• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Connecticut girls lose support from Biden administration in transgender athlete case

There are always advantages and disadvantages, some key areas of which I explicitly highlighted such as having the money to afford better coaching, equipment and more time training, and having the right genes to get long legs or a sturdy frame or whatever's good for your preferred sport. Whether an advantage is fair or unfair is a matter of convention within the sport/organization; it's pretty universally accepted that certain performance-enhancing substances (eg. steroids, drugs) are better kept out of competition, while other performance-enhancing substances (eg. vitamins, diet) are acceptable. If you asked me to justify why money constitutes a 'fair' sporting advantage I'd have a pretty damn hard time doing so, besides the difficulties of removing its influence. Meanwhile having certain genetic or epigenetic characteristics describes transgenderism, intersex or hyperandrogenism quite aptly, and it is the range of human ability due to both genetic variation and training which is one of the most fascinating things about competitive sporting.
I was not trying to argue whether an advantage is fair or not. I merely wish to point out that you are essentially saying that fairness (to the extent that we are able to agree on) only matters in sports when there is money involved. This is a warped view. Do you agree?


There is nothing 'unfair' about being intersex, transgender or the like - quite the opposite, in terms of life in general these people are very often treated unfairly by others.
But having lived a life where one has been treated unfairly has almost nothing to do with whether one has physical advantages in a sport. The former is a sociological issue. The latter is physiological. I guess you could try to argue that these two are somehow inter-twined but that would really require some sort of pretzel logic.

It's got nothing to do with doping to score the win, no honest comparison.
I wasn't saying it is equivalent to doping. I am saying that, if we take what you mean to be true, aka, "someone getting first place has no real effect on anyone else anyway", then it necessarily follows that we should not even care about what players do to win, and this can include both things that are fair and unfair. Since apparently, as long as there is no money involved, we don't really care who wins.

And why do you place so much emphasis on money anyway? Why do you imply a sporting even is only important if there is money on the line. Are you really not bothered by this line of thinking?


As to whether it nevertheless constitutes an 'unfair advantage' in a sporting context specifically, the obvious and reasonable middle ground of hormone level requirements to mitigate or remove competitive advantages makes sense. But asserting that in these cases specifically - unlike long legs etc. - it suddenly becomes absolutely paramount to prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that 100.00% of any potential advantage has been completely nullified and removed seems like extreme special pleading bordering on bigotry (and sometimes quite openly so).
I am not even arguing about whether an advantage is unfair or fair anymore. What do you think the purpose is for entering a sporting competition? And what does, "spirit of sportsmanship" mean to you?

Long and short, I'm saying that any athletes who want to complain about people winning because of their advantages have a hell of a lot of other advantages, far more common and often far more artificial advantages, that they can start focusing on before transgenderism should enter their sights; which suggests that it's not really about the supposed advantages and genuine 'fairness' at all, in most cases, but simply about seeing some easy targets to try and take out of the running.
Help me understand the thought process behind "someone getting first place has no real effect on anyone else anyway." What kinds of effects would it take for you to care about the outcome of a sporting event? I know money is very important. But what else is important to you?

Also, did you see my post, # 244?
 
I wasn't saying it is equivalent to doping. I am saying that, if we take what you mean to be true, aka, "someone getting first place has no real effect on anyone else anyway", then it necessarily follows that we should not even care about what players do to win, and this can include both things that are fair and unfair. Since apparently, as long as there is no money involved, we don't really care who wins.
Start from the beginning; do you disagree with my statement? What real effect does it have on someone if they come sixth in a race rather than fifth, because there was another good competitor there? I would say that there is absolutely no quantifiable effect. If the statement is true, then it's utterly irrelevant whether or not you like the implications which you're drawing from it.

I clearly stated that just barely missing out on the bronze medal presumably has some kind of psychological effect, and missing out as the winner even moreso (though if that's the case then by implication, in some ways coming third might be better than second, less "if only I'd tried a little harder" weighing on your mind). But beyond the shiny token or maybe a plaque somewhere if you're lucky - or rather the absence thereof - they're still not quantifiable effects, still not 'real' in the sense of being outside the competitors' brains, and in theory a genuine optimist could be positively thrilled to come in second rather than first. (Ever heard of Casanunda? World's second greatest lover; means that he tries harder. Probably less pressure too.)

So yes, someone getting first place has no real, significant effect on anyone else, beyond how they themselves choose to view it. Now why do you infer from this fact that we should not even care what players do to win?

