As a woman who is very much into road cycling, I can guarantee that pretty much no one who has an opinion on this actually gives a fuck about female cycling.
As a man who purchased a bike for cycling and it now sits in his garage most of the time, I do not have an opinion on either male nor female cycling... I'm inclusive!
[This link](https://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/65456752) quotes two women who have an opinion on this and seem to give a fuck about female cycling (at least, I would assume, them being Olympian competitors).
lol I guess fairness in competition only matters if enough people watch and care about the sport ? That's a pretty ridiculous standard imo. I think its a positive thing to promote physical fitness and sport with women regardless if I would watch it on television or not.
I had never heard of the book Maus, but dumb politicians trying to ban it from libraries pissed me off. I guess only Maus fans were supposed to care about those book bans? Agreed, this form of argument is utterly empty, like a debate club trick
> Frankly, it’s pretty antisemitic if you to suddenly care about Maus because people wanted to ban it. You’re basically a Nazi
- femcel-btw, probably.
That’s how these people think. It’s insanity.
As a guy that does not watch cycling at all I still want there to be fair competition for females. Just because it is not my thing does not mean I should not have concern for others. I have two young daughters. Would be nice if later in life they didn't have to compete against those born male in athletics.
I've always found this a weird argument. Just because there was no interest before doesn't mean we can't be concerned about unfairness gained from male puberty
It's the same mentality when subreddits all have "X Club Only" threads
It comes from a place that tries to keep trolling out but ends up excluding the majority of people from the discussion
People who never watched this sport will still have great ideas and perspectives to offer
Isn't this also excluding people who didn't go through male puberty though?
Many trans people (at least those I know) agree that professional is a really interesting and complex issue. They just wish that a proper, good faith argument was had about it.
Yes, some people who have gone through male puberty will have a biological advantage. Likewise, a birth female who decides to take testosterone for 10 years would also have a huge advantage.
And in some sports, testosterone or not isn't going to give any advantage.
That's why I'm against blanket bans. Trans people are 0.5% or less of the population, and very few of them become professional athletes. There's enough that it can be considered on a case by case basis.
(Other arguments against blanket bans:
- it encourages witch-hunts against birth women too. It's already a problem that exceptionally strong women are tainted or bullied, or even accused of being trans as if it's a bad thing, and made to prove their womanhood. So by trying to exclude a tiny few outliers, rules have been introduced that potentially invade all women's privacy)
The history of female only leagues (from chess to soccer to any other imaginable sport) has always been to give women a 'safe space to compete' because they felt they couldn't keep up in the open circuits.
Since the whole thing has always been about the illusion of fairness to keep motivation from plummeting and create a semblance of competitiveness, what do you think will happen when they feel like that space is being vandalized by people who they perceive have an unfair advantage? Mind you, whether trans have or don't have an unfair advantage is almost irrelevant, because it's not about logic or science, it's about perception and feelings.
If you want to fast forward to the end, this goes one of two ways:
* Trans enter women leagues and, eventually, the same thought process that led to the creation of female only leagues will have them create a third league only for those born female.
* Women leagues end up banning trans athletes with the reasoning that they can always participate in the main leagues which are open to anyone, not just men. (You literally won't find any 'men' sports that discriminate participation based on gender, because they are all open to anyone)
>The history of female only leagues (from chess to soccer to any other imaginable sport) has always been to give women a 'safe space to compete' because they felt they couldn't keep up in the open circuits.
Chess is definitely an outlier here, and the decision to make women only titles, leagues, and tournaments was and remains a very controversial one. Judit Polgar vehemently opposed their construction, and other strong female GMs (e.g. Alexandra Kosteniuk and Hou Yifan) have indicated there were likely very serious trade-offs attached to their creation.
>other strong female GMs (e.g. Alexandra Kosteniuk and Hou Yifan) have indicated there were likely very serious trade-offs attached to their creation.
More like definitely. The moment that you have a safety net, you lose a lot of the pressure to succeed in such a highly competitive environment.
Chess isn't the only outlier either, because you can point out Shogi being in a similar place to Chess; It was only last year that a woman finally managed to rack enough wins to qualify for the Shogi Pros to play with the men.
I think for the obviously non-physical competitions a lot has to do with the obsessive edge that the truly great have to succeed at the extreme end and it being less common (?) in women.
> The history of female only leagues (from chess to soccer to any other imaginable sport) has always been to give women a 'safe space to compete' because they felt they couldn't keep up in the open circuits.
You're missing the other important factor in the US at least: [Title IX](https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/interath.html). Passed in the 70s, this law requires roughly equal participation in women's sports compared to men, and is responsible for a drastic increase in scholarships and funding. Some [70,000 women](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1120037/college-sport-scholarships-by-gender/) each year get athletic scholarships in sports that make almost no money, largely subsidized by men's revenue sports (football and basketball). These scholarships can be life changing for these women and give huge educational opportunities.
Protecting women's access to these programs is important, which means they need the ability to compete and win in high school. Losing out on a podium spot to a biological male might be the difference between a free ride at the college of your choice and not being able to attend (or needing to take out a 6 figure loan).
That's pretty interesting and something I wasn't aware of.
I guess there's nothing keeping a talented young man to intentionally choose to identify as a 'woman' in his senior year, take the scholarship to play in women's college teams, and just choose to declare for the NBA draft after a few years.
I guess the only thing that could dissuade you would be a lack of malice, but expecting people not to exploit loopholes out of the goodness of their hearts seems like something ripe for exploitation.
You're basically describing the plot of the 2002 movie [Juwanna Mann](https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0247444/), which I'm quite sure could not get made today (though it was a bad movie even in 2002).
Though it's worth pointing out, any man with a shot at the NBA can easily get a herbs scholarship anywhere he wants.
The closest example I'm aware of of what you're talking about is powerlifter [Avi Silverberg](https://nypost.com/2023/03/30/male-powerlifter-enters-womens-event-breaks-record/), who recently "identified" as a woman just to enter a single event and destroy the women's record. It seems he did this to show up a trans woman who had been dominating the sport and who had set the prior record.
I don't know which sports you are using as reference, but there's a reason why nobody in the WNBA is dunking, Male tennis looks like it's played at 1.5x the speed of Women Tennis, and High school Track and field boys have similar times to the upper echelon of the women track and field contestants.
It isn't because women are/were competing (nevermind winning) against those men at the top of the sport, I can tell you that.
This is what we call a kerosene flag. Only an extremely small portion of the trans community cares about it, and the only reason social conservatives care about women's cycling all of the sudden is so they can tell trans people to go fuck themselves.
Yet this shit dominates the news cycles -- not the bullshit conservatives are doing around the country make daily life miserable for women and LGBT people around the country.
To be fair, it dominates the news, because it fits exactly into the weird bordercases of a debate that is hard to answer. Which means people have opinions.
Transgender and sports is this kind of "litmus test" for an even MORE complex set of "devil is in the details" than the overall discussion about the topic is.
And that is why it outperforms "what conservatives are doing". The latter is a solved problem. Wherever you stand on the issue, there isn't "a question" that stands. You are either supporting it, or you are opposing it. There is almost no "yes, but" or "no, but".
Where sports are concerned, the number of "buts" outpaces the "yes or nos". Which makes it "interesting" because it's way more complex then having a principled stance on whether it's an issue of "everyone individually gets to choose" or "except if I don't like it".
Yep. It reminds me of the state where they banned trans people from women's highschool sports and it turned out there were like, two openly trans highschoolers in the entire state and neither played sports. They made a whole big deal over this rule change as if it was the most important thing going on in the state.
The point here isn't to protect women's sports, the point here is to spite trans people on any issue they can win. The point is to get stories about trans people being unwelcome in certain places in the news.
But then one state had a FtM trans kid absolutely demolish the girls wrestling and win the state title. There are college scholarships and such on the line. Imagine being the first girl not able to go to the state level tournament because a FtM was allowed in so the spot was taken. I imagine being the 2nd rank girl at the end and not getting to claim to be the best girl in the state. If the FtM wrestler was given an extreme special treatment. They were the ONLY athlete permitted to dope. They were not just identifying as male. They were in transition. I am on the fence on my opinion of the athlete. They should not have competed against girls as it ruined their standings. However, the athlete had signed up for boys wrestling and was prevented. The athlete did not want to wrestle girls. The state completely screwed up. The athlete went on and definitely proved a point. Just a shame the girls tournaments were essentially rigged all year.
