• 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!

[W:963][W:#588][W:#502]Transgender swimmer destroying records

Lycanthrope

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
17,691
Reaction score
24,429
Location
Mithlond
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Lia Thomas is a 22 year old transgender swimmer at the University of Pennsylvania. Before transitioning, she competed as a man for three years, named Will Thomas. It is known she competed as a man as recently as November 2019. NCAA rules mandate as transgender Thomas had to undergo testosterone suppression therapy for at least a year before being eligible to compete as a woman.

On November 20th of this year, Thomas broke the university records for the 200M and 500M freestyle.


There is some difference in the NCAA rules regarding male to female and female to male athletes; a female to male athlete may compete in either men's or women's teams, unless they are receiving testosterone treatments in which case they may only compete with men; male to female may only compete after a year of testosterone suppression treatments. Source:


I bring this up because it is apparent there is a general consensus - female to male trans athletes receive no biological advantages that must be compensated for before competing with men (and indeed, once they start receiving testosterone treatments they can no longer compete with women; male to female athletes have to undergo hormone treatment to compensate for prior biological advantages that males have over females in terms of physiology (e.g. greater muscle max, higher potential VO2 Max, longer limbs, etc.) So the controversy surrounds the male to female trans, not so much the reverse.

Full disclosure - I am supportive of people expressing themselves as the gender they identify with. I think the recent hysteria and backlash towards them is unwarranted and reminiscent of the negativity homosexuals dealt with for decades and are only now seeing some progress in resolving (e.g. legalized marriage, general societal acceptance). So I am presenting this as someone who is sympathetic and not at all hostile to transgenderism. But athletics - a field where physiology and maximizing one's potential speed, strength, and endurance is a major determinant in success in many sporting events, does feel like a unique situation. Do male to female trans athletes have inherent advantages over athletes born female - advantages that cannot be negated by hormone treatment? If so, how do we accommodate for that while avoiding discriminating against anyone, be it the trans athlete or the others competing against them?

I know there are plenty who will simply say "born a man, you aren't competing as a woman - PERIOD." That's fine, the following isn't for you. If you are willing to at least consider the possibility of male to female trans athletes competing with athletes who were born female, how do you maintain a fair competitive field? My first thought is whether additional divisions can be created, but I doubt there are enough trans athletes to make that viable. My second thought is to "asterisk" the performances of such athletes, but how is that not exclusionary/failing to recognize them as fully legitimate participants? Hard to know what is the best course of action.
 
<>

I bring this up because it is apparent there is a general consensus - female to male trans athletes receive no biological advantages that must be compensated for before competing with men (and indeed, once they start receiving testosterone treatments they can no longer compete with women; male to female athletes have to undergo hormone treatment to compensate for prior biological advantages that males have over females in terms of physiology (e.g. greater muscle max, higher potential VO2 Max, longer limbs, etc.) So the controversy surrounds the male to female trans, not so much the reverse.
<>

One quickly gets into trouble with that position since we do not take any action based on the wide range of physiological advantages of some males over others. We don't say "well, that 7.5 foot guy shouldn't be allowed in the NBA because few males are that tall". And if we don't, it makes it harder to justify saying "ok, so you're a bit taller than women on average, and while we wouldn't utter a peep if you were born female, we are going to utter a peep because you've transitioned."

And as far as I'm aware, we actually do not have indication that the average differences between males and females actually translates into M-F females winning more on average than those born female. The media certainly blares on when a M-F trans person "breaks records", but they don't make much noise when they don't unless you scroll down a while. I remember noise on DP about a M-F trans body builder who was supposedly breaking records. Well, she bombed out of the Olympics. Didn't even make it in to compete there. One anecdote, but anecdotes are what we mostly seem to have.

I find it very hard to justify barring M-F trans people from female sports when we take no such action with any other biological advantage. (Mechanical ones, yes. See Pistorious. And that was of course its own debate... did he actually have an advantage?). And that's not to say that we should. We'd ruin sports if we barred particularly tall, broad-shouldered, strong, explosive males from the NBA out of a concern that they had unfair biological advantages over 5"8 males who really want to play.

🤷
 
Its official. When it comes to sports, men are better women than women. Gosh...its almost like the genetic make-up of men and women is different and that men have a biological advantage in size and strength and muscle mass, etc.

Time for a change. Time to end 'mens' sports and 'womens' sports and let all the totally equal people compete on a totally equal playing field.
 
I find it very hard to justify barring M-F trans people from female sports when we take no such action with any other biological advantage.

We do take action. The reason we have male/female categories in the first place is because of the physiological advantages the typical man has over the typical woman.
 
