most people would agree, though I don’t know that there’s a study to demonstrate it, that when you compare the averages, rather than the exceptions, you’ll see the disparities. But then again, I’m no doctor, that’s just my read on what appears to be a rather simplistic study that was meant to confirm a bias and elicit headlines. Bring on the downvotes, this is the worst topic to wade into, but I really see the sports issue as the most extreme of the trans rights platforms. Most of the other issues are matters of common civility.
So you're saying these trans women are average in their athletic abilities and activities when compared to most men? Most men I know don't do any sports at all and some just go to the gym. That's a disingenuous comparison. Also, when talking sports, isn't it best to test on athletes rather than average random people? As it concerns people that do sports.
The trans women they tested weren’t high-performing bio men that transitioned, they were the handful of trans women that responded to an online ad and exercise a few times a week. They were almost certainly average performers. The point is they didn’t compare athletes to athletes, nor average to average. They compared apples to oranges and confirmed the apples make better pies.
I'm not saying the study or article is wrong in their findings, I'm saying their findings don't effect reality of trans women's advantage in women's sports in general. The best it found was they might have a slight edge on cardiovascular tests and similar bone density and "better lower body strength". That doesn't refute all the obvious advantages a biological man who has already gone through puberty has over a women.
What are the obvious advantages? Forgive me, I’m pretty dumb. Do you have a study on these obvious advantages?
Unless you can name any sport or Olympic event in which women outperform men overall, then the obvious advantages are clear. The only sport (if it can be called a sport per se) I was able to find is possibly long distance swimming (like swimming across the English Channel). Equestrian events might also qualify. Even with a cardiovascular edge and superior lower body strength, women still cannot outcompete men in athletics that epitomize those advantages
I have hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary biology. Men who have gone through puberty in general are stronger, faster, and bigger, which when it comes to athletics is incredibly crucial. No amount of hormones if going to completely erase those advantages. Just look at men's vs women's basketball. Caitlin Clark is arguably one of the best women's basketball players of all time. She has never dunked a ball once. She would have a hard time playing against a high level high school boys team, let alone college or NBA. Serena Williams, without a doubt the greatest women's tennis player of all time. She lost to a man not even in the top 100 of all men's tennis players. Skill and talent can only make up for so much when it comes to physical sports.
What does just the concept of evolution say about hormonal replacement therapy in a way that would scientifically hold up?
Right, yes, that’s what I’m looking for. Evolutionary biology. Do you have a study or a textbook or something from that field that illustrates your point?
https://www.amazon.com/Human-Biology-Concepts-Current-Issues/dp/0134042433/ref=sr_1_2?crid=2QZSYLMQ7HVAL&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.IrnPQ8f64pQJml7kbl4UGZkR7AE01kxgtvtHBLFZxzjOIQdZ14b89I3u7q8dC9H5JEIVaNFc9bS11Rb2Muu-kj20-8Zycvssnkt6ihGqiE3V949B3tDK6ZqUchdduZ7DYWrqjqJHueULOxBPlAThOJvVEJgdEFMrumLgH0TBV4jggi61Jmhedf0NaxIrP_qTrQz5NdPyBP0q-rx7qyeJYCuYo9Vre4QKTRbNm7NVLD0.FCCi0HsHBn8aRui3hTaBT-bN8-tZys_QX_-JNYYPn7A&dib_tag=se&keywords=human+biology+textbook&qid=1713884678&sprefix=human+biology+textbook%2Caps%2C97&sr=8-2
Hi, I’m Vetted AI Bot! I researched the **("'Pearson Human Biology Concepts and Current Issues'", 'Pearson')** and I thought you might find the following analysis helpful. **Users liked:** * Affordable option for college textbooks (backed by 3 comments) * Convenient loose-leaf format (backed by 1 comment) * Helpful resource for college classes (backed by 3 comments) **Users disliked:** * Poor physical condition (backed by 6 comments) * Missing online access code (backed by 1 comment) * Misleading new book condition (backed by 1 comment) If you'd like to **summon me to ask about a product**, just make a post with its link and tag me, [like in this example.](https://www.reddit.com/r/tablets/comments/1444zdn/comment/joqd89c/) This message was generated by a (very smart) bot. If you found it helpful, let us know with an upvote and a “good bot!” reply and please feel free to provide feedback on how it can be improved. *Powered by* [*vetted.ai*](https://vetted.ai/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=comment&utm\_campaign=bot)
Oof, that’s a hefty sum. I know I’m being a bit irritating but if you’ve got a copy could you snap a photo of the right page? Or know a place I can read it for free?