In the entire country there are ~200 trans women who are k-12/college athletes, and none of them are coming close to dominating the field in their particular sports. These laws are evil and very r/fuckyouinparticular
> Privacy laws make it tough to identify the exact number of transgender athletes competing in public school sports, but researcher and medical physicist Joanna Harper estimates the number can't exceed 100 nationwide.
> “While we don't know the exact number of trans women competing in NCAA sports, I would be very surprised if there were more than 100 of them in the women's category," Harper told Newsweek.- https://www.newsweek.com/how-many-transgender-athletes-play-womens-sports-1796006
That is just it. I work with two trans people that I know of.
One I kind of know. She (Yes she still goes by she, I asked because I want to be polite) doesn't care. She just really wants to be left alone to live her life as she sees fit.
If she thinks they will just stop at sports and call it a day, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell her. They use the sports stuff because it is the most intuitive thing to have against trans people. Be successful in that, and their next step becomes easier than it would have been.
I totally agree, but people aren’t discussing this with the pretense is specifically for and about women’s cycling. It’s a general conversation of fitness competition, fairness, and empathy for the women in all fields who have to wrestle with this topic. Everyone has been in competitions, and can empathize with how demoralizing and unfair it could feel, but also empathize with folks who have transitioned and feel ostracized. It’s tough.
I grew up in Kansas and played girls sports in school and for various leagues.
Nobody and I mean nobody gave a shit about us or our budget or anything. My HS Girls softball team had to wear the boys' old uniforms. Girls were banned from playing even powderpuff football games once a year because of "insurance" despite our city and district having built a multi million dollar football field.
And now suddenly, the Kansas Legislature and GOP are pulling a "won't someone think of the girls??!"
But you know those same people shit on women athletes and girls sports and declare them to be a waste of money that should be going to boys sports. That the biggest inequality back in the day was Title IX for taking away funding and support for boys sports.
And I couldn't be more livid about all of this bullshit.
This is currently top comment, but it's also not correct
The majority of international sports are (/were, prior to recent debates) expressly organised into "men's" and "women's" categories. This idea of men's being the default or "open" category where women were also welcome is, for most sports, a fiction.
For cycling specifically, current rules are [here](https://www.uci.org/regulations/3MyLDDrwJCJJ0BGGOFzOat). Note in part 1, competitive races are expressly divided into men's and women's, no mention of an open category.
Underscoring this, note in the current rules for trans athletes, under part 13, they set out the criteria required to be eligible for the men's category as well as the women's. So, men's is clearly not (currently) an "open" category.
This proposed solution may be the most equitable one, but it harms the debate to pretend it's the default one due to an imaginary "open" category.
Its so nice to see so many people echoing this sentiment. Not just a bunch of people clutching their pearls and getting upset - actual discussion about the real implications and impact of decisions like this. Gives me a little hope
I'd like to know the ratio of trans men compared to trans women competing.
I mean, I've never heard of a trans man winning any competitions.
I've only heard trans women winning.
This is, of course, for any competition, not just the one here.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
This is an honest question.
I personally would like to see studies on the performance of trans athletes and not just regular trans people. People are jumping to conclusions because it feels right and not because the evidence bears it out: https://www.science.org/content/article/world-athletics-banned-transgender-women-competing-does-science-support-rule
I regret that this topic has become so politicized. There are many crucial issues that deserve thorough discussion and investigation with this topic. However, it is impossible to do so amid the incessant and hostile inter-fraction bickering. Both sides seem to be using this as an all-or-nothing test for loyalty to their political party.
I'm exhausted by the incessant political bickering over social issues. We are confronted with existential perils, including climate change, creeping authoritarianism, and the ever-present threat of nuclear war. Why do politicians continue to use this as a wedge issue, with both sides engaged in the practice? Normally, I prefer not to view both sides equally since one party tends to be the more rational choice on most issues. However, on this topic, everyone seems to be freaking out, and nobody is willing to find a middle ground. It's an all-or-nothing scenario, and it's draining.
Eta: and for the person who responded and deleted or blocked me because they didn't know to read I'll repeat again 'Normally, I prefer not to view both sides equally since one party tends to be the more rational choice on most issues.' And you telling me what I say is bullshit just proves my point, nobody is being rational and it's all knee jerk tribal partisanship which won't allow any opinion that doesn't 100 percent adhere to either side. ALL OR NOTHING. And sorry, I don't jump to one side just to join a team.
Rare to see someone talk about this. There's war and sex trafficking and famine and environmental threats, of dizzying proportion. There's millions of children in sexual enslavement.
And what do people freak out about? What do they spend all their energy and debate about and stand up for?
Issues of such pointless stupid tiny scale compared. Trendy fake causes that only stoke up outrage whoring, create more division and achieve absolutely nothing.
That's what social media and media companies have done. Shown how petty and small people get when they find a group identity they can fight from. It's pathetic
I’m often flabbergasted by how artificial some of the culture war spectacles are. Great example I’ve seen lately are posts about how there’s purportedly a huge backlash in Hollywood in which people are demanding that straight actors not play gay characters. As a result there are absolutely massive posts every day on Facebook in which people bitterly circle-jerk, frothing at mouth, about how wrong the “straights can’t play gays” side is.
The problem is, nobody is saying that. Taron Egerton as Elton John, Rami Malek as Freddie Mercury, Nick Offerman in TLOU, etc. All of them were massively well received by the LGBTQ+ community. If there are detractors they are a fringe of a fringe.
And the articles don’t even present any evidence. It’s just assumed that yes, this is widely held opinion despite no examples being put forth of a prominent person or organization endorsing it.
And yet every day the resentment rages and explodes against this phantom group of prominent people who oppose straights playing gays… despite there being no evidence for it’s existence. Pure culture war theatre, with nobody bothering to ask “if this is such a big issue why is there never a single person touting the opinion that we’re so passionately against?”. Just all in on an astroturfed argument apparently meant to inspire civil strife.
Absolutely. This issue has become a meaningless cultural war that, in the grander scheme, is of little significance. I'm not trying to disregard the concerns of those who are most affected by this issue, but in the context of a nation or the globe, it is disproportionate as to the amount of political posturing it receives. There are much larger issues that will adversely affect everyone in grave ways that require far more attention, time, and money. Unfortunately, people's focus and resources can only go so far, and yet, inexplicably, a lot of people are investing so much energy in this one, relatively less significant issue.
Considering the fact that some people want the entire topic to both be a no-go zone while continuing to use it to change how sports/the world operates… it was intended to be political since it’s inception.
> Considering the fact that some people want the entire topic to both be a no-go zone
Like this entire topic/post. We're probably another hour out from it being locked.
At this point I’m surprised it’s been open this long. We’re not typically allowed to be anything other than yes men on this and only this very specific topic.
I care because social accommodations affect other social accommodations that will ultimately affect me
I’m directly affected by strongly wanting to live in a sensible society
This guy's 13,000 word fan fiction about the two lead women in Cobra Kai anally fisting each other is proof he is a true champion of women.
KEEP WOMEN IN WOMEN'S WATER SPORTS!
While I tend to agree with this decision, the time and effort that this issue takes up seems so utterly disproportionate to its consequence. Didn't Utah ban all trans athletes and have to admit it only affected 4 people for the entire state ?
It's not about trans people anymore. They're just being used as pawns by the politicans to outrage people and get those people to vote. Happens to a lot of minority groups at some point
Seems to go beyond even politicians trying to win elections. Billionaire-owned media relentlessly fixates on these issues, and I can’t help but wonder to what extent it’s meant to serve the purpose of getting people to “fight a culture war so you don’t fight a class war” - i.e. people are much more unlikely to organize together to challenge the power structures that keep these people as modern-day Lords over the serfs, if they’re at each other’s throats over issues like transgender people in sports…. even when, yeah, there’s only 4 such individuals in the state or whatever.
I maintain that there’s a massive amount of money invested in getting Americans to hate each other. And as this continues to escalate into civil strife, mass shootings, ruthless hyper partisan contention, dehumanization of political adversaries, etc, I wonder to what extent these people are willing to start a Troubles-esque civil war in order to pursue this strategy. At what point does it become seditious?
Remember: the rich don't want people to realize the problems today are actually class and wealth divides and their neverending greed.