One quickly gets into trouble with that position since we do not take any action based on the wide range of physiological advantages of some males over others. We don't say "well, that 7.5 foot guy shouldn't be allowed in the NBA because few males are that tall". And if we don't, it makes it harder to justify saying "ok, so you're a bit taller than women on average, and while we wouldn't utter a peep if you were born female, we are going to utter a peep because you've transitioned."

And as far as I'm aware, we actually do not have indication that the average differences between males and females actually translates into M-F females winning more on average than those born female. The media certainly blares on when a M-F trans person "breaks records", but they don't make much noise when they don't unless you scroll down a while. I remember noise on DP about a M-F trans body builder who was supposedly breaking records. Well, she bombed out of the Olympics. Didn't even make it in to compete there. One anecdote, but anecdotes are what we mostly seem to have.

I find it very hard to justify barring M-F trans people from female sports when we take no such action with any other biological advantage. (Mechanical ones, yes. See Pistorious. And that was of course its own debate... did he actually have an advantage?). And that's not to say that we should. We'd ruin sports if we barred particularly tall, broad-shouldered, strong, explosive males from the NBA out of a concern that they had unfair biological advantages over 5"8 males who really want to play.

🤷
All valid points, and it speaks to the complexity of the issue.

I recognize that among the pool of athletes born female there will be physiological differences between the women that will give one an advantage over another. I likewise can see where the only time this issue gets media attention is when a male to female athlete dominates a sport like Lia Thomas did, and that there may be unreported instances where trans athletes do not even pass a qualifying event, much less dominate the finals.

Having said that - is it reasonable to say that the differences we're discussing between women athletes (that is, born female) are comparable to the differences between those same athletes and a trans athlete?
 
We do take action. The reason we have male/female categories in the first place is because of the physiological advantages the typical man has over the typical woman.
I think what the poster was alluding to is that we currently make no distinction between/acknowledgement of the physiological differences between female athletes now (meaning athletes who were born female), so therefore we should make no such distinction between those athletes and trans athletes.

I could be wrong; don't want to speak for them.
 
I think what the poster was alluding to is that we currently make no distinction between/acknowledgement of the physiological differences between female athletes now (meaning athletes who were born female), so therefore we should make no such distinction between those athletes and trans athletes.

I could be wrong; don't want to speak for them.
I think you are correct. That's how I interpreted what he wrote.

I'm saying that if he's right, the logical extension is to get rid of male/female categories altogether.
 
If we didn't turn sports into a religion with a dogma that includes purity we could enjoy it as recreation and entertainment which is all it is.
 
I think you are correct. That's how I interpreted what he wrote.

I'm saying that if he's right, the logical extension is to get rid of male/female categories altogether.
Ah, I have you now.

And yes - if correct why do we separate women from men in nearly all sporting competitions anyway?
 
Wow.

This is really bad, this is really stupid.

Here's the rule folks, girls can play with the boys, but the boys can't play with the girls.
 
If we didn't turn sports into a religion with a dogma that includes purity we could enjoy it as recreation and entertainment which is all it is.
I understand your point, but doesn't at least a semblance of a level playing field contribute to that recreation and entertainment?

Imbalances in ecomonics (i.e. resources), development (i.e. pre vs post-pubescent) and yes, sex would not make for great entertainment except as a novelty. To my mind no one is interested in regularly pitting a small community college's football team against the Big 10, for example.
 
Wow.

This is really bad, this is really stupid.

Here's the rule folks, girls can play with the boys, but the boys can't play with the girls.
That does seem to be the attitude, based on the idea that as a general rule biological females have no inherent physical advantages should they compete with biological males.

There is some evidence that women can compete with/exceed male athletes in certain extreme endurance events, from what I have read.
 
Ah, I have you now.

And yes - if correct why do we separate women from men in nearly all sporting competitions anyway?

My guess is because women wouldn't win enough trophies.

For example, Serena Williams is one of the greatest female tennis players of all time, but, as John McEnroe pointed out:

GARCIA-NAVARRO: We're talking about male players, but there [are] of course wonderful female players. Let's talk about Serena Williams. You say she is the best female player in the world in the book.

MCENROE: Best female player ever — no question.


GARCIA-NAVARRO: Some wouldn't qualify it; some would say she's the best player in the world. Why qualify it?


MCENROE: Oh! Uh, she's not, you mean, the best player in the world, period?


GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yeah, the best tennis player in the world. You know, why say female player?


MCENROE: Well, because if she was in, if she played the men's circuit, she'd be, like, 700 in the world.


