Current Events > Trans swimmer breaking NCAA records, destroying the competition in meets

(+) Yeah! (+)

I like that you didn't respond to any of the actual points just to double down on supporting bad ideas just for the sake of opposing bad people

UnfairRepresent posted...

I like that you didn't respond to any of the actual points just to double down on supporting bad ideas just for the sake of opposing bad people

I don't value trans women as human beings just to oppose bigots.

Would you say the Williams sisters should have gotten spanked in men's sports since their tennis dominance and biological advantage was unfair to other female athletes?

Its just the NCAA dont care. If she beats Katie Ledecky at the Olympics now that is a story.

hockeybub89 posted...

I don't value trans women as human beings just to oppose bigots.

This has nothing to do with "value as a human being "

The notion that Lebron James not being allowed in the WNBA means we don't value him as a human being Is absurd

Would you say the Williams sisters should have gotten spanked in men's sports since their tennis dominance and biological advantage was unfair to other female athletes?

No

Because it was still a fair competition

Same way a blind cricketer kicking ass is cool but a sighted cricketer playing in the blind leagues is not

The leagues weren't segregated because of a social construct, but a biological reality

It's silly to ignore this because bigots are mean.

We're not talking about gender, we're talking about biology

Tenlaar posted...

I would love to see your examples of transmen dominating sporting events.

Dragooncancer_ posted...

Can you share some examples of FTM athletes who are breaking records similar to ways multiple MTF athletes have?

just as soon as you provide some data which shows that trans women are actually over-represented in sports victories

averagejoel posted...

just as soon as you provide some data which shows that trans women are actually over-represented in sports victories

People will argue that it happening at all is enough of an issue that it should be addressed. Also, the people who you are responding to are going to see your reply as you conceding that you cant provide a single example.

NeoShadowhen posted...

People will argue that it happening at all is enough of an issue that it should be addressed. Also, the people who you are responding to are going to see your reply as you conceding that you cant provide a single example.

He is acting like he didn't dig a hole when he made his statement

So after 10 years of crying about trans women dominating womens sports is this the first actual example of that happening? Or is this another wash that conservatives are hyping up to retroactively prove a point?

So are we allowed to have a discussion about the physical differences between people who go through puberty as a male vs those who go through puberty as a female or is that transphobic?

SSJPurple posted...

So are we allowed to have a discussion about the physical differences between people who go through puberty as a male vs those who go through puberty as a female or is that transphobic?

Talk, don't ever let the people stop you from discussing reality.

hockeybub89 posted...

Women playing women's sports is not a bad idea. All biological women should play women's sports, not just most.

Would you say the Williams sisters should have gotten spanked in men's sports since their tennis dominance was unfair to other female athletes?

What is the nature of the advantage and how big is it, though?

That's the crux of the issue. Nobody argues that some athletes are better than others, or that certain physical advantages exist and are quantifiable. People only argue what the purpose of a division even is and how to define it. You don't get into the 96kgs weightlifting division if you're 103, and ruling this out is not an insult to the athlete.

BilalPowell posted...

People only complain when trans athletes beat women. Nobody complains when they beat men.

Can't complain about something that doesn't happen.

pinky0926 posted...

What is the nature of the advantage and how big is it, though?

That's the crux of the issue. Nobody argues that some athletes are better than others, or that certain physical advantages exist and are quantifiable. People only argue what the purpose of a division even is and how to define it. You don't get into the 96kgs weightlifting division if you're 103, and ruling this out is not an insult to the athlete.

If an individual athlete at their best is nearly unbeatable, should they be removed from the league or placed with the men? Wouldn't their continued existence be unfair to the success of their peers? Should peak Usain Bolt been barred from sprinting? Is it unfair to put other swimmers in the pool with Katie Ledecky on a distance event?

If we aren't in an event with weight classes, how can we quantify how elite of an athlete you are before your participation is unfair?

SSJPurple posted...

