RE: Sex Differences: Check out the gonads on that one!
Thanks!
Yeah that's an interesting case. I mentioned a few similar cases in my last (first) post of this series. And there I stated that my opinion is that sports are stupid and everyone dopes anyway :D I was being jocular like usual, but it's true I don't see the point in competitive sport (i.e. sport that's meant for other people to watch).
But if you ask me for a serious considered opinion, I really don't know. My first intuition is that that is unfair. But she did pass the testosterone test. However, in all her prior years as a male, her body was being built sturdier than the average female's, for example bone deposits etc. that surely affect lifting. And her "blowing her rivals out of the water" indicates a large margin that could be better explained by an unfair advantage rather than natural talent.
But I'd have to listen to each side's arguments before I could reach an informed opinion.
http://www.caaws.ca/e/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Devries_lit_review2.pdf
research > anecdotes
and it turns out there is research on the topic
Probably the most useful comment in this thread.
However, the article seems to say "not enough research" (I've only read the abstract and the conclusion, and both say this essentially).
Also, the article seems to be concerned only with the effect testosterone and estrogen have on athletic performance right now. But how about before? Do former-men become less tall? Do the soles of their feet become less wide? Do their bones become less dense? I think that was the issue that was raised in our comments, and the research addresses none of that (from what I can judge from the abstract and conclusion).
as i said to the other guy, usually only the tallest people become basketball players. Are you planning on segregating basketball into height-based tournaments to account for this?
Bone density seems to actually increase while they transition. There are few studies on the topic though
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160530190141.htm
and only anecdotal evidence for the foot and hand size, but they are within a range cis women can have as well.
Sports are based more on biological luck than anything, so going out of your way to regulate one group instead of every member of every group is just bias.
I agree about the biological luck factor. "Sports are stupid anyway" was my initial reply. I couldn't care less about sports, much less segregating people based on sex and luck.
Sports are largely based on unfairness, but some types of unfairness have been deemed acceptable via consensus. For example, it seems to me blacks are better at some sports than whites, yet no one's segregating them. Cos people are just like "ok, as long as they're the same sex". Tomorrow the same might happen with trans people. It's just a fiat majority decision.
I'm a liberal, and trans people can do whatever other people are legally and morally allowed to do. However I'm not going to claim that the science says something it clearly doesn't, and some of these articles were saying that the science says things the science didn't really say. :P
idk why you think i care about what sub-branch of neo-liberal you are. You are all the same to me.
I was mentioning, in case you stereotyped me as some transphobic individual or something, that normally I belong in the liberal camp, so my opinion has to do with common sense + whatever science is available, not prejudice, cos you did accuse the 'other guy' as biased, and I don't know what kind of bias that would be, unless it's of some kind of a racist or political color.
The issue here is quite simple but let me simplify it even further with an analogy, apt or not: if you take a thousand adult bulls, and get their average hormone levels to match those of a thousand average cows, will the first group outperform the second group in sports in which the bulls, pre-treatment, would have outperformed the cows?
Like I do when I debate nihilists (who are curiously always alive), I like to see actions, not words. So let me phrase it differently: if you were a betting man, which group would you bet would win?
The answer mirrors your real beliefs.
I do agree tho, again, that sport is riddled with unfairness and accident and luck, so concentrating on this particular aspect of unfairness (which I do not, I was merely replying to a question) might reveal some unconscious bias, or more probably unconscious habituation to long-established unfairness, as opposed to a brand new and therefore more visible one.
also the paper was talking about how the biological differences would not have an effect, without trail data from sports (as there isnt enough, as it mentioned in the abstract)
Thanks for your opinion. That case from the link I think it is ridiculous, a male who becomes a female shouldn't be allowed to compete against females, as you said, her body could have develop some advantages after so many years being a male, and I think this is very obvious.
I haven't read the argument in favor of these things but I would love to.
transwomen tend to have far less testosterone than cis women due to HRT, and muscle becomes far closer to the female muscle mass as well. The center of mass and thus leg movement is slightly different, and thats one of the very few things that will actually make any difference at all, and it turns out studies prove that they don't amount to much.
You seem to be forgetting transmen as well, which always crush cis females when forced to compete with them.
I think its easier for a trans male to surpass a cis female, because after becoming a man, it would be much more easier to gain muscles.
About the first thing you mentioned, that might depend on the time the trans women has spends as a woman. I don't think it is a coincidence that the trans woman from the link above was able to win that competition easily.
they have guidelines about the time already.
and studies > anecdotal evidence
Sometimes transwomen win by a large margin, just like cis women sometimes do. You are just being biased.
"I think its easier for a trans male to surpass a cis female, because after becoming a man, it would be much more easier to gain muscles."
the exact same is true in reverse
https://thinkprogress.org/transgender-athletes-womens-sports-7300cbf22c19/
here is a nice link on it, with actual research. Most arguments against it are just emotional.
A trans woman will be bigger in average to a cis women, simply because males are bigger. They will always have an advantage over cis women thanks to their bigger size.
cis women can be large too. Only the biggest guys can compete in basketball, do we have "short people basketball" tournaments?
its almost like half of sports is biological 'luck"
The average man is more XYZ-whatever than the average woman. Same goes for the average male athlete vs the average female athlete. When the average male athlete transitions, he might surpass the average female athlete in XYZ, despite her hormones now being on the same level as the average woman athlete's: you might've fixed the muscles, but how about the bones and other hard-to-measure properties?
Anyway, the article itself says much research remains to be done to reach a valid conclusion.
The second article you linked to, links to other research in its 3rd paragraph. (One is the first article you gave, and the other is an article that addresses the exact issue I raised.) None of these 2 articles say what this 3rd paragraph claims they say.
Another linked article is this one. This one drives even more closely into my concern: "The first-ever study of transgender athletes showed that the hormone therapy that facilitates male-to-female transition does more than just suppress testosterone. [...] the study showed that as testosterone levels approach female norms, trans women experience a decrease in muscle mass, bone density and other physical characteristics."
Again, this does not say all becomes equalized: having your bone density change does not mean it changes it, on average, to match the female average. Yet the article that linked to this article says that the science on hormones proves the other side wrong. That is not what the science says.
Anyway, all my reading of these articles so far just reaffirms the "we don't know" of your first linked article review. That's my conclusion so far.
"Another linked article is this one. This one drives even more closely into my concern: "The first-ever study of transgender athletes showed that the hormone therapy that facilitates male-to-female transition does more than just suppress testosterone. [...] the study showed that as testosterone levels approach female norms, trans women experience a decrease in muscle mass, bone density and other physical characteristics.""
actually it tends to become much more extreme than a cis women of the same age
and differences in averages mean nothing. As long as its possible it doesn't matter, unless you plan on changing the entire system of sports to accommodate biological luck first