GARCIA-NAVARRO: You think so?

MCENROE: Yeah. That doesn't mean I don't think Serena is an incredible player. I do, but the reality of what would happen would be I think something that perhaps it'd be a little higher, perhaps it'd be a little lower. And on a given day, Serena could beat some players.

I'm sure someone here will accuse me of being sexist, but I used to love watching women's tennis, even more than watching the men play.
 
That does seem to be the attitude, based on the idea that as a general rule biological females have no inherent physical advantages should they compete with biological males.

There is some evidence that women can compete with/exceed male athletes in certain extreme endurance events, from what I have read.
Good, let women win in both categories.

I'm tired of hearing nonsense like this, it gives Liberals a bad name.
 
I understand your point, but doesn't at least a semblance of a level playing field contribute to that recreation and entertainment?

Imbalances in ecomonics (i.e. resources), development (i.e. pre vs post-pubescent) and yes, sex would not make for great entertainment except as a novelty. To my mind no one is interested in regularly pitting a small community college's football team against the Big 10, for example.
Of course not but that does not make small community college's football less a sport and less enjoyable. It will sort itself out. Intermural basketball teams are often mixed sex and fun. I would argue that sports at the highest level are artificial and separated from normal life and nothing more than entertainment.
 
We do take action. The reason we have male/female categories in the first place is because of the physiological advantages the typical man has over the typical woman.
And what about naturally born women who are 6'6, and have higher than normal testosterone?

They have a natural advantage. Infair, right?
 
One quickly gets into trouble with that position since we do not take any action based on the wide range of physiological advantages of some males over others. We don't say "well, that 7.5 foot guy shouldn't be allowed in the NBA because few males are that tall". And if we don't, it makes it harder to justify saying "ok, so you're a bit taller than women on average, and while we wouldn't utter a peep if you were born female, we are going to utter a peep because you've transitioned."

And as far as I'm aware, we actually do not have indication that the average differences between males and females actually translates into M-F females winning more on average than those born female. The media certainly blares on when a M-F trans person "breaks records", but they don't make much noise when they don't unless you scroll down a while. I remember noise on DP about a M-F trans body builder who was supposedly breaking records. Well, she bombed out of the Olympics. Didn't even make it in to compete there. One anecdote, but anecdotes are what we mostly seem to have.

I find it very hard to justify barring M-F trans people from female sports when we take no such action with any other biological advantage. (Mechanical ones, yes. See Pistorious. And that was of course its own debate... did he actually have an advantage?). And that's not to say that we should. We'd ruin sports if we barred particularly tall, broad-shouldered, strong, explosive males from the NBA out of a concern that they had unfair biological advantages over 5"8 males who really want to play.

🤷
Athletic prowess is, obviously, not evenly distributed amongst the population. We try to even up fhe competition by imposing age groups, weight limits, competition levels, etc. Gender is an important differentiator. Boys' U-15 soccer teams have soundly beaten the US Women's National Soccer Team, for instance.

There's a lot of thought that if a male goes through puberty before transitioning, even with testosterone suppress he retains a lot of the male muscle structure and athleticism.
 
Lia Thomas is a 22 year old transgender swimmer at the University of Pennsylvania. Before transitioning, she competed as a man for three years, named Will Thomas. It is known she competed as a man as recently as November 2019. NCAA rules mandate as transgender Thomas had to undergo testosterone suppression therapy for at least a year before being eligible to compete as a woman.

On November 20th of this year, Thomas broke the university records for the 200M and 500M freestyle.


There is some difference in the NCAA rules regarding male to female and female to male athletes; a female to male athlete may compete in either men's or women's teams, unless they are receiving testosterone treatments in which case they may only compete with men; male to female may only compete after a year of testosterone suppression treatments. Source:


I bring this up because it is apparent there is a general consensus - female to male trans athletes receive no biological advantages that must be compensated for before competing with men (and indeed, once they start receiving testosterone treatments they can no longer compete with women; male to female athletes have to undergo hormone treatment to compensate for prior biological advantages that males have over females in terms of physiology (e.g. greater muscle max, higher potential VO2 Max, longer limbs, etc.) So the controversy surrounds the male to female trans, not so much the reverse.

Full disclosure - I am supportive of people expressing themselves as the gender they identify with. I think the recent hysteria and backlash towards them is unwarranted and reminiscent of the negativity homosexuals dealt with for decades and are only now seeing some progress in resolving (e.g. legalized marriage, general societal acceptance). So I am presenting this as someone who is sympathetic and not at all hostile to transgenderism. But athletics - a field where physiology and maximizing one's potential speed, strength, and endurance is a major determinant in success in many sporting events, does feel like a unique situation. Do male to female trans athletes have inherent advantages over athletes born female - advantages that cannot be negated by hormone treatment? If so, how do we accommodate for that while avoiding discriminating against anyone, be it the trans athlete or the others competing against them?