And why do you place so much emphasis on money anyway? Why do you imply a sporting even is only important if there is money on the line. Are you really not bothered by this line of thinking?
Your unspoken premise there seems to be that things are only 'important' if there are 'real effects' involved. Pretty sure there are no real effects being produced by the Mona Lisa either, so would you infer therefore that it's not important? Prize money is a real effect of getting first place in some competitions. Getting depressed and slitting your wrists is not a real effect of coming second, it's an effect of your own brain states... and the immediate state of merely being sad or annoyed or more motivated by a loss are not 'real' objective effects at all to begin with. The only person assigning a value of importance to these facts is you.

I am not even arguing about whether an advantage is unfair or fair anymore. What do you think the purpose is for entering a sporting competition? And what does, "spirit of sportsmanship" mean to you?
Among other things, it means being the best you can be. I'm not a sportsman (not since school at least when I was average at best) but I generally enjoy competitive events or games. Have I mentioned that I came second in a pub limbo contest a few years back? :cool: I've had some considerably more impressive results in academic contests; but either way, I enjoy myself pretty much the same regardless whether I come first or last. (Come to think of it, on a related note the vaguely-competitive nature of debating is why I enjoy it and get the motivation to learn so much from it.) Obviously elite athletes have much more drive to win than I do; but I'm pretty sure they're also bright enough to realize that most of them aren't going to win. What do you think happens then; do they decide that they've wasted their lives with all their training only to 'fail'? Seems to me that it's the attitude of winning being the most important thing - something apparently more along the lines of your perspective - which is most likely to encourage doping, cheating or the like, because the emphasis is on the objective rather than how far you've come or how you got there. Whereas an athlete who is focused on running a new personal best, maybe beating the personal best of her childhood hero... she's probably not going to worry too much whether she comes in fourth or sixth and certainly not going to taint her goals with banned substances.

Also, did you see my post, # 244?
Yes, I figured it deserved some more attention than my usual posts.
 
Last edited:
According to the article you posted, this girl wasn't good enough to beat the other girls. She failed to qualify for the state finals; she wasn't even fourth or fifth or sixth in her state, let alone in the New England region or the country. Having a big whinge over the fact that two of the many better competitors happen to have been born with some different bits seems a little pathetic, quite frankly; perhaps encouraged by her parents in the certain knowledge that it would play well with and raise support from at least a quarter of the country's citizens regardless of the facts.

On the other hand, to be fair, it seems that one of these other two girls would not have met international guidelines on treatment/hormone levels for twelve months prior to competition in the female category, at least in some of her earlier races:
"Miller, as a sophomore, began competing in the girls' category after beginning to transition after her freshman year"
Some teething troubles and missteps are hardly unexpected as people and organizations come to terms with this changing world, and perhaps in this case the schools' sporting administration might have been better-advised to follow international guidelines instead. On the flip side, as BrotherFease posted earlier, even more ill-considered approaches like 'sex designated at birth' policies in Texas had trans boys obliterating those they were made to compete against in the girls' category. Openly advocating unnecessary segregation (in some cases likely promoted by the same folk who proclaim that black people also have an advantage in sports :unsure: ) if anything seems even more problematic.


Your prejudice is showing in more ways than one.

Except in prize-oriented competitions, someone getting first place has no real effect on anyone else anyway. If you think the winning guy doesn't really count because he was on testosterone treatments and therefore you were the best 'real' man in the contest then good for you, consider yourself the winner! Needing the rest of the world to validate your opinion by creating a separate category just for the other guy seems a little odd. I mean granted there's medals or plaques or whatnot, which are nice and obviously a shame to miss out on just because someone else could afford better coaching, or ran earlier in the day with better wind, or had genes that gave them longer legs or whatever real or imagined advantages they may have had. But the simple fact is that most competitors are going to miss out on that plaque or those medals anyway... yet they manage to carry on with their lives.

It's almost as if someone else being better didn't actually make them worse or even hurt them at all. Given a rough estimate of prevalence in society, in the long run transgender athletes might be expected to win around one in a hundred competitions; if you imagine (contrary to available evidence) that trans women's supposed advantage doubles their likelihood of winning that would then be around one in fifty competitions being won by trans women... and in a couple of decades all of this fuss simply won't be a concern any more, since hormone treatments and transitioning before going through male puberty will be the norm. One in fifty competitions (give or take) having an 'unfair' winner for the next couple of decades, even if your assumptions and assertions were freely granted? Civilization will survive these changes, I promise you :) No need to get out the yellow stars.
I have no prejudice against Transexuals. I clearly said they should compete in their own division.
 