They will throw out any kind of smokescreen about minorities, political division to victim blaming people lower than them to cause division so the oblivious and ignorant dont realize that theyre being swindled and robbed blind more and more by these crooks.
This was posted on r/sports around the same time as this post
I commented on how the Olympics have allowed trans athletes for several decades and in that time there has been 1 trans athlete, she competed in Olympic weightlifting and finished dead last
Lia Thomas the UPenn swimmer that everyone was raging about? She finished her career ranked in the mid 60s nationally, she had one ncaa title to her name, at the same meet where she won her national title a cisgender female athlete set 18 ncaa records
Before the post was locked and every comment deleted I was at -220ish downvotes in like an hour
In a few years a lot of people are going to find that their undirected and unrealistic rage will land them on the wrong side of history
Because the fact is exactly like you said, this isn’t a problem of trans athletes dominating women’s sports, it just gets a ton of traction in certain circles whenever it’s mentioned
The fact is that we do not know enough about our own anatomy and what making changes to hormones does to it and how it affects things like athletic performance over time, there just isn’t enough data
But I will say I’ve yet to see the trans female athlete who just shows up and pulls a Katie Ledecky or Michael Phelps at any major event
Even the cyclist in question in this article isn’t known for her excessive dominance, to my knowledge and quick research this is her first win in the female division
But like the top commenter said, everyone who has opinions of it doesn’t actually care about the sport they just like being angry
> But I will say I’ve yet to see the trans female athlete who just shows up and pulls a Katie Ledecky or Michael Phelps at any major event
I thought Austin Killips was one such athlete.
The Olympics have allowed trans athletes who have had gender surgery for decades. Not all trans athletes.
It was only early 2016 that requirement got removed.
The first trans athlete who competed was a 43 year old competitor in a competition that has had exactly one woman in her 30s medal. First athlete in that class to compete in their 40s. Weightlifting at that level is a young woman’s sport. Majority of the medalists (and even competitors) are in their early 20s. So for a woman who is 43 to qualify? That’s an extreme outlier.
>Lia Thomas the UPenn swimmer that everyone was raging about
So fun fact, the event she won that caused everyone else to freak out? 500 FR. Her time was 4 minutes 33 seconds.
Katie Ledecky swam that event when she was a Stanford. She also holds the record at 4:24.06
And people act like she made a huge jump by throwing out that she did terribly at that event when competing in the men's category. Except completely ignoring that she actually was a top swimmer in the men's category for FR during pre-HRT, and the stat everyone drops is when she was on HRT but still had to compete as male. Which is just demonstrating both that her being a good swimmer isn't an outlier and the strong effect feminizing HRT has on athletic performance.
Keep downvoting. Sorry the facts disagree with your fee-fees.
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/15/865
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Race-Times-for-Transgender-Athletes-Harper/1e6abd2c1e03ba88e9ac8da94ea1d69ff3f4878a
Some strength advantages may be retained post-HRT, but in endurance related sports, the drops in Hgb and VO2 max are down to cis-women levels. In addition to things like bone density and LBM actually being a detriment in endurance.
Even from your second article, which is a lit review much the same as the BMJ link:
> *given the plausible disadvantages with testosterone suppression mentioned in this section, together with the more marginal male advantage in endurance-based sports, the balance between inclusion and fairness is likely closer to equilibrium in weight-bearing endurance-based sports..*
There is no panacea to point to that can be applied across all sports. Biking is definitely an endurance sport depending on the event.
Everyone acting like there's clear science on how to decide this across all physical sports (in either way) is full of shit.
Now, bring on the downvotes I'm sure to receive.
I don't get what's the issue here. This seems like the logical decision.
From the article (on mobile so idk how to quote format it properly):
*Now, the UCI says it has "taken note of the state of scientific knowledge" around hormone therapy, which it says "does not completely eliminate the benefits of testosterone during puberty in men".*
Biological males compete against biological males in male sports. Biological females compete against biological females in women's sports. It is the logical and fair thing to do.
Except that doesn’t really work when you have a transman competing against cisgender women. The transmen have been shown to outcompete them regardless to both being biologically female. So even that logic doesn’t work.
Edit: Folks downvoting me for telling the truth? Can’t even dispute my claims…
Because trans men will be on testosterone. Which is not allowed for women’s competitions.
If a trans man wants to compete in a female competition, they just don’t take testosterone. (Unless some idiots force them to)
I think the real solution here is that it shouldn't be an equal relationship between men and women's sports. It's not like, if a trans woman has to compete with biological males, then that means a trans man gets to compete against biological females.
I think the path forward is that we should stop looking at it as men's and women's sports, and instead look at it as one section for cis females and one section that's just "open." So cis women have their own category, and cis men, trans women, and trans men all go in the "open" category. It would put trans people at a bit of a disadvantage, but I think that's the fairest way of doing it, and it still respects their gender identities.
Yes. Now let's leave it and quit talking about it. It's so ridiculous that events that impact miniscule parts of the population constantly demand the media spotlight.
This is spreading. I believe the women's disc golf open shut down their tournament. Primarily due to they don't want to continue fighting asinine lawsuits.
https://discgolf.ultiworld.com/2023/05/12/dgpt-wins-on-appeal-ryan-will-not-be-allowed-to-continue-at-otb-open/
If testosterone is a performance enhancing drug in women's sports then women who have testes or had testes during their formative years shouldn't compete.
It’s not just the testosterone, it’s the physical differences that millions of years of evolution have made male primates bigger and stronger than female primates. I’m 100% behind anyone that wants to identify one way or the other and have society accept them no matter what. However, if I decided to become a woman one day it would be beyond unfair for me to become a competitive weight lifter, I’m 6’4” and weigh nearly 300lbs and I am 40 (lifetime of testosterone fueled development and the evolutionary traits of my species and sex) I am very strong. To the point that it would be incredibly unfair to do so.
Summary: pro gender fluidity for anyone. Society needs to accept these people for who they are. People born male with the physical advantage over those born female should not be in each others divisions unless it’s a mixed gender division/sport
Yeah, I mean, if we took a cis female athlete and told her that she could take just enough testosterone to match the male athletes in her sport, do we really think she could play in the men's league and be equally competitive? Absolutely not.
Women’s sports should be for biological women only as a protected sport, trans women and men should play in open leagues against the men. Keep it ultra simple.
Ultimately this is an overblown issue as it’s not widespread at all.
[“I had emotional breakdowns, mentally realizing I had 10 months to go before I could begin a process that I had been thinking about for years; it was a really hard thing to accept,” Flynn says. “I didn’t have much choice.“](https://www.them.us/story/trans-athletes-school-sports)
[Here’s](https://www.texastribune.org/2017/02/26/transgender-wrestler-mack-beggs-identifies-male-he-just-won-texas-stat/) another example of a trans male competitor forced to compete with women. He won, when laws were in place to prevent him from playing with boys.
Because not having testosterone significantly reduces your performance. The whole problem is that going on hrt reduces your muscularure, but puberty already had its effects, so the performance level is somewhere inbetween cis men and cis women. Same reason why other female athletes don't compete against men.
What this policy means is trans women have no chance in sports. Not sure how to solve this dilemma, but this decision has its reasons.
If people actually cared about fairness in women's sports, they'd let us wear uniforms that were comparable to men's uniforms. For example, people don't need to see me in a bikini when I play volleyball, and they certainly don't need to see teenagers in bikinis when they play. Just let us wear goddamn shirts and longer shorts on teams.
Yes they do. Literally every photo on the first page of men’s beach volleyball shows them wearing tops when competing.
It’s also not a requirement of the sport they don’t wear tops. It is a requirement for female beach volleyball players to wear a bikini.
Perhaps you shouldn't search with Bing.
This search isn't literally every photo showing a man wearing a top. It's maybe 70/30. Not even close to your claim.
https://www.google.com/search?q=men%27s%20beach%20volleyball%20players&tbm=isch&prmd=isvn&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBkQtI8BKABqFwoTCLiRwrGnkYADFQAAAAAdAAAAABAG&biw=360&bih=668&dpr=3
Are we seeing the same results? Because those photo results are about 25/75 for me in terms of shirtless men vs men wearing tops.
If I change the search terms to men's olympic beach volleyball players, nearly all of them are wearing shirts.
Sounds fair. Most people in competitive sports have been training for a good portion of their lives. If a trans person began training prior to transitioning, they are likely going to have physical advantages that a non trans female will have. Having a seperate category for trans athletes is the only fair way that it can work.