So are we allowed to have a discussion about the physical differences between people who go through puberty as a male vs those who go through puberty as a female or is that transphobic?

This is why we need to start recognizing the validity of trans people's existence and get them on puberty blockers growing up so they do not go through the wrong puberty if they are truly trans.

You want to push for fairness? Support transition and the biggest advantages will go away.

MasterVading posted...

Talk, don't ever let the people stop you from discussing reality.

Trans women are real women, bro. I wish people that are ignorant of reality and science would stop pretending to be the arbiters of it.

hockeybub89 posted...

If an individual athlete at their best is nearly unbeatable, should they be removed from the league or placed with the men? Wouldn't their continued existence be unfair to the success of their peers? Should peak Usain Bolt been barred from sprinting? Is it unfair to put other swimmers in the pool with Katie Ledecky on a distance event?

If we aren't in an event with weight classes, how can we quantify how elite of an athlete you are before your participation is unfair?

Why would Usain Bolt be barred from sprinting? We don't rule people out for doing well. Do we have a separate sprinting class for people over 6ft4 or something?

That's my entire point. Divisions in sport are literally discrimination designed to protect a class of people who otherwise would be ruled out of competitive sport. There would be no lightweight weightlifters, lightweight fighters, females or people under the age of 18 in more or less any sport at all if these divisions didn't exist.

Basketball is an example of a sport where an obvious height advantage exists but we never made a division for it. Why? Well I guess, because (somewhat arbitrarily) we never thought that a short person's basketball league was important enough.

I think what you're arguing here begs an even bigger question: what is even the point of sport? We don't rule people out for doing well. We only rule people out for not being a certain "class" of person, however arbitrary that class is., whether it's weight or height or disability or age. But the point is, once you define that class you have to defend it, or abandon it. And that's only because we wanted to see people of X class compete against people in the same class, nothing more or less.

pinky0926 posted...

What is the nature of the advantage and how big is it, though?

That's the crux of the issue. Nobody argues that some athletes are better than others, or that certain physical advantages exist and are quantifiable. People only argue what the purpose of a division even is and how to define it. You don't get into the 96kgs weightlifting division if you're 103, and ruling this out is not an insult to the athlete.

Yep.

If we have different divisions for men and women, we acknowledge that somebody born a biological male is going to have a considerable advantage. And that advantage is not brought to 0 by transitioning.

The purpose of separating men/women's sports was not based on gender identity but mitigating that advantage. And so if we are being honest we should have a discussion about if that advantage is mitigated or not. And if it isn't, then it is quite similar to letting somebody compete outside their weight class.

It's not about not recognizing people's gender identity, it's about the intention of the sex-separated sports in general, which was to mitigate unfair biological advantage. Pretending like that isn't even a consideration in a merit based activity like athletics is a mistake and unfair.

It would be good to have a lot of data on relative performance, and from the data come to the conclusion of what is most fair. Shutting down the discussion before it has a chance to play out is an error.

hockeybub89 posted...

Trans women are real women, bro. I wish people that are ignorant of reality and science would stop pretending to be the arbiters of it.

"Hey now the science I learned thirty years ago is absolutely true compared to the science of today."

This is a clear biological difference between trans women and cis men. They are biologically closer to cis women, especially if we block puberty. Biology is more than chromosomes

Hard work pays off. Congrats to her !

hockeybub89 posted...

This is why we need to start recognizing the validity of trans people's existence and get them on puberty blockers growing up so they do not go through the wrong puberty if they are truly trans.

What do you mean by "truly" in this context?

hockeybub89 posted...

This is a clear biological difference between trans women and cis men. They are biologically closer to cis women, especially if we block puberty. Biology is more than chromosomes

If someone uses puberty blockers you'd have no argument from me on the sports performance side. How could you have any advantage there?

That would also require admitting that going through male puberty gives you potentially inalienable advantages to sport that might be unfair.

hockeybub89 posted...