I have no prejudice against Transexuals. I clearly said they should compete in their own division.
Should black people "compete in their own divisions" in running or basketball given apparent 'advantages' in those sports?
 
Start from the beginning; do you disagree with my statement? What real effect does it have on someone if they come sixth in a race rather than fifth, because there was another good competitor there?
I don't think it makes sense to argue whether there are any "real effects". Apparently, you think winning (or losing) a competition has no real effects or in other words it's not important. I won't sit here and try and change your mind, since you are entitled to your view. But how about if I say this: apparently, coming in 6th instead of 5th, is important to a player in said sport? And regardless of whether you think her reasons are "appropriate" or not, it's important to her, and she demands that there be fairness. So, in this case, should school staff or should they not try and enforce some measures of fairness (to the extent that people can agree on)?

I would say that there is absolutely no quantifiable effect.
Why does an effect need to be quantifiable?


If the statement is true, then it's utterly irrelevant whether or not you like the implications which you're drawing from it.
But you haven't established that that statement is true. You are just saying, "I personally think that there are no quantifiable effects, therefore, someone getting first place has no real effect on anyone else anyway".

It's not even about whether winning has any real effect anymore. You personally think that it's not important, so everybody else must not think that its important. This is mental tyranny.


I clearly stated that just barely missing out on the bronze medal presumably has some kind of psychological effect, and missing out as the winner even moreso (though if that's the case then by implication, in some ways coming third might be better than second, less "if only I'd tried a little harder" weighing on your mind). But beyond the shiny token or maybe a plaque somewhere if you're lucky - or rather the absence thereof - they're still not quantifiable effects, still not 'real' in the sense of being outside the competitors' brains,
No offense but this doesn't make any sense. If an effect is only real if it's outside someone's brain, then any types of phenomena that only go on inside the brain, such as psychological, mental, spiritual..etc are all to be disregarded, because they do not manifest themselves outside in the physical, "real" world.

If someone threatens you, "I am going to beat you up", you will feel scared and distressed. However this only goes on in your brain and it has "no quantifiable effects". So...are you not going to call the police? Why or why not?

and in theory a genuine optimist could be positively thrilled to come in second rather than first. (Ever heard of Casanunda? World's second greatest lover; means that he tries harder. Probably less pressure too.)

So yes, someone getting first place has no real, significant effect on anyone else, beyond how they themselves choose to view it. Now why do you infer from this fact that we should not even care what players do to win?
Not sure what you are trying to say. I never said we shouldn't care. I said that we should care.

Also, why do you think you get to determine for others whether something has no real, significant effect?

And I can turn your argument on its head: not allowing trans-females to compete in female-only sports has no real significant effect on them. Therefore, we should bar them. See how your logic cuts both ways?
Your unspoken premise there seems to be that things are only 'important' if there are 'real effects' involved.
I never said that. And whether something is important is not determined by you. It should be determined by the person who has anything to do with it, namely, when we are talking about a sporting event, whether winning is important or not should be determined by the players and perhaps the school staff.

Why do you think you are qualified to decide for other people whether something is important or not, when you are not even personally involved? Help me understand this.


Pretty sure there are no real effects being produced by the Mona Lisa either,
There are certainly real effects of the Mona Lisa, and they are, among other things, feelings of awe, beauty and admiration in people's mind when they view it.

Your thinking is that something is only "real" if it's in the physical, external world. This is wrong.
 
Last edited:
so would you infer therefore that it's not important? Prize money is a real effect of getting first place in some competitions. Getting depressed and slitting your wrists is not a real effect of coming second, it's an effect of your own brain states...
Again, effect of one's brain states is still real. It just does not have a physical manifestation like money does. Besides, if brain states cause people to slit their wrists...then yes they have a real effect.

If someone's brain chemistry is messed up and she has depression, are you seriously going to say to her, your depression has no real effect. And if you try to kill yourself, it's only an effect of your brain states? Come on, lets not be ridiculous. And I am 99% sure it is something that you wouldn't do.

and the immediate state of merely being sad or annoyed or more motivated by a loss are not 'real' objective effects at all to begin with. The only person assigning a value of importance to these facts is you.