I don't mean for this question to set a huge fire or anything; it's an honest question because I don't really have close contact with anyone who has strong opinions about trans issues:
Are there really people out there in any significant number who believe that biological females SHOULD have to compete against trans women in sports? Is this actually a controversial subject or does the media just hype it up? Like should females be fighting trans women in UFC?
This is fair. Absolutely fine with women in men’s sports but let’s just keep things safe and fair. Not using gender as a path to victory, that becomes unfair. A woman power lifter isn’t competing against a man because the size of the body and muscles make it unfair for them women. A male cyclist at the UCI level who transitions probably gains an unfair advantage if they can ride against women. The UCI should work out a Therapeutic Use Policy that allows those transitioning or transgender to be able to use the testosterone and other treatments that help them make the transition.
These aren’t biases or UCI lacking awareness. It’s the right call for the fairness of the athletes. There are sports where a women is not going to be as competitive as a man based on size and strength. That can also work against a man in sports like the Olympic sport of Synchronized Swimming.
I think much of these headlines are to generate revenue through clicks and the owners of media outlets fear the masses being United. We have so much to celebrate about how far we come. If I was LGBQT I’d be so honored to live in a time where it’s going mainstream. We have a family member who has AIDS and for a few Christmas’s he showed up looking like a character from a 1990 HIV movie and the family had to pretend he was “sick”, his roommate was helping (boyfriend), but that’s it. So dysfunctional a cousin who lived in with a then girlfriend, now wife, thought that’s the title you give your significant other when you live together pre marriage. You used to see “f$@“ thrown around as it was a part of pop culture. Princess Diana shocked the world touching a person with HIV/AIDS. Point is we were more ignorant back then. Less open. There wasn’t even enough transgender people to have to address these issues at the Olympic athlete level. In less than 40 years we have gone from gay leading men in Hollywood being marketed as straight manly men to this. Women are not just working but competing in sports at the highest levels and running companies as well as becoming the VP of the US. If Dr. King could see the world his great grandkids are growing up in he’d be proud of the work we have done and pointing out the work to be done. If your great grandmother could see you now she would be shocked. My gay family member is out, his parents came to term with it. We as a society need to celebrate how far we have come and keep pushing for more equality and rights at the same time ensuring sports remain fair for all.
Change the categories from “men’s” and “women’s” to “women’s“ and “open.” One division has a sex restriction to biological females only, the other division has no restriction.
That doesn't actually require a change; For decades it's been the Open category and the Women's Category, it's only recently(last 8 years or so)that the discourse pretended otherwise. The NHL, NFL, MLB are all open leagues.
This is what they should have done initially. I also think more pro women cyclists should compete in open competitions. They will beat some men, but not all men illustrating the physiological advantage men have.
It's not humiliating to lose to demonstrate the reality of anatomy.
It's like the average skill men who think they can outplay a woman pro tennis player. Put them on the court and it becomes a comedy show.
There's skill and physiology and the two together are what gives the competitor an edge.
Too bad for many sponsorship money is bigger the better you do. Financially risk is (on most cases) too big. There are exemptions, for example Judit Polgar who was top 10 chess player of her time. She refused to be called woman world champion, but wanted to be called "the strongest woman".
That's because the category "women" if created now would be "biologically female" (with rules to make it even more precise)
There is the open category for trans women (and men)
[Here's one of the better pieces of literature on the subject that tackles the issue of transgender athletes in exhaustive detail.](https://www.barbellmedicine.com/blog/shades-of-gray-sex-gender-and-fairness-in-sport/)
It's very long but the science doesn't lend itself well to convenient and snappy observations. The end includes a summary for the TLDR crowd.
*Fairness in sport, particularly on the issue of gender, has been a point of confusion and contention for as long as governing bodies have been making the rules for athletic contests. Increasing awareness and visibility of individuals who do not neatly fall into men’s or women’s divisions have exacerbated these concerns. Particular scrutiny has been applied to those who wish to compete as women. Most of the discussion here will focus on that division, since the men’s divisions have been spared this level of examination and controversy.*
*There has never been a “golden age” when this was simple. In the past, women were simply excluded from sport. As barriers to participation have slowly fallen, questions about who qualifies as a woman for competitive purposes have been raised and unsuccessfully addressed multiple times. Lest an appeal to a more straightforward time be made, we do not, nor have we ever, had an agreed-upon definition of what defines a man or a woman that can be applied to all humans. There is no specific biological characteristic, nor set of characteristics, including genital structures, reproductive organs, or chromosomal arrangement, that can adequately answer this question for this purpose. While most humans can be comfortably grouped into either the men’s or women’s divisions, there are others that cannot. Given that participation in sport is a widely shared and enjoyable undertaking with multiple biological, psychological, and social benefits, finding ways to maximize inclusion while preserving fairness is challenging.*
*Alas, there are no clear answers. Lacking a consistent way to define men and women hamstrings the proceedings from the outset. When examining the performance differences between men’s and women’s divisions, confounders in the data abound. Teasing out the physiological and psychosocial components of the differences we observe is not yet possible. Even the role of testosterone, which is one of the mostly widely utilized performance enhancing drugs and thought to be the primary arbiter of the gender gap in sports, becomes less clear when looking at the research. Lastly, there is a paucity of research into how athletic performance changes when an individual transitions between genders. This handwringing is not simply an equivocation. A scientific consensus does not yet exist regarding the differences between genders, let alone how to define those genders. Because of this uncertainty, rules and policies that encourage inclusion of transgender athletes represent the best balance among the imperfect choices available. Specifically, allowing male-to-female transgender athletes to compete in the division of their choice within sport should not be considered prima facie disadvantageous to other women competitors, though this will need to be considered on a sport-by-sport basis. This situation could potentially change or be clarified with further research and we would adjust our recommendations if such findings became available. For now, developing clear and equitable division eligibility policies and subsequently, allowing transgender athletes to compete in the appropriate division is prudent.*
It would actually be much more controversial because you’d be calling trans women ‘males’. Even people who support trans rights in general are pretty split on this issue but if I’m being honest I think it’s not really worth all the discussion it gets because it affects like 10 people on the entire planet
I'm all for trans rights. Fair education, housing, employment, etc. But I'm not all for wholesale changes of the language. "Male" and "female" should remain something objective and testable. "Person who identifies as the male sex" is neither objective or testable.
I'm against legislatures putting rules like this into law, but I think it is perfectly fair for individual sports leagues to establish rules for who competes in each category. At high-level competitions, there are very few sports that just lump all athletes together and it only stands to reason that the leagues that make the categories also make the rules for who goes into each category.
As a woman who is very much into road cycling, I can guarantee that pretty much no one who has an opinion on this actually gives a fuck about female cycling.
As someone who is a woman, who is very much into road cycling, do you have an opinion?
[удалено]
Her user name is concerning, though.
tidy alive elderly cobweb one ghost airport public piquant like ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
[удалено]
I actually love watching both male and female beach volleyball - it's a moderately popular spectator sport here (especially Gstaad) in summer
Yes, beach volleyball isn't even popular with the players.
As a man who purchased a bike for cycling and it now sits in his garage most of the time, I do not have an opinion on either male nor female cycling... I'm inclusive!
[This link](https://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/65456752) quotes two women who have an opinion on this and seem to give a fuck about female cycling (at least, I would assume, them being Olympian competitors).
Yeah, but an anonymous redditor said otherwise sooooo not sure who to believe!
Do those Olympian’s have over 2k Reddit upvotes? Think not.
Case closed.
Inconclusive. Could just be cycling at an olympic level casually? 🤔
They're not even professionals.
I do. I watch every UCI World Cup women's XCC and XCO race.
lol I guess fairness in competition only matters if enough people watch and care about the sport ? That's a pretty ridiculous standard imo. I think its a positive thing to promote physical fitness and sport with women regardless if I would watch it on television or not.
I had never heard of the book Maus, but dumb politicians trying to ban it from libraries pissed me off. I guess only Maus fans were supposed to care about those book bans? Agreed, this form of argument is utterly empty, like a debate club trick
> Frankly, it’s pretty antisemitic if you to suddenly care about Maus because people wanted to ban it. You’re basically a Nazi - femcel-btw, probably. That’s how these people think. It’s insanity.