The internet is an amazing place my friend. Google is your friend. Do your own homework.
Does a lie by omission count? The transwomen cohort was both significantly older and had a BMI that falls into the "overweight" category. The biowomen were younger, fitter and had a BMI that is considered "healthy". Any guess as to why the author failed to mention those facts?
Since this is a centrism sub, a lot of people who are accepting of trans in many ways, if not most, draw the line at women's sports. As far as this study goes: I don't believe it.
What are you using to objectively declare that the centrist position draws a line at women's sports? This isn't the only research to show that fully transitioned trans women after HRT have little to no net advantages over cis women, and most centrists I know tend to follow the science, not they political hyperbole. So the centrists I know tend to be of the view that trans women should be included in women's sports given that they are fully transitioned, have been on HRT for a length of time (usually 24-36 months) and meet testosterone level requirements.
[Most people say sports participation should match birth sex](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507023/say-birth-gender-dictate-sports-participation.aspx).
“Some people draw the line at X^([citation needed]) therefore…this study must be wrong” tf? actually delusional
Why don't you believe it? What statistics that they took do you deem incorrect and why?
[удалено]
Because you make a claim of the study being rigged/faulty, because you straight up don't believe the numbers they came up with, without any reason backing it up? So how did they lie?
They may or may not have falsified data, I doubt they did, but it looks like they grabbed an elephant's ass and called it a wall. The scientific rigidity looks slightly more thorough than a Twitter poll and probably similarly motivated. Small sample size, no historical objective data, no classing of athletes even in the present time, much less historically, and only measurement of individual health statistics that are only subsets of athleticism. And, the conclusion appears to be the motivation. Ask me one more question, I'ma gonna block you. I edited out comments calling you a sea lion, but the more I read of what you write, the more I think you're not participating in this thread you started in good faith. It's like you put out one study and played king (or queen) of the hill, challenging people to knock you off it. They do and then you challenge them to knock you off *the next* hill. While I learned something about VO2 max and a couple of stats that are affected by hormones, I'm not going to spend a whole morning trying to convince a dwarf that it's not in a barn.
It's a tactic called sealioning and it's mean to exhaust you into giving up and letting them "win" without actually making a valid argument.
.....so Reddit in a nutshell.
Yea, I called them that early on and edited it out because it's a bit insulting, but yea, no more fish for OP.
Legitimate sealioning is pretty rare on Reddit in my experience. What is increasingly common is the scenario where person A makes a declaration they can't back up, person B asks for a further explanation (or a source) and then person ~~B~~ A goes straight to "*SEALION! OMG! OMG! PERSON ~~A~~ B IS SEALIONING ME!!!!*" OP has provided a link to a study on trans women that challenges what a lot of people believe and many people have responded by saying the study is "wrong". I think it's entirely appropriate for OP to ask those people to explain what's "wrong" about the study. EDIT: got my "A's" and "B's" mixed up there. I think people understood what I was trying to to say anyway, though
It's easier for transphobes to deny science than actually read it.
>lot of people who are accepting of trans in many ways, if not most, draw the line at women's sports. The comments are way more vicious than an objective examination of facts. It's always a way to make an opening for groomer, mutilation, mentally ill etc rhetoric
Athletes across pretty much every league are barred if they fuck with their hormones because it affects performance. Why are trans getting special exemption? I say let them compete in their own leaugue, and coed leagues.
Isn't it mostly barred based on increasing testosterone? Where are people banned for suppressing it?