Among other things, it means being the best you can be. I'm not a sportsman (not since school at least when I was average at best) but I generally enjoy competitive events or games. Have I mentioned that I came second in a pub limbo contest a few years back? :cool: I've had some considerably more impressive results in academic contests; but either way, I enjoy myself pretty much the same regardless whether I come first or last. (Come to think of it, on a related note the vaguely-competitive nature of debating is why I enjoy it and get the motivation to learn so much from it.) Obviously elite athletes have much more drive to win than I do; but I'm pretty sure they're also bright enough to realize that most of them aren't going to win. What do you think happens then; do they decide that they've wasted their lives with all their training only to 'fail'? Seems to me that it's the attitude of winning being the most important thing - something apparently more along the lines of your perspective -
I never said winning is the most important thing, please read my posts again. I am merely saying that when you say (or seem to say) that winning is not important, that is false, and not only that, it is a view that a lot of people, especially sports participants, don't share.


which is most likely to encourage doping, cheating or the like, because the emphasis is on the objective rather than how you get there. Whereas an athlete who is focused on running a new personal best, maybe beating the personal best of her childhood hero... she's probably not going to worry too much whether she comes in fourth or sixth and certainly not going to taint her goals with banned substances.
We are not talking about what kinds of attitude will encourage doping or the usage of banned substances.
Yes, I figured it deserved some more attention than my usual posts.
OK thanks.
 
Hormone blockers have reversible effects.

Not if you take them to stop the onset of puberty. The truth is, messing around with hormone levels is too complicated to easily talk about in one thread. One of the largest disagreements I have with the trans community is that they are saying that hormone therapy should be readily available to trans children. We don't really know all of the effects of hormone therapy, especially when given to children.
 
I don't think it makes sense to argue whether there are any "real effects".
Then don't. All you're doing anyway is creating some kind of weird strawman and trying to tell me that I've said things which I explicitly contradicted, so if even you think it doesn't make sense to argue over, why do it?

Batcat claimed that trans women should be segregated into their own division so that their performance "has no effect" on other women. That some cis women might choose to be distressed over the fact that they placed sixth because a trans woman came fifth is not in dispute of course; I'm just pointing out that A) such emotional effects are neither physically/objectively real nor directly caused by trans inclusion or their race results and B) the material effects of medals or the like are very minor, certainly compared to the administrative efforts and social implications of segregating transgender people.

Very much the same argument could be made about the overwhelming dominance of black runners at both long and short distance: They should compete into their own division so that their apparent performance 'advantage' has no effect on other competitors, right? According to the reasoning which you seem to be proposing, the distress of some other runners constitutes some kind of real and important effect and on that basis administrators should review and "try and enforce some measures of fairness (to the extent that people can agree on)".

Nope. Absolutely not. Fairness rules in sports should be established independently of some competitors' distress at their results.
 
Last edited:
I've made my arguments in past threads on the topic. I find lots of people simply debate this as a moral issue which it should not be. Either trans women have an advantage, on average, or they do not. The limited information we have to date shows they do have an advantage even while lowering their testosterone levels. The advantages have been listed many times over. There are issues of fairness and safety for biological girls and women.

At this point, I think it can be most helpful to post Martina Navratilova's website because her group has resources, including the studies, to show why it's important to be inclusive while also ensuring fairness. They have a balanced approach and it isn't politicized.
In other words you're advocating the same policies which BrotherFease, I and other non-conservatives have been advocating - full inclusion of trans female athletes after a year on hormone therapy subject to international guidelines - but piously denouncing "So much dogma on both sides" and appointing yourself as the only one qualified to hand down the right information... not by actual discussion and engagement, but simply by spamming your link.
 
In other words you're advocating the same policies which BrotherFease, I and other non-conservatives have been advocating - full inclusion of trans female athletes after a year on hormone therapy subject to international guidelines - but piously denouncing "So much dogma on both sides" and appointing yourself as the only one qualified to hand down the right information... not by actual discussion and engagement, but simply by spamming your link.

What does this have to do with conservative? Elsewhere in the world, "conservatives" are not the ones arguing for the fairness of sport.. Here in the US the GOP has succeeded at hijacking the issue and trying to push unhelpful legislation. They have their own agendas that do not align with mine, which is balancing inclusion with protections for girls and women in sport.

Hormone therapy does not eliminate the advantages of having experienced male puberty. This is why guidelines are being discussed and many of them are changing.
Transwomen who have never experienced male puberty should be able to fairly compete with biological females.

As for transmen, they are typically left out of the conversation. The issue there is if they are on testosterone (a steroid) than they cannot fairly compete in womens' divisions.

And yes people are too dogmatic around the topic of gender identity. That's what happens when an issue gets politicized.

I certainly haven't "appointed myself" as anything.
 
Should black people "compete in their own divisions" in running or basketball given apparent 'advantages' in those sports?
There is a lot more physical difference between a male transitioning to female and a female than between a black male and a white male or a black female and a white female.
 