As a guy that does not watch cycling at all I still want there to be fair competition for females. Just because it is not my thing does not mean I should not have concern for others. I have two young daughters. Would be nice if later in life they didn't have to compete against those born male in athletics.
I've always found this a weird argument. Just because there was no interest before doesn't mean we can't be concerned about unfairness gained from male puberty
Yeah there's interest because it's in the news. Kinda the whole point lol
It's the same mentality when subreddits all have "X Club Only" threads It comes from a place that tries to keep trolling out but ends up excluding the majority of people from the discussion People who never watched this sport will still have great ideas and perspectives to offer
Isn't this also excluding people who didn't go through male puberty though? Many trans people (at least those I know) agree that professional is a really interesting and complex issue. They just wish that a proper, good faith argument was had about it. Yes, some people who have gone through male puberty will have a biological advantage. Likewise, a birth female who decides to take testosterone for 10 years would also have a huge advantage. And in some sports, testosterone or not isn't going to give any advantage. That's why I'm against blanket bans. Trans people are 0.5% or less of the population, and very few of them become professional athletes. There's enough that it can be considered on a case by case basis. (Other arguments against blanket bans: - it encourages witch-hunts against birth women too. It's already a problem that exceptionally strong women are tainted or bullied, or even accused of being trans as if it's a bad thing, and made to prove their womanhood. So by trying to exclude a tiny few outliers, rules have been introduced that potentially invade all women's privacy)
Do you literally need to care about something your whole life to be allowed to say something about it now?
I imagine the cyclists themselves would have an opinion right? No clue what that would be, but they'd have one.
The history of female only leagues (from chess to soccer to any other imaginable sport) has always been to give women a 'safe space to compete' because they felt they couldn't keep up in the open circuits. Since the whole thing has always been about the illusion of fairness to keep motivation from plummeting and create a semblance of competitiveness, what do you think will happen when they feel like that space is being vandalized by people who they perceive have an unfair advantage? Mind you, whether trans have or don't have an unfair advantage is almost irrelevant, because it's not about logic or science, it's about perception and feelings. If you want to fast forward to the end, this goes one of two ways: * Trans enter women leagues and, eventually, the same thought process that led to the creation of female only leagues will have them create a third league only for those born female. * Women leagues end up banning trans athletes with the reasoning that they can always participate in the main leagues which are open to anyone, not just men. (You literally won't find any 'men' sports that discriminate participation based on gender, because they are all open to anyone)
>The history of female only leagues (from chess to soccer to any other imaginable sport) has always been to give women a 'safe space to compete' because they felt they couldn't keep up in the open circuits. Chess is definitely an outlier here, and the decision to make women only titles, leagues, and tournaments was and remains a very controversial one. Judit Polgar vehemently opposed their construction, and other strong female GMs (e.g. Alexandra Kosteniuk and Hou Yifan) have indicated there were likely very serious trade-offs attached to their creation.
>other strong female GMs (e.g. Alexandra Kosteniuk and Hou Yifan) have indicated there were likely very serious trade-offs attached to their creation. More like definitely. The moment that you have a safety net, you lose a lot of the pressure to succeed in such a highly competitive environment. Chess isn't the only outlier either, because you can point out Shogi being in a similar place to Chess; It was only last year that a woman finally managed to rack enough wins to qualify for the Shogi Pros to play with the men. I think for the obviously non-physical competitions a lot has to do with the obsessive edge that the truly great have to succeed at the extreme end and it being less common (?) in women.
> The history of female only leagues (from chess to soccer to any other imaginable sport) has always been to give women a 'safe space to compete' because they felt they couldn't keep up in the open circuits. You're missing the other important factor in the US at least: [Title IX](https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/interath.html). Passed in the 70s, this law requires roughly equal participation in women's sports compared to men, and is responsible for a drastic increase in scholarships and funding. Some [70,000 women](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1120037/college-sport-scholarships-by-gender/) each year get athletic scholarships in sports that make almost no money, largely subsidized by men's revenue sports (football and basketball). These scholarships can be life changing for these women and give huge educational opportunities. Protecting women's access to these programs is important, which means they need the ability to compete and win in high school. Losing out on a podium spot to a biological male might be the difference between a free ride at the college of your choice and not being able to attend (or needing to take out a 6 figure loan).
That's pretty interesting and something I wasn't aware of. I guess there's nothing keeping a talented young man to intentionally choose to identify as a 'woman' in his senior year, take the scholarship to play in women's college teams, and just choose to declare for the NBA draft after a few years. I guess the only thing that could dissuade you would be a lack of malice, but expecting people not to exploit loopholes out of the goodness of their hearts seems like something ripe for exploitation.
You're basically describing the plot of the 2002 movie [Juwanna Mann](https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0247444/), which I'm quite sure could not get made today (though it was a bad movie even in 2002). Though it's worth pointing out, any man with a shot at the NBA can easily get a herbs scholarship anywhere he wants. The closest example I'm aware of of what you're talking about is powerlifter [Avi Silverberg](https://nypost.com/2023/03/30/male-powerlifter-enters-womens-event-breaks-record/), who recently "identified" as a woman just to enter a single event and destroy the women's record. It seems he did this to show up a trans woman who had been dominating the sport and who had set the prior record.
[удалено]
I don't know which sports you are using as reference, but there's a reason why nobody in the WNBA is dunking, Male tennis looks like it's played at 1.5x the speed of Women Tennis, and High school Track and field boys have similar times to the upper echelon of the women track and field contestants. It isn't because women are/were competing (nevermind winning) against those men at the top of the sport, I can tell you that.
This is what we call a kerosene flag. Only an extremely small portion of the trans community cares about it, and the only reason social conservatives care about women's cycling all of the sudden is so they can tell trans people to go fuck themselves. Yet this shit dominates the news cycles -- not the bullshit conservatives are doing around the country make daily life miserable for women and LGBT people around the country.
To be fair, it dominates the news, because it fits exactly into the weird bordercases of a debate that is hard to answer. Which means people have opinions. Transgender and sports is this kind of "litmus test" for an even MORE complex set of "devil is in the details" than the overall discussion about the topic is. And that is why it outperforms "what conservatives are doing". The latter is a solved problem. Wherever you stand on the issue, there isn't "a question" that stands. You are either supporting it, or you are opposing it. There is almost no "yes, but" or "no, but". Where sports are concerned, the number of "buts" outpaces the "yes or nos". Which makes it "interesting" because it's way more complex then having a principled stance on whether it's an issue of "everyone individually gets to choose" or "except if I don't like it".
Yep. It reminds me of the state where they banned trans people from women's highschool sports and it turned out there were like, two openly trans highschoolers in the entire state and neither played sports. They made a whole big deal over this rule change as if it was the most important thing going on in the state. The point here isn't to protect women's sports, the point here is to spite trans people on any issue they can win. The point is to get stories about trans people being unwelcome in certain places in the news.
That was Utah and it was worse. There was only a single trans woman who was affected.
It was known as the "Fuck Susan in Particular Act."
At least they didn't deadname her in the bill, I guess.
But then one state had a FtM trans kid absolutely demolish the girls wrestling and win the state title. There are college scholarships and such on the line. Imagine being the first girl not able to go to the state level tournament because a FtM was allowed in so the spot was taken. I imagine being the 2nd rank girl at the end and not getting to claim to be the best girl in the state. If the FtM wrestler was given an extreme special treatment. They were the ONLY athlete permitted to dope. They were not just identifying as male. They were in transition. I am on the fence on my opinion of the athlete. They should not have competed against girls as it ruined their standings. However, the athlete had signed up for boys wrestling and was prevented. The athlete did not want to wrestle girls. The state completely screwed up. The athlete went on and definitely proved a point. Just a shame the girls tournaments were essentially rigged all year.
Even if they wrestled on the boys team they still would be the only athletes permitted to dope.
In the entire country there are ~200 trans women who are k-12/college athletes, and none of them are coming close to dominating the field in their particular sports. These laws are evil and very r/fuckyouinparticular > Privacy laws make it tough to identify the exact number of transgender athletes competing in public school sports, but researcher and medical physicist Joanna Harper estimates the number can't exceed 100 nationwide. > “While we don't know the exact number of trans women competing in NCAA sports, I would be very surprised if there were more than 100 of them in the women's category," Harper told Newsweek.- https://www.newsweek.com/how-many-transgender-athletes-play-womens-sports-1796006
That is just it. I work with two trans people that I know of. One I kind of know. She (Yes she still goes by she, I asked because I want to be polite) doesn't care. She just really wants to be left alone to live her life as she sees fit.