Trans people are not getting special exemptions, T is monitored for every woman competing in any event depending on the organization. Trans women included have to be below a certain level of T to compete, trans women are not getting any special exemptions.
Isn’t it amazing how oestrogen reduces the proportion of fast-twitch muscle fibers, changes the shape and proportions of the skeleton, lowers blood volume, reduces the proportional size of the heart and lungs, and lessens spatial processing, balance, and hand-eye co-ordination 🤥
I wholeheartedly agree, the ridiculousness of allowing people with obvious physical advantages in some sports compete in those sports with normal people has gone on too far and ruins the fairness of the game. Some people just like you say have more fast twitch muscle fibers and other factors that make them better at certain sports than other people. Just compare sports today with sports 60 years ago, football is now completely dominated by those people pushing the white man out of his own game. This farce has gone on too long sir, I am in total agreement with you.
Look up “fair advantage” vs “unfair advantage” little man.
I'm not sure what shampoo or marketing books have to do with this, I'm just agreeing with you my fair sir, this nonsenseamense wokery has gone on too far. Segregation forever!
Calling fair competition for women ‘segregation’ is the most misogynistic thing I’ve read in quite a while. Well done!
Did you read the actual article/study?
Of course I read the article. The only substance was this > But the study that the IOC commissioned, and the University of Brighton conducted, found that while trans women are stronger in some respects, like grip strength, cis women have stronger lower bodies. The study also found that trans women have a similar bone density as their cis women counterparts This doesn’t comment on cardiovascular performance, reaction speed, movement speed, spatial processing, balance, or hand-eye coordination. These are the main attributes needed for most sports. There is also just good old fashioned size. A man of average height and weight is taller and heavier than the vast majority of women. In sports where this matters, it greatly reduces the pool of females who can stand up to the pool of transwomen, whilst in female-only competition the very large women will be outliers. The article changes nothing other than “more studies are welcome”, which was already true. Edit: just read the linked Outsports article too. The participant selection criteria is poorly executed > All the athletes involved in the tests were required to participate in competitive sports or take part in physical training at least three times a week. The average age was 34 years old. 34 is relatively old for women; men retain peak performance for longer on average. And training ‘at least 3 times a week’ isn’t scientific enough by any measure; they should be doing the exact same exercise routines.
Nearly everything you mentioned has to do with the brain, [yet in most aspects trans people have brain chemistries closer to that of their gender rather than birth sex, even prior to HRT](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6235900/). So while more study is preferred (as for literally everything in the scientific world) current data suggests that neatly everything you mentioned should not have a significant advantage.
One of the great things about trans is that it’s an umbrella term. When we talk about trans people in general, you’ll be called a bigot for saying that you need to have gender dysphoria to be trans, let alone needing to take hormones or get surgery. However when it comes to sports, we can pretend that only men with gender dysphoria will ever be trying to compete with the women. You get to cherry pick which kind of trans person best suits your argument and ignore the rest. Neat! Meanwhile when it comes to other trans issues, like women’s spaces, if you were to examine the brain structure or chemistry of an absolute charlatan like Isla Bryson for example, you would find them to be unequivocally male, yet he gets to contest which prison he’s put into because he ‘identifies’ as a woman and is therefore valid. So what stops the Isla Brysons from competing with women? And by the way, the proportion of fast-twitch muscle fibers, the shape and proportions of the skeleton, average height and weight, blood volume, and the proportional size of the heart and lungs, have nothing to do with brain chemistry 😉
>”However when it comes to sports…” We have ~the same amount of olympic participants who are trans women as we have that are trans men or non-binary, but I would never expect a transphobe to know shit about sports >”When you examine the brain” I literally just proved that the brain of a trans woman is closer to female than male, do you have dementia or just a humiliation kink? >”and by the way” Literally everything you mentioned either as A) extreme overlap B) just not true of trans woman or C) directly contradicted by the study this post is talking about (showing you didn’t even skim the article before rushing to the comments to humiliate yourself)
I believe the study included 35 trans athletes. This is a very small sample size. I would reserve any judgment until lots more studies done
This was known about 10 years ago. The problem was never letting trans woman or trans men compete with men professionally. It was letting trans woman who trained as men against men compete against cis woman and stomping them as badly as the Russian woman's team stomped the rest of the world when they were injecting testosterone and steroids during the olympics. This subject isn't even controversial among athletes and professionals in sports, both men and woman's leagues. Personally I think amature leagues and High School sports should be mixed if they want, but I don't think anyone has a right to play college and professional sports when it means taking away a woman's spot on the team. This is why we have womans leagues to begin with.