I am not saying that we should just forgo science and just go by "common sense". The reason I bring up common sense is, like I said, I have little background in science and as such, I am probably unfit to derive any sort of valid conclusion from a study, so I think I need to avoid it. Instead I just rely on what appears to be common sense to me. You are still welcome to point out anything wrong with my line of logic.
That's precisely what I did in post #239, but you've avoided it entirely. If we don't have the knowledge to from valid conclusions on a subject, the sensible thing would be deferring to those who are in the best position to do so - in this case the international sports federations - rather than running our mouths off about their policies being "unfair."

Tiny said:
However, common sense tells us that, biological females also have estrogen in their bodies, and not only that they have it in their bodies for their entire lives, unlike the trans, who probably have it for like one or two years. And not only this, trans female athletes still have structural differences in their bodies, which you claim to be weakened enough by taking estrogen, however, biological females do not have these structural advantages to begin with, and if the trans are being weakened, then biological females should be weakened even further.
Even without being scientifically literate this seems poorly considered. Firstly, even if all your other assumptions were correct there would be at least two obvious ways in trans women could be on par with the performance of cis women, namely there being a ceiling or hard cap to the supposed 'weakening' effects of estrogen which both groups reach, or there being other offsetting factors which close the performance gap that estrogen alone supposedly would not. Secondly, it's nonsensical to begin with; do you really think that female bodies produce a hormone to actively weaken them? That's exactly the opposite of reality: All bodies, but especially males, produce hormones that strengthen them, most obviously testosterone. Rather than a ceiling on the effect of estrogen, there's a floor to the loss in advantage from testosterone. Trans women actually tend to have lower average levels of testosterone than cis women.

"The available, albeit incomplete, evidence makes it highly likely that the sex difference in circulating testosterone of adults explains most, if not all, the sex differences in sporting performance. This is based on the dose-response effects of circulating testosterone to increase muscle mass and strength, bone size and strength (density), and circulating hemoglobin, each of which alone increases athletic capacity, as well as other possible sex dichotomous, androgen-sensitive contributors such as mental effects (mood, motivation, aggression) and muscle myoglobin content."

Most of these metrics are obviously subject to change, gaining or losing muscle mass etc. Bone density could in theory change due to hormone treatment (we all know that it changes due to osteoporosis, for example); in practice it does not, though interestingly trans women on average seem to start out with lower bone density than other biological males even before transitioning:
"Transsexual women before cross-sex hormonal therapy presented with less muscle mass (p ≤ 0.001) and strength (p ≤ 0.05) and a higher prevalence of osteoporosis (16%) with a lower aBMD at the hip, femoral neck, total body (all p < 0.001) and lumbar spine (p = 0.064) compared with control men."

By implication, pretty much the only metric which even modestly-informed "common sense" should expect to remain advantageous for trans women is bone size and skeletal structure. Men are on average taller, for example, which would be an advantage in sports such as basketball; but the variation between individuals is both very obvious and far more significant than the difference in averages: If a trans woman were 6' 4" tall it would be due to her own/parents' genetics rather than an average male height advantage (average male height being around 5' 10"), and considering she wouldn't even make the top twenty tallest women of the WNBA claiming an 'unfair advantage' due to those genetics would obviously be fallacious at best. Conversely in some sports such as gymnastics male bone size and skeletal structure may actually be a disadvantage. Whether or not there's scientific information suggesting an overall advantage for trans women (none of which has so far been presented in the thread), it seems clear that there's no "common sense" reason to expect that they would retain any advantage besides highly individual variations in bone size and structure.
 
Last edited:
That's precisely what I did in post #239, but you've avoided it entirely. If we don't have the knowledge to from valid conclusions on a subject, the sensible thing would be deferring to those who are in the best position to do so
No offense but you don't get to decide for me what is the "sensible" thing to do. Secondly, I still have the right to participate in a debate like this, regardless of whether I have enough knowledge of science.

- in this case the international sports federations - rather than running our mouths off about their policies being "unfair."
Please stop mischaracterizing me. Secondly regardless of what you think of how I am saying what I am saying, I will appreciate that you keep your opinion of me to yourself.