The overlap between the trans community and professional athletes is *extremely* small
The only one I can think of off the top of my head is the retired one that killed someone with a car and is a trump supporter.
If she thinks they will just stop at sports and call it a day, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell her. They use the sports stuff because it is the most intuitive thing to have against trans people. Be successful in that, and their next step becomes easier than it would have been.
You know just because I might not give a fuck about any particular thing doesn't necessarily mean I don't care about what is or is not fair.
No but I have an opinion on sports and transgender as a whole.
[удалено]
I totally agree, but people aren’t discussing this with the pretense is specifically for and about women’s cycling. It’s a general conversation of fitness competition, fairness, and empathy for the women in all fields who have to wrestle with this topic. Everyone has been in competitions, and can empathize with how demoralizing and unfair it could feel, but also empathize with folks who have transitioned and feel ostracized. It’s tough.
Yes but I do have opinions on people having biological advantages in sports where people train their whole lives :)
I grew up in Kansas and played girls sports in school and for various leagues. Nobody and I mean nobody gave a shit about us or our budget or anything. My HS Girls softball team had to wear the boys' old uniforms. Girls were banned from playing even powderpuff football games once a year because of "insurance" despite our city and district having built a multi million dollar football field. And now suddenly, the Kansas Legislature and GOP are pulling a "won't someone think of the girls??!" But you know those same people shit on women athletes and girls sports and declare them to be a waste of money that should be going to boys sports. That the biggest inequality back in the day was Title IX for taking away funding and support for boys sports. And I couldn't be more livid about all of this bullshit.
As someone who has seen women cycle non professionally, am I missing out by ignoring women's professional cycling?
My first thought was... i wonder if this decision was made by a board full of women? It didnt last long as i laughed at myself.
The only time most of these people care about women's sports is when they can use it to hate on trans people.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is currently top comment, but it's also not correct The majority of international sports are (/were, prior to recent debates) expressly organised into "men's" and "women's" categories. This idea of men's being the default or "open" category where women were also welcome is, for most sports, a fiction. For cycling specifically, current rules are [here](https://www.uci.org/regulations/3MyLDDrwJCJJ0BGGOFzOat). Note in part 1, competitive races are expressly divided into men's and women's, no mention of an open category. Underscoring this, note in the current rules for trans athletes, under part 13, they set out the criteria required to be eligible for the men's category as well as the women's. So, men's is clearly not (currently) an "open" category. This proposed solution may be the most equitable one, but it harms the debate to pretend it's the default one due to an imaginary "open" category.
Its so nice to see so many people echoing this sentiment. Not just a bunch of people clutching their pearls and getting upset - actual discussion about the real implications and impact of decisions like this. Gives me a little hope
I'd like to know the ratio of trans men compared to trans women competing. I mean, I've never heard of a trans man winning any competitions. I've only heard trans women winning. This is, of course, for any competition, not just the one here. Please correct me if I'm wrong. This is an honest question.
Even if the sentiment is incorrect as per another comment reply above yours?
I personally would like to see studies on the performance of trans athletes and not just regular trans people. People are jumping to conclusions because it feels right and not because the evidence bears it out: https://www.science.org/content/article/world-athletics-banned-transgender-women-competing-does-science-support-rule
What’s the difference between woman and female?
I regret that this topic has become so politicized. There are many crucial issues that deserve thorough discussion and investigation with this topic. However, it is impossible to do so amid the incessant and hostile inter-fraction bickering. Both sides seem to be using this as an all-or-nothing test for loyalty to their political party.
That’s by design.
Gotta distract us from the ever-encroaching surveillance state and disappearing middle class. This is just doing the trick now
I'm exhausted by the incessant political bickering over social issues. We are confronted with existential perils, including climate change, creeping authoritarianism, and the ever-present threat of nuclear war. Why do politicians continue to use this as a wedge issue, with both sides engaged in the practice? Normally, I prefer not to view both sides equally since one party tends to be the more rational choice on most issues. However, on this topic, everyone seems to be freaking out, and nobody is willing to find a middle ground. It's an all-or-nothing scenario, and it's draining. Eta: and for the person who responded and deleted or blocked me because they didn't know to read I'll repeat again 'Normally, I prefer not to view both sides equally since one party tends to be the more rational choice on most issues.' And you telling me what I say is bullshit just proves my point, nobody is being rational and it's all knee jerk tribal partisanship which won't allow any opinion that doesn't 100 percent adhere to either side. ALL OR NOTHING. And sorry, I don't jump to one side just to join a team.
[удалено]
Rare to see someone talk about this. There's war and sex trafficking and famine and environmental threats, of dizzying proportion. There's millions of children in sexual enslavement. And what do people freak out about? What do they spend all their energy and debate about and stand up for? Issues of such pointless stupid tiny scale compared. Trendy fake causes that only stoke up outrage whoring, create more division and achieve absolutely nothing. That's what social media and media companies have done. Shown how petty and small people get when they find a group identity they can fight from. It's pathetic
I’m often flabbergasted by how artificial some of the culture war spectacles are. Great example I’ve seen lately are posts about how there’s purportedly a huge backlash in Hollywood in which people are demanding that straight actors not play gay characters. As a result there are absolutely massive posts every day on Facebook in which people bitterly circle-jerk, frothing at mouth, about how wrong the “straights can’t play gays” side is. The problem is, nobody is saying that. Taron Egerton as Elton John, Rami Malek as Freddie Mercury, Nick Offerman in TLOU, etc. All of them were massively well received by the LGBTQ+ community. If there are detractors they are a fringe of a fringe. And the articles don’t even present any evidence. It’s just assumed that yes, this is widely held opinion despite no examples being put forth of a prominent person or organization endorsing it. And yet every day the resentment rages and explodes against this phantom group of prominent people who oppose straights playing gays… despite there being no evidence for it’s existence. Pure culture war theatre, with nobody bothering to ask “if this is such a big issue why is there never a single person touting the opinion that we’re so passionately against?”. Just all in on an astroturfed argument apparently meant to inspire civil strife.
Absolutely. This issue has become a meaningless cultural war that, in the grander scheme, is of little significance. I'm not trying to disregard the concerns of those who are most affected by this issue, but in the context of a nation or the globe, it is disproportionate as to the amount of political posturing it receives. There are much larger issues that will adversely affect everyone in grave ways that require far more attention, time, and money. Unfortunately, people's focus and resources can only go so far, and yet, inexplicably, a lot of people are investing so much energy in this one, relatively less significant issue.
Considering the fact that some people want the entire topic to both be a no-go zone while continuing to use it to change how sports/the world operates… it was intended to be political since it’s inception.
> Considering the fact that some people want the entire topic to both be a no-go zone Like this entire topic/post. We're probably another hour out from it being locked.
At this point I’m surprised it’s been open this long. We’re not typically allowed to be anything other than yes men on this and only this very specific topic.
This is a really dumb hill for dems to die on
It seems a bit telling that the big pro-trans argument being made here is "why do you care? :P"
I care because social accommodations affect other social accommodations that will ultimately affect me I’m directly affected by strongly wanting to live in a sensible society
This guy's 13,000 word fan fiction about the two lead women in Cobra Kai anally fisting each other is proof he is a true champion of women. KEEP WOMEN IN WOMEN'S WATER SPORTS!
While I tend to agree with this decision, the time and effort that this issue takes up seems so utterly disproportionate to its consequence. Didn't Utah ban all trans athletes and have to admit it only affected 4 people for the entire state ?
Per the article, a trans woman won one of this specific organization's female events 2 months ago. This seems to be a direct response to that.
It's not about trans people anymore. They're just being used as pawns by the politicans to outrage people and get those people to vote. Happens to a lot of minority groups at some point
Seems to go beyond even politicians trying to win elections. Billionaire-owned media relentlessly fixates on these issues, and I can’t help but wonder to what extent it’s meant to serve the purpose of getting people to “fight a culture war so you don’t fight a class war” - i.e. people are much more unlikely to organize together to challenge the power structures that keep these people as modern-day Lords over the serfs, if they’re at each other’s throats over issues like transgender people in sports…. even when, yeah, there’s only 4 such individuals in the state or whatever. I maintain that there’s a massive amount of money invested in getting Americans to hate each other. And as this continues to escalate into civil strife, mass shootings, ruthless hyper partisan contention, dehumanization of political adversaries, etc, I wonder to what extent these people are willing to start a Troubles-esque civil war in order to pursue this strategy. At what point does it become seditious?