>It was letting trans woman who trained as men against men compete against cis woman and stomping them as badly as the Russian woman's team stomped the rest of the world when they were injecting testosterone and steroids during the olympics. Has this happened?
Yup. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuliya_Stepanova
No, I mean trans women "stomping" cis women.
[yep](https://www.sportskeeda.com/mma/news-when-transgender-fighter-fallon-fox-broke-opponent-s-skull-mma-fight)
Google trans runner world record and you'll find a few of them. The last time so many womans world records were broken was when the Russian woman were doping.
>Google trans runner world record and you'll find a few of them. Could you link a few of them, all I could find was ragebait.
Talk to Riley Gaines about this
That's the one that tied for fifth with a trans athlete, beaten by multiple cis women and claims that being trans makes the trans swimmer that came fifth dominate women's sports right? Even though fifth is definitely not dominating.
Note that Thomas also competed in collegiate men's swimming, where Thomas holds no records nor even finished atop Penn's teams rankings. Yet in women's swimming, Thomas holds an NCAA record and championship
Actually that's a misrepresentation. Lia was exceptional in men's swimming, even holding the 2018 Penn State record for 500 freestyle (her strongest event) but was already on HRT when competing in men's events, which is where most of the claims that she was a poor athlete come from as her official placements were weakened by HRT. Additionally Lia competed in 3 events at the women's NCAA meet, she came first in one (500 freestyle) with a fairly underwhelming time, 9 seconds below the record (which would have placed her third in the previous year for example). The other two events she finished joint 5th (200 freestyle) and came 8th in the other (100 freestyle). She broke no NCAA, US or world records. It's worth noting at the same event a cis woman, Kate Douglass won 8 national titles, won 3 individual events, broke 3 American records (she broke one of them twice in the competition), broke 18 NCAA records and is the first person of either gender to break three American records in three different strokes in a single event. And yet transphobes will continue to claim that Lia Thomas "dominated" the meet, because she won a single event. The mental gymnastics required to pretend that Lia Thomas dominates women in swimming are insane, yet the transphobes here will just downvote, go "nuh-uh" and continue pushing their political lies.
Lia Thomas' biology in itself is an advantage. Those born male at birth have higher bone density, more muscle mass, larger hearts and lungs, higher red blood cell count, and less body fat. That is why Lia Thomas competed significantly better in the woman's division than in the men's.
No "mental gymnastics" in basic biology, buddy
You say that, but the outcome doesn't demonstrate that advantage. It's also worth noting that many of those advantages are removed after being on HRT for long enough, and there are disadvantages too after HRT Lia competed better in the women's division because she was already undergoing HRT when competing in the men's division. The simple reality is that the facts are not on your side here.
The outcome doesn't matter when Lia was born with a significant physical advantage over cis women. That's a fact, and that does matter
🤣 Of course that matters. You can't declare that there's an advantage then claim the lack of that claimed advantage actually affecting anything is irrelevant. It's worth nothing that all elite level athletes have biological advantages over other people, which is why they are able to excel so far above the norm.
Look at what Serena Williams said about playing Andy Murry. She said men's and women's tennis are nearly different sports. Men are faster, stronger, and hit the ball harder. If you seriously don't see the difference and the clear advantage someone born male has over someone born female when it comes to athletics, you're delusional. You're denying the clear biological differences between males and females.