This is a clear biological difference between trans women and cis men. They are biologically closer to cis women, especially if we block puberty. Biology is more than chromosomes

The question is with regard to innate athletic ability. I am not aware of data that demonstrates/proves their innate ability is closer to biological females than males. I am open to such data, do you have any sources?

joe40001 posted...

What do you mean by "truly" in this context?

I mean not one of those "pretending to be be women to win sports" people pearl-clutchers are always worrying about.

joe40001 posted...

The question is with regard to innate athletic ability. I am not aware of data that demonstrates/proves their innate ability is closer to biological females than males. I am open to such data, do you have any sources?

One of the big problems with this entire debate is the lack of direct studies on trans athletes. What studies there have been have either been poorly conducted (due to limitations) or otherwise on trans people who are not athletes, or on cis males/females athletes.

This is why the IAAF has managed to make such incredible statements like "we really have no evidence that testosterone provides any advantage" while at the same time restricting testosterone levels in so many events. Totally schizophrenic properties abound.

pinky0926 posted...

This is why the IAAF has managed to make such incredible statements like "we really have no evidence that testosterone provides any advantage"

Wait, people have tried to claim that? That's insane.

That's like one step shy of saying "we have no evidence to show that muscle mass provides advantage for weight lifting".

Advantage in physical ability is like the point of testosterone.

hockeybub89 posted...

I mean not one of those "pretending to be be women to win sports" people pearl-clutchers are always worrying about.

The issue is, I don't think it socially acceptable (in certain places such as CE) to even suggest any person for any reason (or even at any age) claiming to be trans could be lying, mistaken, or confused.

As I understand it, "affirmative care" is the norm. Some people might argue such a stance is flawed, but I do not believe that argument is the kind of argument you can make on these forums without being moderated/suspended.

I think the law of the land here is that you must accept that anybody anywhere who says they are trans is "truly trans". So I'd recommend you be careful even alluding to anything else.

joe40001 posted...

Wait, people have tried to claim that? That's insane.

That's like one step shy of saying "we have no evidence to show that muscle mass provides advantage for weight lifting".

Advantage in physical ability is like the point of testosterone.

I mispoke, it's the IOC, not the IAAF. Their framework says "no presumption of advantage", meaning they're going to skirt on the side of "we will include until evidence says otherwise", rather than exclude until evidence says otherwise.

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/18/1056761957/testosterone-levels-wont-determine-transgender-athletes-eligibility-ioc-says?t=1639341120942

They also said it's up to individual sports to decide the ruling, so they've basically washed their hands of it.

joe40001 posted...

The question is with regard to innate athletic ability. I am not aware of data that demonstrates/proves their innate ability is closer to biological females than males. I am open to such data, do you have any sources?

https://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/news/20210715/do- trans-women-athletes-have-advantages

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trans-women- retain-athletic-edge-after-year-hormone-therapy-study-n1252764

This at least shows there is a difference and it lessens over time. I never said it was exact.

But we're basically saying trans women are men and transitioning is worthless, and that's hateful bullshit that flies in the face of reality. Either they are always women or they are never women and they will get eaten alive playing with men.

This really comes down to whether or not the occasional dominant trans woman athlete is unfair enough to invalidate the social acceptance of trans people.

Again, accepting trans people and pushing for early recognition and puberty blockers would go a long way.

I know you're responding to him and not me, but a couple of points:

hockeybub89 posted...

This at least shows there is a difference and it lessens over time. I never said it was exact.

I mentioned before, the nature of the advantage and how big it is is important. Say males have a 30% advantage over women in an elite sport (which is about right for weightlifting). If you transition and lose 20% of your male advantage, you're not going to win any medals in the men's division but you're still in a totally different class than the women's division. You're going to trounce every record imaginable to a point where no person previously or since in that class could even come close. You'd effectively be creating a new record set that only people who transition have a hope of achieving in the women's division.