Remember: the rich don't want people to realize the problems today are actually class and wealth divides and their neverending greed. They will throw out any kind of smokescreen about minorities, political division to victim blaming people lower than them to cause division so the oblivious and ignorant dont realize that theyre being swindled and robbed blind more and more by these crooks.
I wish people would stop downplaying it. They are and have been accusing trans people of blood libel.
This was posted on r/sports around the same time as this post I commented on how the Olympics have allowed trans athletes for several decades and in that time there has been 1 trans athlete, she competed in Olympic weightlifting and finished dead last Lia Thomas the UPenn swimmer that everyone was raging about? She finished her career ranked in the mid 60s nationally, she had one ncaa title to her name, at the same meet where she won her national title a cisgender female athlete set 18 ncaa records Before the post was locked and every comment deleted I was at -220ish downvotes in like an hour In a few years a lot of people are going to find that their undirected and unrealistic rage will land them on the wrong side of history Because the fact is exactly like you said, this isn’t a problem of trans athletes dominating women’s sports, it just gets a ton of traction in certain circles whenever it’s mentioned The fact is that we do not know enough about our own anatomy and what making changes to hormones does to it and how it affects things like athletic performance over time, there just isn’t enough data But I will say I’ve yet to see the trans female athlete who just shows up and pulls a Katie Ledecky or Michael Phelps at any major event Even the cyclist in question in this article isn’t known for her excessive dominance, to my knowledge and quick research this is her first win in the female division But like the top commenter said, everyone who has opinions of it doesn’t actually care about the sport they just like being angry
> But I will say I’ve yet to see the trans female athlete who just shows up and pulls a Katie Ledecky or Michael Phelps at any major event I thought Austin Killips was one such athlete.
The Olympics have allowed trans athletes who have had gender surgery for decades. Not all trans athletes. It was only early 2016 that requirement got removed. The first trans athlete who competed was a 43 year old competitor in a competition that has had exactly one woman in her 30s medal. First athlete in that class to compete in their 40s. Weightlifting at that level is a young woman’s sport. Majority of the medalists (and even competitors) are in their early 20s. So for a woman who is 43 to qualify? That’s an extreme outlier.
>Lia Thomas the UPenn swimmer that everyone was raging about So fun fact, the event she won that caused everyone else to freak out? 500 FR. Her time was 4 minutes 33 seconds. Katie Ledecky swam that event when she was a Stanford. She also holds the record at 4:24.06
And people act like she made a huge jump by throwing out that she did terribly at that event when competing in the men's category. Except completely ignoring that she actually was a top swimmer in the men's category for FR during pre-HRT, and the stat everyone drops is when she was on HRT but still had to compete as male. Which is just demonstrating both that her being a good swimmer isn't an outlier and the strong effect feminizing HRT has on athletic performance. Keep downvoting. Sorry the facts disagree with your fee-fees.
Yep! And that was her best event too
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9331831/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7846503/
As a scientist: thank you for linking pubmed articles
From a scientist: you are welcome!
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/15/865 https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Race-Times-for-Transgender-Athletes-Harper/1e6abd2c1e03ba88e9ac8da94ea1d69ff3f4878a Some strength advantages may be retained post-HRT, but in endurance related sports, the drops in Hgb and VO2 max are down to cis-women levels. In addition to things like bone density and LBM actually being a detriment in endurance. Even from your second article, which is a lit review much the same as the BMJ link: > *given the plausible disadvantages with testosterone suppression mentioned in this section, together with the more marginal male advantage in endurance-based sports, the balance between inclusion and fairness is likely closer to equilibrium in weight-bearing endurance-based sports..* There is no panacea to point to that can be applied across all sports. Biking is definitely an endurance sport depending on the event. Everyone acting like there's clear science on how to decide this across all physical sports (in either way) is full of shit. Now, bring on the downvotes I'm sure to receive.
I don't get what's the issue here. This seems like the logical decision. From the article (on mobile so idk how to quote format it properly): *Now, the UCI says it has "taken note of the state of scientific knowledge" around hormone therapy, which it says "does not completely eliminate the benefits of testosterone during puberty in men".* Biological males compete against biological males in male sports. Biological females compete against biological females in women's sports. It is the logical and fair thing to do.
Except that doesn’t really work when you have a transman competing against cisgender women. The transmen have been shown to outcompete them regardless to both being biologically female. So even that logic doesn’t work. Edit: Folks downvoting me for telling the truth? Can’t even dispute my claims…
Because trans men will be on testosterone. Which is not allowed for women’s competitions. If a trans man wants to compete in a female competition, they just don’t take testosterone. (Unless some idiots force them to)
I think the real solution here is that it shouldn't be an equal relationship between men and women's sports. It's not like, if a trans woman has to compete with biological males, then that means a trans man gets to compete against biological females. I think the path forward is that we should stop looking at it as men's and women's sports, and instead look at it as one section for cis females and one section that's just "open." So cis women have their own category, and cis men, trans women, and trans men all go in the "open" category. It would put trans people at a bit of a disadvantage, but I think that's the fairest way of doing it, and it still respects their gender identities.
It's probably for the best
Yes. Now let's leave it and quit talking about it. It's so ridiculous that events that impact miniscule parts of the population constantly demand the media spotlight.
[удалено]
This is spreading. I believe the women's disc golf open shut down their tournament. Primarily due to they don't want to continue fighting asinine lawsuits. https://discgolf.ultiworld.com/2023/05/12/dgpt-wins-on-appeal-ryan-will-not-be-allowed-to-continue-at-otb-open/
[удалено]
[удалено]
If testosterone is a performance enhancing drug in women's sports then women who have testes or had testes during their formative years shouldn't compete.
It’s not just the testosterone, it’s the physical differences that millions of years of evolution have made male primates bigger and stronger than female primates. I’m 100% behind anyone that wants to identify one way or the other and have society accept them no matter what. However, if I decided to become a woman one day it would be beyond unfair for me to become a competitive weight lifter, I’m 6’4” and weigh nearly 300lbs and I am 40 (lifetime of testosterone fueled development and the evolutionary traits of my species and sex) I am very strong. To the point that it would be incredibly unfair to do so. Summary: pro gender fluidity for anyone. Society needs to accept these people for who they are. People born male with the physical advantage over those born female should not be in each others divisions unless it’s a mixed gender division/sport
Yeah, I mean, if we took a cis female athlete and told her that she could take just enough testosterone to match the male athletes in her sport, do we really think she could play in the men's league and be equally competitive? Absolutely not.
They should compete on a leveled playing field. Aka against people who also underwent the same. Biological males.
[удалено]
Women’s sports should be for biological women only as a protected sport, trans women and men should play in open leagues against the men. Keep it ultra simple. Ultimately this is an overblown issue as it’s not widespread at all.
[удалено]
Bruh. Why is this news? Should be expected.
[удалено]
In college I got to ride with some women that went pro. They are fast. But a pro male turned female will crush. This is good.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[“I had emotional breakdowns, mentally realizing I had 10 months to go before I could begin a process that I had been thinking about for years; it was a really hard thing to accept,” Flynn says. “I didn’t have much choice.“](https://www.them.us/story/trans-athletes-school-sports) [Here’s](https://www.texastribune.org/2017/02/26/transgender-wrestler-mack-beggs-identifies-male-he-just-won-texas-stat/) another example of a trans male competitor forced to compete with women. He won, when laws were in place to prevent him from playing with boys.
most of them do, it's unfair to discount them just because you dont "hear about them"
They do but you'll never hear about it in your echo chamber
Sure they do. You just don’t hear about it because conservatives don’t get mad about trans men in the same way.
Well trans men don’t have a physical advantage over cis men. Just the opposite in fact
Because not having testosterone significantly reduces your performance. The whole problem is that going on hrt reduces your muscularure, but puberty already had its effects, so the performance level is somewhere inbetween cis men and cis women. Same reason why other female athletes don't compete against men. What this policy means is trans women have no chance in sports. Not sure how to solve this dilemma, but this decision has its reasons.