I know there are plenty who will simply say "born a man, you aren't competing as a woman - PERIOD." That's fine, the following isn't for you. If you are willing to at least consider the possibility of male to female trans athletes competing with athletes who were born female, how do you maintain a fair competitive field? My first thought is whether additional divisions can be created, but I doubt there are enough trans athletes to make that viable. My second thought is to "asterisk" the performances of such athletes, but how is that not exclusionary/failing to recognize them as fully legitimate participants? Hard to know what is the best course of action.
So wrong.
 
Athletic prowess is, obviously, not evenly distributed amongst the population. We try to even up fhe competition by imposing age groups, weight limits, competition levels, etc. Gender is an important differentiator. Boys' U-15 soccer teams have soundly beaten the US Women's National Soccer Team, for instance.

There's a lot of thought that if a male goes through puberty before transitioning, even with testosterone suppress he retains a lot of the male muscle structure and athleticism.
Agreed - we regularly separate athletes this way, ostensibly to make things competitive and fair.

Is it fair to pit a trans male to female athlete against athletes born female, especially if the transition occurs post puberty? It looks like most athletic governing bodies base their determination on hormone levels. How is that measured, however - are levels actually measured, or is it enough if the trans athlete can show they have undergone testosterone suppression therapy for a specified period of time? Are there studies that show whether, if a trans athlete and a born female athlete are subjected to the same level of training, the differences in muscle mass, speed, endurance, etc. are negligible or can be accounted for with reasons other than the biological differences?

I don't know. And I'm not sure how this issue is successfully negotiated to everyone's satisfaction.
 
Of course not but that does not make small community college's football less a sport and less enjoyable.
I agree, but those games are enjoyable because that CC team is pitted against another team of comparable strength. Against even the lowly Detroit Lions it would be laughable at best, dreadfully dull at worst.

(apologies to Lions fans for using your team in the example)
 
Ah, I have you now.

And yes - if correct why do we separate women from men in nearly all sporting competitions anyway?
Well, because there wouldn't be women in sports if we did. It's not complicated. They aren't even close, especially at the professional level.
 
This is one of the areas where people just decide to stick a spike through their cerebral cortex and act like there isn't a biological difference between men and women, and while some men claim to be women, and vice versa, they actually aren't.

And they call conservatives science deniers but they are talking about pregnant men and other idiocies.
 
I agree, but those games are enjoyable because that CC team is pitted against another team of comparable strength. Against even the lowly Detroit Lions it would be laughable at best, dreadfully dull at worst.

(apologies to Lions fans for using your team in the example)
I agree. All I am saying is let everyone compete for the teams without discriminatory exclusions. Sports will evolve and teams will compete at levels where they can compete. I don't think women are competing to be the best female CEO or Doctor. Why would they want to compete to be the best female weight lifter. It is the sports that need to evolve.
 
One quickly gets into trouble with that position since we do not take any action based on the wide range of physiological advantages of some males over others. We don't say "well, that 7.5 foot guy shouldn't be allowed in the NBA because few males are that tall". And if we don't, it makes it harder to justify saying "ok, so you're a bit taller than women on average, and while we wouldn't utter a peep if you were born female, we are going to utter a peep because you've transitioned."

And as far as I'm aware, we actually do not have indication that the average differences between males and females actually translates into M-F females winning more on average than those born female. The media certainly blares on when a M-F trans person "breaks records", but they don't make much noise when they don't unless you scroll down a while. I remember noise on DP about a M-F trans body builder who was supposedly breaking records. Well, she bombed out of the Olympics. Didn't even make it in to compete there. One anecdote, but anecdotes are what we mostly seem to have.

I find it very hard to justify barring M-F trans people from female sports when we take no such action with any other biological advantage. (Mechanical ones, yes. See Pistorious. And that was of course its own debate... did he actually have an advantage?). And that's not to say that we should. We'd ruin sports if we barred particularly tall, broad-shouldered, strong, explosive males from the NBA out of a concern that they had unfair biological advantages over 5"8 males who really want to play.

🤷
If a male to female transgender person has no advantage, then why the hell are they smashing records across many sporting activities (including getting into the olympics)?

Running, track, weight lifting, swimming, etc.? That's a skewed position on the reality of things ... Really?
 
Back
Top Bottom