It sounds ridiculous but that's the reality of how far apart the goalposts are. 10% is a huge distance to cross when the difference between the gold medal and last place at the Olympics is typically less than 2%.

But we're basically saying trans women are men and transitioning is worthless, and that's hateful bullshit that flies in the face of reality. Either they are always women or they are never women and they will get eaten alive playing with men.

I mean are people only transitioning so that they can compete in a sports division? I don't get this bit.

she must have hard time using women washroom , Looks like she may having passing issues

joe40001 posted...

The issue is, I don't think it socially acceptable (in certain places such as CE) to even suggest any person for any reason (or even at any age) claiming to be trans could be lying, mistaken, or confused.

As I understand it, "affirmative care" is the norm. Some people might argue such a stance is flawed, but I do not believe that argument is the kind of argument you can make on these forums without being moderated/suspended.

I think the law of the land here is that you must accept that anybody anywhere who says they are trans is "truly trans". So I'd recommend you be careful even alluding to anything else.

Doctors who treat trans kids literally put them through such a long process to make sure they are trans and that gender confirmation will be proper for them when they reach that point. This it why people remind others that puberty blockers are reversible. No one is trying to transition children against their will or if it is the wrong diagnosis.

I am not claiming anything. You and I both know some people believe that some trans women are lying for some devious purpose, or that the entire concept is made-up. It's obviously bunk and offensive.

pinky0926 posted...

I mean are people only transitioning so that they can compete in a sports division? I don't get this bit.

No, we can't pick and choose when a woman is allowed to be a woman and ever expect widespread acceptance. That will just reinforce bigots' beliefs that trans women are men and that they are making a choice.

hockeybub89 posted...

No, we can't pick and choose when a woman is allowed to be a woman and ever expect widespread acceptance. That will just reinforce bigots' beliefs that trans women are men and that they are making a choice.

I'd say it shouldn't be about how to define what "woman" is but how to define what the sports divisions are. Maybe "men/women" sports doesn't work anymore? Why even have that separation at all if we're undermining any justification for it in the first place. I genuinely can't think of why "womens" sports exists if we're saying the word "women" doesn't have any relevant relationship to sex.

What does anyone gain by suggesting that any person "claiming to be trans could be lying, mistaken, or confused"?

CyricZ posted...

What does anyone gain by suggesting that any person "claiming to be trans could be lying, mistaken, or confused"?

I think it's genuinely offensive to trans people when people suggest that they are transitioning for the purpsoe of winning sports, however I think it's incredibly naive to think that if the legislation makes it easy enough people won't take full advantage of this and lie to win sports. I mean BALCO exists. The eastern bloc exists. if you allow people to self indentify, there is no doubt it will be abused to win medals.

pinky0926 posted...

I think it's genuinely offensive to trans people when people suggest that they are transitioning for the purpose of winning sports, however I think it's incredibly naive to think that if the legislation makes it easy enough people won't take full advantage of this and lie to win sports. I mean BALCO exists. The eastern bloc exists. Entire programs by governing bodies who will put athletes through harmful drug protocols to win sports. Is this so outlandish to imagine? if you allow people to self identify , there is no doubt it will be abused to win medals.

To me that's not a dilemma. To me, human rights and dignity take precedence.

I'm fine with rules existing, and most major sports regulating bodies have them.

CyricZ posted...

To me that's not a dilemma. To me, human rights and dignity take precedence.

I'm fine with rules existing, and most major sports regulating bodies have them.

I don't know if I'd call it a human right's issue for cis and trans women to compete together, unless "women" is such an important category that it must continue to exist even if any logical reason for it existing no longer applies.

Para-athletics handles this issue better, I think.

pinky0926 posted...

I don't know if I'd call it a human right's issue for cis and trans women to compete together, unless "women" is such an important category that it must continue to exist even if any logical reason for it existing no longer applies.

That's a decision for women to make, not men.

The reason womens' sports exist is because women were prohibited from competition so they made their own competitions.

CyricZ posted...