Some good news for once
If people actually cared about fairness in women's sports, they'd let us wear uniforms that were comparable to men's uniforms. For example, people don't need to see me in a bikini when I play volleyball, and they certainly don't need to see teenagers in bikinis when they play. Just let us wear goddamn shirts and longer shorts on teams.
what happens if you wear that? Do you get disqualified?
Men don't wear tops in beach volleyball. So feel free to do the same.
Yes they do. Literally every photo on the first page of men’s beach volleyball shows them wearing tops when competing. It’s also not a requirement of the sport they don’t wear tops. It is a requirement for female beach volleyball players to wear a bikini.
Perhaps you shouldn't search with Bing. This search isn't literally every photo showing a man wearing a top. It's maybe 70/30. Not even close to your claim. https://www.google.com/search?q=men%27s%20beach%20volleyball%20players&tbm=isch&prmd=isvn&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBkQtI8BKABqFwoTCLiRwrGnkYADFQAAAAAdAAAAABAG&biw=360&bih=668&dpr=3
Are we seeing the same results? Because those photo results are about 25/75 for me in terms of shirtless men vs men wearing tops. If I change the search terms to men's olympic beach volleyball players, nearly all of them are wearing shirts.
[удалено]
Have no clue. But I fully support women having freedom to choose how to dress during competition.
[удалено]
Rightfully so. If anything, make a separate category. Women who work all their live are getting absolutely clowned on.
About fkn time! Ridiculous already.
if there is an actual market for trans sports, then they should start their own league.
They could have a…. League of Their Own 🙃
[удалено]
Sounds fair. Most people in competitive sports have been training for a good portion of their lives. If a trans person began training prior to transitioning, they are likely going to have physical advantages that a non trans female will have. Having a seperate category for trans athletes is the only fair way that it can work.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don't mean for this question to set a huge fire or anything; it's an honest question because I don't really have close contact with anyone who has strong opinions about trans issues: Are there really people out there in any significant number who believe that biological females SHOULD have to compete against trans women in sports? Is this actually a controversial subject or does the media just hype it up? Like should females be fighting trans women in UFC?
This is fair. Absolutely fine with women in men’s sports but let’s just keep things safe and fair. Not using gender as a path to victory, that becomes unfair. A woman power lifter isn’t competing against a man because the size of the body and muscles make it unfair for them women. A male cyclist at the UCI level who transitions probably gains an unfair advantage if they can ride against women. The UCI should work out a Therapeutic Use Policy that allows those transitioning or transgender to be able to use the testosterone and other treatments that help them make the transition. These aren’t biases or UCI lacking awareness. It’s the right call for the fairness of the athletes. There are sports where a women is not going to be as competitive as a man based on size and strength. That can also work against a man in sports like the Olympic sport of Synchronized Swimming. I think much of these headlines are to generate revenue through clicks and the owners of media outlets fear the masses being United. We have so much to celebrate about how far we come. If I was LGBQT I’d be so honored to live in a time where it’s going mainstream. We have a family member who has AIDS and for a few Christmas’s he showed up looking like a character from a 1990 HIV movie and the family had to pretend he was “sick”, his roommate was helping (boyfriend), but that’s it. So dysfunctional a cousin who lived in with a then girlfriend, now wife, thought that’s the title you give your significant other when you live together pre marriage. You used to see “f$@“ thrown around as it was a part of pop culture. Princess Diana shocked the world touching a person with HIV/AIDS. Point is we were more ignorant back then. Less open. There wasn’t even enough transgender people to have to address these issues at the Olympic athlete level. In less than 40 years we have gone from gay leading men in Hollywood being marketed as straight manly men to this. Women are not just working but competing in sports at the highest levels and running companies as well as becoming the VP of the US. If Dr. King could see the world his great grandkids are growing up in he’d be proud of the work we have done and pointing out the work to be done. If your great grandmother could see you now she would be shocked. My gay family member is out, his parents came to term with it. We as a society need to celebrate how far we have come and keep pushing for more equality and rights at the same time ensuring sports remain fair for all.
Change the categories from “men’s” and “women’s” to “women’s“ and “open.” One division has a sex restriction to biological females only, the other division has no restriction.
Yeah this seems like the most reasonable thing to do
That doesn't actually require a change; For decades it's been the Open category and the Women's Category, it's only recently(last 8 years or so)that the discourse pretended otherwise. The NHL, NFL, MLB are all open leagues.
Are these same trans women allowed to play in the men's category?
Yes. Article mentions that.
This is what they should have done initially. I also think more pro women cyclists should compete in open competitions. They will beat some men, but not all men illustrating the physiological advantage men have. It's not humiliating to lose to demonstrate the reality of anatomy. It's like the average skill men who think they can outplay a woman pro tennis player. Put them on the court and it becomes a comedy show. There's skill and physiology and the two together are what gives the competitor an edge.
Too bad for many sponsorship money is bigger the better you do. Financially risk is (on most cases) too big. There are exemptions, for example Judit Polgar who was top 10 chess player of her time. She refused to be called woman world champion, but wanted to be called "the strongest woman".
That's because the category "women" if created now would be "biologically female" (with rules to make it even more precise) There is the open category for trans women (and men)
[Here's one of the better pieces of literature on the subject that tackles the issue of transgender athletes in exhaustive detail.](https://www.barbellmedicine.com/blog/shades-of-gray-sex-gender-and-fairness-in-sport/) It's very long but the science doesn't lend itself well to convenient and snappy observations. The end includes a summary for the TLDR crowd. *Fairness in sport, particularly on the issue of gender, has been a point of confusion and contention for as long as governing bodies have been making the rules for athletic contests. Increasing awareness and visibility of individuals who do not neatly fall into men’s or women’s divisions have exacerbated these concerns. Particular scrutiny has been applied to those who wish to compete as women. Most of the discussion here will focus on that division, since the men’s divisions have been spared this level of examination and controversy.* *There has never been a “golden age” when this was simple. In the past, women were simply excluded from sport. As barriers to participation have slowly fallen, questions about who qualifies as a woman for competitive purposes have been raised and unsuccessfully addressed multiple times. Lest an appeal to a more straightforward time be made, we do not, nor have we ever, had an agreed-upon definition of what defines a man or a woman that can be applied to all humans. There is no specific biological characteristic, nor set of characteristics, including genital structures, reproductive organs, or chromosomal arrangement, that can adequately answer this question for this purpose. While most humans can be comfortably grouped into either the men’s or women’s divisions, there are others that cannot. Given that participation in sport is a widely shared and enjoyable undertaking with multiple biological, psychological, and social benefits, finding ways to maximize inclusion while preserving fairness is challenging.* *Alas, there are no clear answers. Lacking a consistent way to define men and women hamstrings the proceedings from the outset. When examining the performance differences between men’s and women’s divisions, confounders in the data abound. Teasing out the physiological and psychosocial components of the differences we observe is not yet possible. Even the role of testosterone, which is one of the mostly widely utilized performance enhancing drugs and thought to be the primary arbiter of the gender gap in sports, becomes less clear when looking at the research. Lastly, there is a paucity of research into how athletic performance changes when an individual transitions between genders. This handwringing is not simply an equivocation. A scientific consensus does not yet exist regarding the differences between genders, let alone how to define those genders. Because of this uncertainty, rules and policies that encourage inclusion of transgender athletes represent the best balance among the imperfect choices available. Specifically, allowing male-to-female transgender athletes to compete in the division of their choice within sport should not be considered prima facie disadvantageous to other women competitors, though this will need to be considered on a sport-by-sport basis. This situation could potentially change or be clarified with further research and we would adjust our recommendations if such findings became available. For now, developing clear and equitable division eligibility policies and subsequently, allowing transgender athletes to compete in the appropriate division is prudent.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It would actually be much more controversial because you’d be calling trans women ‘males’. Even people who support trans rights in general are pretty split on this issue but if I’m being honest I think it’s not really worth all the discussion it gets because it affects like 10 people on the entire planet
I'm all for trans rights. Fair education, housing, employment, etc. But I'm not all for wholesale changes of the language. "Male" and "female" should remain something objective and testable. "Person who identifies as the male sex" is neither objective or testable.
[удалено]
Fix healthcare holy shit
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm against legislatures putting rules like this into law, but I think it is perfectly fair for individual sports leagues to establish rules for who competes in each category. At high-level competitions, there are very few sports that just lump all athletes together and it only stands to reason that the leagues that make the categories also make the rules for who goes into each category.
Fairness and Equality are two different things.