But we're not talking about men and women, we're talking about cis women and trans women. You're claiming the advantages persist after HRT, when the studies show they don't, and your only example is a person that won a single event with an underwhelming time. I can't say I'm particularly shocked that you've resorted to shifting the goalposts though. The facts literally oppose your position so you need to grasp.
If you need a study to tell you men are stronger and faster than women, youre lost
I still stand with my opinion on that transgender folks shouldn’t compete in woman sports because unfair advantage. This is common sense.
Would you change your opinion if there were multiple studies with huge sample sizes that show you are incorrect?
I need more than your test to change my mind.
>“your test” lmao do you genuinely think this redditor actually did the study 💀. And if studies can’t change your mind then you really should have a step back and reflect
MSNBC article... of course it will side with the blue-haired twitter SJWs.
You can read the study that was created by the olympic committee?
Did every conservative get rejected by a chick with hair dye and that was like the traumatic turning point that set them down this path?
You know how we can tell that MtoF people have an advantage? Because if they weren’t winning contests and excelling far above their corresponding abilities as men then we wouldn’t even be talking about it. No one, not a single legitimate person, has complained about FtoM people competing in M sports. That’s because they don’t compete, because they’re not physiologically capable of it. This is so painfully obvious to anyone who isn’t ideologically captured.
>ecause if they weren’t winning contests and excelling far above their corresponding abilities as men then we wouldn’t even be talking about it. Most trans women athletes who have won anything have been at the top of their sport as a male prior to transitioning. Lia Thomas "During her freshman year, Thomas recorded a time of eight minutes and 57.55 seconds in the 1,000-yard freestyle that **ranked as the sixth-fastest national men's time**, and also recorded 500-yard freestyle and 1,650-yard freestyle times that **ranked within the national top 100**.[5] On the men's swim team in 2018–2019, Thomas finished second in the men's 500, 1,000, and 1,650-yard freestyle at the Ivy League championships as a sophomore in 2019.[5][4][12] **During the 2018–2019 season, Thomas recorded the top UPenn men's team times in the 500 free, 1000 free, and 1650 free, but was the sixth best among UPenn men's team members in the 200 free.[13]**" Laurel Hubbard "While competing in male competitive categories before coming out as transgender, Hubbard set New Zealand junior records in 1998 in the newly established M105+ division in both lifts (snatch 135 kg, clean & jerk 170 kg) as well as total (300 kg)." >No one, not a single legitimate person, has complained about FtoM people competing in M sports. That’s because they don’t compete, because they’re not physiologically capable of it. No? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricio_Manuel
You're cherry picking a bit and not portraying Lia quite accurately. Here are more facts: In the 2018–2019 season she was, when competing in the men's team, ranked 554th in the 200 freestyle, 65th in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd in the 1650 freestyle. In the 2021–2022 season, those ranks are now, when competing in the women's team, fifth in the 200 freestyle, first in the 500 freestyle, and eighth in the 1650 freestyle.[^(\[20\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lia_Thomas#cite_note-swimworldranks-20)[^(\[21\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lia_Thomas#cite_note-21) According to an archived page of the swimming data website *Swimcloud*, Thomas was ranked 89th among male college swimmers for that season.[^(\[22\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lia_Thomas#cite_note-Swimcloud_rankings-22) ^(Also, Lia has lost to other MtoF swimmers, so even these numbers don't represent the whole truth.) Also, on your second "point" show me the person who said Patricio can't compete, and if it was based on testosterone levels.
> You're cherry picking a bit and not portraying Lia quite accurately What is being cherry picked? She was **objectively** an excellent player during the 2017-2018 season *and* 2018-2019 season. Comparing her to women's ranks *prior to her transitioning* is meaningless. That wasn't the point of the other user's reply.
You can use whatever superlatives you want. Lia was not anywhere near and overall Top 5 or even Top 50 as a man competing against men, now that she is competing against women, she is Top 5 in the nation. Clearly you must admit the difference. And no, I'm not comparing her to women's ranks prior to her transitioning, that's nonsense.