Even without being scientifically literate this seems poorly considered. Firstly, even if all your other assumptions were correct there would be at least two fairly obvious ways in trans women could be on par with the performance of cis women, namely there being a ceiling or hard cap to the supposed 'weakening' effects of estrogen which both groups reach,
If you claim that there is a ceiling to the weakening effects of estrogen, please provide studies. And yes, I promise I will read it.

or there being other offsetting factors which further close the performance gap
And what might these offsetting factors be? Again, studies please.

which estrogen alone supposedly would not. Secondly, it's nonsensical to begin with; do you really think that female bodies produce a hormone to actively weaken them?
I never claimed that the purpose of estrogen is to weaken the body. I only mentioned weaken because that is what I thought you meant when you said that trans females physical prowess was lowered to the level of that of biological females.

By the way, if we are not allowed to say that estrogen "weakens" the body, then what word do you suggest we use, to describe the fact that trans female's physical performance has been brought to the same level as biological females?

If a trans woman were 6' 4" tall it would be due to her own/parents' genetics rather than an average male height advantage
It would be a combination of both. For example, his sister could be only 5 foot 9, and she is objectively shorter than her brother. You can't say it's due to parental genetics only. She is shorter than her brother because she is a woman.

Conversely in some sports such as gymnastics male bone size and skeletal structure may actually be a disadvantage.
We are mainly talking about sports where physical prowess is important. Gymnastics are not what I have in mind when I mention a (typical) sporting event.
 
No offense but you don't get to decide for me what is the "sensible" thing to do. Secondly, I still have the right to participate in a debate like this, regardless of whether I have enough knowledge of science.
You said that I'm welcome to point out anything wrong with your line of logic but (not surprisingly) when I point out that it's not sensible or logical to pit your "common sense" against the actual knowledge and experience of the international sports federations, my observations don't seem very welcome.

If you claim that there is a ceiling to the weakening effects of estrogen, please provide studies. And yes, I promise I will read it.
I didn't claim that. I pointed out that (given the assumptions you had made) that was a fairly obvious possibility you had failed to consider which would account for parity between trans and cis females (and in fact is analogous to the reality, that there is a floor to the strengthening effects of testosterone). In other words folks' supposed "common sense" not only lacks appropriate background knowledge, but often even lacks substantive thought too!

And what might these offsetting factors be? Again, studies please.
Ah, you've got your "common sense" and "philosophy" and assertions without evidence, but you'll accept nothing less than peer-reviewed scientific studies before considering any alternative perspective.

I'm starting with the basics here, things which we both already should have been pretty close to understanding, before trying to get into stuff where we're both out of our depth. Androgens (notably testosterone) strengthen bodies, especially male bodies, in a variety of different ways. Virtually all of those effects are subject to ongoing changes; changes in muscle mass, changes in hemoglobin levels, even changes in bone density in theory (cf. osteoporosis). Therefore there is no "common sense" reason to assume or expect that trans females - after a year of testosterone levels averaging slightly lower than cis females - should retain any physiological 'advantages' besides bone size/skeletal structure. Whether or not they might in fact retain some further advantages (which obviously hasn't been shown in this thread), there was and is no reason to assume or expect that to be the case. Even modestly-informed "common sense" gets you as far as skeletal structure; that's it.

Of course in this post (as in others) your reply attempts to nit-pick on some particular details rather than addressing the conclusion. There's not much point trying to cram the information, citations and URLs of half a dozen studies into the forum's character limit if this is the kind of 'response' I can expect to see.
 
Last edited:
You said that I'm welcome to point out anything wrong with your line of logic but (not surprisingly) when I point out that it's not sensible or logical to pit your "common sense" against the actual knowledge and experience of the international sports federations, my observations don't seem very welcome.
I did ask you to point out anything wrong with my logic, but I didn't ask you for your opinion on whether it was "sensible" though.
I didn't claim that. I pointed out that (given the assumptions you had made) that was a fairly obvious possibility you had failed to consider which would account for parity between trans and cis females (and in fact is analogous to the reality, that there is a floor to the strengthening effects of testosterone).
I don't want to hear conjecture from you. I don't want to hear you say that, "there is an obvious possibility that such and such might be true".

So, I am asking you to clarify your position on this. Do you or do you not, claim that there is a ceiling to the effects of estrogen?

In other words folks' supposed "common sense" not only lacks appropriate background knowledge, but often even lacks substantive thought too!
Thank you for your opinion that my stance lacks "substantive thought". Now can we please get back to discussing, instead of merely opining?
Ah, you've got your "common sense" and "philosophy" and assertions without evidence, but you'll accept nothing less than peer-reviewed scientific studies before considering any alternative perspective.
I ask you for studies because that is what you go by. If you only want to rely on pure common sense (of your kind) and philosophy, that is fine, too.