That's a decision for women to make, not men.

The reason womens' sports exist is because women were prohibited from competition so they made their own competitions.

Which clearly isn't an issue anymore and shouldn't be used as a reason for why these divisions continue to exist.

As an aside, it feels like some of these arguments come from a complete contempt of sports, to be honest. Like it's just a silly past time, and if it matters to anyone beyond the level of playing a board game with friends on a friday night then you're taking it too seriously.

I mean, tell that to Caster Semenya, or Simone Biles, or Katie Ledecky. Are they taking it too seriously?

As I said before, you can count on it that if you make it easy enough (i.e. if the only thing that counts is whether you put an X against men or women on the application card), the entire sporting world will be walked over by mediocre male athletes being put forward by corrupt organisations to clean up at the olympics, just like what happened with BALCO and the eastern bloc. This will happen at the expense of more deserving competitors (including trans athletes). And it would be an even greater difference, because the best PED protocols could only dream of being half as effective as male puberty has proven to be.

Women's sports would become a complete joke, and that would be a loss to all.

pinky0926 posted...

you can count on it that if you make it easy enough (i.e. if the only thing that counts is whether you put an X against men or women on the application card), the entire sporting world will be walked over by mediocre male athletes being put forward by corrupt organisations to clean up at the olympics

But it's not being made "easy enough". Rules still exist.

CyricZ posted...

But it's not being made "easy enough". Rules still exist.

The discussion was about how to define "women" (as a sports division) and if self-ID is sufficient. I think it's a fair hypothetical.

pinky0926 posted...

and if self-ID is sufficient

Sorry it's a big topic. Is anyone arguing it is?

BilalPowell posted...

Just have 1 team for all genders. Problem solved.

This.

CyricZ posted...

Sorry it's a big topic. Is anyone arguing it is?

What else is left? If you rule out testosterone levels as a proxy, how do you determine what division someone should compete in? The IOC is already ruling out testosterone.

pinky0926 posted...

As an aside, it feels like some of these arguments come from a complete contempt of sports, to be honest. Like it's just a silly past time, and if it matters to anyone beyond the level of playing a board game with friends on a friday night then you're taking it too seriously.

Exactly this. And considering how seriously I take board games, I'd guess some people take it even less seriously than that.

People don't realize how sports relates to self-esteem, hope, discipline, and strength for countless people. But that only happens when it's fair. So we must ensure fairness is achieved as much as possible.

hockeybub89 posted...

Trans women are real women, bro. I wish people that are ignorant of reality and science would stop pretending to be the arbiters of it.

Dude this isn't about anyone saying they're fake women.

It's about the reality of biology. Born men have higher red blood cell counts, you you know the stuff that brings nutrients through the bloodstream to the different parts of the body that allows it to perform? Also they have higher lung capacities, so they should run run short of breathe less quicker then born women. Also they have different skeletal structures. I'm not exactly sure how this is beneficiary to men but I imagine longer limbs would allow for deeper strokes giving overall better propulsion.

dioxxys posted...

I'm not exactly sure how this is beneficiary to men

You could have stopped right there.

dioxxys posted...

Dude this isn't about anyone saying they're fake women.

It's about the reality of biology. Born men have higher red blood cell counts, you you know the stuff that brings nutrients through the bloodstream to the different parts of the body that allows it to perform? Also they have higher lung capacities, so they should run run short of breathe less quicker then born women. Also they have different skeletal structures. I'm not exactly sure how this is beneficiary to men but I imagine longer limbs would allow for deeper strokes giving overall better propulsion.

There are different skeletal structures and all that among men, too.

Im 58. Im never going to swim as well as Michael Phelps, even if I trained every waking moment. Hes got an advantage

Should we have separate sporting events for people of different heights or body types?

Of course, the plus side of this would be football events where each side is basically Danny DeVito.

So are y'all getting anywhere this time as opposed to the other 50000 times this topic has been made and people argued in it