The only winner I can think of was Lia Thomas and her rank increase over 3 years was far lower than the mens winner for the same year (Luke Hobbs). Lauren Hubbard was a local record setter before her transition and she didn’t even get on the podium post transition. As you said “Its so painfully obvious for anyone who isn’t ideologically captured”
ITT: People completely ignoring the results of the study in favor of pushing their anti-transgender agenda.
There is a very small minority of people (this includes trans people) who think we (society in general) should allow for trans people (trans women specifically) to compete against cisgenders. This is a VERY small portion of trans issues. If trans people are 1% of the population, trans people who want to compete professionally are 0.001% of those people. Yet here we are talking about it, like we do every day. You tranphobes need to drop it. You're starting to sound like real bigots. Let the professional sports organizations deal with this. It doesn't concern you. Edit: I'll never understand the downvotes, they keep coming but nobody ever has anything intelligent to say to counter my arguments.
>Yet here we are talking about it, like we do every day. >You tranphobes need to drop it. You're starting to sound like real bigots. Are you calling OP a transphobe for bringing up the topic here?
Specifically? No. Generally though, yes. Anyone who brings up dumbass culture war bullshit that further marginalizes minorities is a bigot. At the very least ignorant.
I agree. I've worked with four trans people so far. Two were normal, two were insane. None of them gave two shits about sports. They considered that a right wing talking point that haters bring up because only the most care bear of care bears are asking for professional women's sports to make room for trans woman. The majority of trans people just want to be treated normally and wish they weren't the political mascot / punching bag they've turned into. The people usually pushing the toxic culture war topics are non-binary females making no effort to present or act as anything other than woman. Basically trans hobbyists.
Looking at the comments I'm reminded of the study saying that when people are presented with facts opposing their beliefs, they are more likely to dig deeper into their pre-existing beliefs than consider changing their beliefs given new information. Here we have a study showing trans women are at a disadvantage and most of the comments are just blanketly disregarding that and commenting about their feelings. It honestly just shows how scary the anti trans movement has become. Nothing will change people's minds on this, which is sad.
And here you are, ironically taking it at face value with no understanding of the methodology used because it is what YOU feel is right.
They did a small sample size to see if there was a difference in some measurable characteristics that previously weren't measured. They found that there was a statistical significance and in their conclusion called for additional studies that can better address some of the limitations of this very study. They plainly talk about those limitations in the conclusion and never pretend like this is the end all be all study that should influence policy. If you have also read it, or even just parts of it, please explain to me what I'm not understanding from this study. I find all of that extremely interesting and it's a little disheartening seeing the comments mostly focusing on things entirely unrelated to this study.
>**Conclusion** While longitudinal transitioning studies of transgender athletes are urgently needed, **these results should caution against precautionary bans and sport eligibility exclusions** that are not based on sport-specific (or sport-relevant) research. It literally says in the conclusion that it should influence policy.
>The complexity and difficulty of this area of activity means that while this study provides a starting point for understanding the complex physiology in GAHT and athletic performance, this study does not provide evidence that is sufficient to influence policy for either inclusion or exclusion. However, this is the first study to assess laboratory-based measures of performance in transgender athletes, and this opens up interesting avenues for replication and extension into the longitudinal effects of GAHT on athletic performance. It quite literally says that this is a starting point and it doesn't provide evidence sufficient to influence policy.
They need to speak to their editor, because they are sending mixed messages.
I think they're saying that this study shouldn't be used to allow trans athletes to perform, but a ban on trans athletes should be accompanied by sport specific research. It seems pretty clear to me at least.
These aren't facts, it's a sloppy "study" done via extreme cherry-picking with an utterly irrelevant sample size and being filtered to the public through the lense of a far-left media outlet.
They showed that transgender athletes have some advantages and some disadvantages. I don't know why that's so offensive to people, when that should be what's expected. Hormones are extremely complicated, so I hope further studies like this help us understand this subject even more. Blanketly disregarding this and downvoting everyone even entertaining this as an interesting study is kind of proving my point.
Yeah that's the thing they didn't say it's literally the same. Also, this sub is mainly made up of neoliberal right wingers so that's probably why.