Again I will ask you. What might these offsetting factors be? You can either cite studies or just go off on what you know, either is fine with me.

I'm starting with the basics here, things which we both already should have been pretty close to understanding, before trying to get into stuff where we're both out of our depth. Androgens (notably testosterone) strengthen bodies, especially male bodies, in a variety of different ways. Virtually all of those effects are subject to ongoing changes; changes in muscle mass, changes in hemoglobin levels, even changes in bone density in theory (cf. osteoporosis). Therefore there is no "common sense" reason to assume or expect that trans females - after a year of testosterone levels averaging slightly lower than cis females
What is causing the testosterone levels to average lower though?

Assuming that testosterone is even relevant. I believe we were purely talking about effects of estrogen.
Of course in this post (as in others) your reply attempts to nit-pick on some particular details rather than addressing the conclusion.
I think I get to talk about what I want to talk about. If you are unhappy that I am not addressing something that you think is important, aka the conclusion, then it's just too bad.

There's not much point trying to cram the information, citations and URLs of half a dozen studies into the forum's character limit if this is the kind of 'response' I can expect to see.
I don't care whether my response is "up to par" for you. Your refusal to cite studies is noted, though. Again, not saying that you are required to post them. Just saying that you shouldn't imply that my response wasn't good enough. I never made any kind of disparaging remarks towards any of your posts, despite the fact I also have some opinions of them. Lets try and stop opining, ok?

By the way, do you still believe that mental states have no "real", "quantifiable" effects?
 
There are always advantages and disadvantages, some key areas of which I explicitly highlighted such as having the money to afford better coaching, equipment and more time training, and having the right genes to get long legs or a sturdy frame or whatever's good for your preferred sport. Whether an advantage is fair or unfair is a matter of convention within the sport/organization; it's pretty universally accepted that certain performance-enhancing substances (eg. steroids, drugs) are better kept out of competition, while other performance-enhancing substances (eg. vitamins, diet) are acceptable. If you asked me to justify why money constitutes a 'fair' sporting advantage I'd have a pretty damn hard time doing so, besides the difficulties of removing its influence. Meanwhile having certain genetic or epigenetic characteristics describes transgenderism, intersex or hyperandrogenism quite aptly, and it is the range of human ability due to both genetic variation and training which is one of the most fascinating things about competitive sporting.

There is nothing 'unfair' about being intersex, transgender or the like - quite the opposite, in terms of life in general these people are very often treated unfairly by others. It's got nothing to do with doping to score the win, no honest comparison. As to whether it nevertheless constitutes an 'unfair advantage' in a sporting context specifically, the obvious and reasonable middle ground of hormone level requirements to mitigate or remove competitive advantages makes sense. But asserting that in these cases specifically - unlike long legs etc. - it suddenly becomes absolutely paramount to prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that 100.00% of any potential advantage has been completely nullified and removed seems like extreme special pleading bordering on bigotry (and sometimes quite openly so).

Long and short, I'm saying that any athletes who want to complain about people winning because of their advantages have a hell of a lot of other advantages, far more common and often far more artificial advantages, that they can start focusing on before transgenderism should enter their sights; which suggests that it's not really about the supposed advantages and genuine 'fairness' at all, in most cases, but simply about seeing some easy targets to try and take out of the running.

I'd think this sort of thinking would lead you to stop having women's divisions period. Why can't they suck it up and compete in the all humans division?

Assuming these are your principles, how do you justify having a women's division?
 
Assuming that testosterone is even relevant. I believe we were purely talking about effects of estrogen.
You can 'assume' whatever you want about the relevance of estrogen, of course. One of the studies I cited in #262 (Handelsman, Hirschberg and Berman 2018, Circulating Testosterone as the Hormonal Basis of Sex Differences in Athletic Performance) indicates otherwise. It's good to see whether or not you're paying attention.
"The available, albeit incomplete, evidence makes it highly likely that the sex difference in circulating testosterone of adults explains most, if not all, the sex differences in sporting performance. This is based on the dose-response effects of circulating testosterone to increase muscle mass and strength, bone size and strength (density), and circulating hemoglobin, each of which alone increases athletic capacity, as well as other possible sex dichotomous, androgen-sensitive contributors such as mental effects (mood, motivation, aggression) and muscle myoglobin content. These facts explain the clear sex difference in athletic performance in most sports, on which basis it is commonly accepted that competition has to be divided into male and female categories."

Your refusal to cite studies is noted, though.
:rolleyes:
 
Not if you take them to stop the onset of puberty. The truth is, messing around with hormone levels is too complicated to easily talk about in one thread. One of the largest disagreements I have with the trans community is that they are saying that hormone therapy should be readily available to trans children. We don't really know all of the effects of hormone therapy, especially when given to children.
Are you an endocrinologist or did you get your degree at PragerU? The best outcomes are when transgendered teens are treated at the onset of puberty. If they are treated after the body matures in the wrong gender there are both physical and mental heath problems because of delayed care, but you want to ignore that.
You seem to think that hormones and blockers are handed out like Chiclets to any teen/preteen who mentions the words gender identity, when the truth is that there are months of testing and counseling beforehand.

There is a lot more physical difference between a male transitioning to female and a female than between a black male and a white male or a black female and a white female.
You should read what the science is on this issue, or do you want to reject science, as conservatives claims that liberals are doing on this issue?

 
Lisa, your side generally doesn't trust the government. Then you list one study that supports your side. And you expect me to trust that study, when other studies that have been listed in this thread go against your listed study. When I say we should side with caution when dealing with medical issues, that is wisdom and experience talking. Any serious medical procedure should be looked at with skepticism, until proven otherwise.
 
Lisa, your side generally doesn't trust the government. Then you list one study that supports your side. And you expect me to trust that study, when other studies that have been listed in this thread go against your listed study. When I say we should side with caution when dealing with medical issues, that is wisdom and experience talking. Any serious medical procedure should be looked at with skepticism, until proven otherwise.
I am not siding with the government. I am supporting the knowledge of the medical community and objective science.
 
I'd think this sort of thinking would lead you to stop having women's divisions period. Why can't they suck it up and compete in the all humans division?

Assuming these are your principles, how do you justify having a women's division?
The sort of thinking that there are many forms of advantage, some of which are 'fair,' some 'unfair' and some impractical to mitigate? The male vs. female advantage is a major one both in terms of performance and (obviously) numerically; it's not unfair per se, any more than the advantage of <40yo athletes over older athletes is unfair. They're all just part of life, but being so significant and so commonplace it's highly practical and advatageous to have separate divisions for sex and age in many competitions.

By contrast in the case of the supposed trangender advantage
- is not significant in terms of performance (if there even is an advantage at all, which hasn't been shown and if anything seems contradicted by convergent lines of evidence);
- would not be 'unfair' even if there were some slight edge, since it arises from genetic/epigenetic variation subject to all reasonable attempts at mitigation,
- would be almost irrelevant in terms of numbers, affecting maybe one in fifty competitions over the next couple of decades until pre-pubescent transitioning is the norm;
- and would not only be highly impractical in terms of administration/event costs, prize pools where relevant etc., but by actively segregating and singling out trans women and men would be actively reinforcing prejudice and discrimination against one of the most marginalized groups in society.
 
"In a new policy directive, the department said discrimination based on a student's sexual orientation or gender identity will be treated as a violation of Title IX, the 1972 federal law that protects against sex discrimination in education."

 
The sort of thinking that there are many forms of advantage, some of which are 'fair,' some 'unfair' and some impractical to mitigate? The male vs. female advantage is a major one both in terms of performance and (obviously) numerically; it's not unfair per se, any more than the advantage of <40yo athletes over older athletes is unfair. They're all just part of life, but being so significant and so commonplace it's highly practical and advatageous to have separate divisions for sex and age in many competitions.

By contrast in the case of the supposed trangender advantage
- is not significant in terms of performance (if there even is an advantage at all, which hasn't been shown and if anything seems contradicted by convergent lines of evidence);
- would not be 'unfair' even if there were some slight edge, since it arises from genetic/epigenetic variation subject to all reasonable attempts at mitigation,
- would be almost irrelevant in terms of numbers, affecting maybe one in fifty competitions over the next couple of decades until pre-pubescent transitioning is the norm;
- and would not only be highly impractical in terms of administration/event costs, prize pools where relevant etc., but by actively segregating and singling out trans women and men would be actively reinforcing prejudice and discrimination against one of the most marginalized groups in society.

Sorry, but transwomen who have went through male puberty do have a significant advantage over females and there are plenty of peer reviewed studies showing this, and it would be unfair because they are males competing against females.
 
"In a new policy directive, the department said discrimination based on a student's sexual orientation or gender identity will be treated as a violation of Title IX, the 1972 federal law that protects against sex discrimination in education."

So, then does it violate Title IX to even have women’s sports?

If there is to be no treating of women and men differently seems like there ought to just be “sports”. Open to any one of the 72 genders.
 
Back
Top Bottom