Trans athlete wins in female swimming race

However, I haven't seen a study which explains why men's athletic achievements are greater than women's. Everyone is just assuming it's a biological advantage, rather than due to some social factor. That's the problem.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

I want a study that shows why old people aren't as good at sport. Maybe they just give up trying as they get older.

Or why adults run faster than children.

Or a study which explains why babies are smaller than 10 year olds.
We can see they are but maybe it's just socialisation. Has anyone checked??

What?

Oh. I see. I mean development squads, grass roots looking for girls, women to participate. I mean the ACE style funding, I mean everything from 5 - 20 years old that is different now than it was say 50 years ago. I mean EVERYTHING in and out of sport that has become more equitable between men and women, boys and girls.

As I explained, or thought I had, in that self same post.

@Somanysocks

There was a ftm swimmer - Schuyler Bailar who swam on Harvard's NCAA Division 1 Swim Team - first on the women's team and then he was given a spot on the men's team after transitioning. While on the women's team Bailar made the National Championships and swam on a relay team with Katie Ledecky etc. Before Harvard Bailar (at age 15) Bailar was top 20 in the nation in breaststroke.

You can see Bailor's times here. Swam on the men's team only for the 2018-2019 season. www.swimcloud.com/swimmer/216547/ Bailar's times are pretty consistent across years - and didn't change much with their transition. Obviously placing / ranking changed a lot - the only information I could find on his rankings was that he finished his career in the 34% percentile of NCAA Division 1 swimmers.

Using the comparative rates of change you would get a pretty good overview of how female records changed as societal mores changed. And you would also be able to spot the time at which, in some sports, the rate of change ceased and the gap between male and female achievements became static. That, all things by then being societally more equal, would leave you with the differences accorded by sexed bodies.

How did this study determine that society was "more equal", and when was it deemed to be "more equal"?

And I wasted a bloody good explanation on him too!

Still, it's there for everyone one to read now. No harm done.

Now he mansplains the absolutely bleedin' obvious to us in what has to be the most obvious "I'll just pretend none of you has said any of this" manner ever seen.

I know. I feel like combing through all our posts and posting all the different ways we have said it. It is bizarre really....

Males should never compete against females in sport.

Ye gods!

Now he mansplains the absolutely bleedin' obvious to us in what has to be the most obvious "I'll just pretend none of you has said any of this" manner ever seen.

Congratulations!!

I am all out of fish for the time being, I am off to the shops.

@Midlifemusings

Better funding for sport for men and boys, more men and boys participating in sport.

If you have lots of men and boys competing in sport, and being encouraged to do so, and less women competing in sport, then of course you're going to see men and boys having better running times because the pool of men and boys is bigger to begin with.

The question is a bit like asking "Why are Americans bad at football?" It's not as if Americans have some genetic or biological factor which means they can't play football. You have less Americans playing football to begin with, it's not as well funded, hence, Americans don't perform as well as Europeans.

Sweetie, that's why I suggested a longitudinal study. Then you could measure, in part, with no psychological harm to participants, the differences in results over the time period when women started to compete in sports previously considered to be in the male domain.

Using the comparative rates of change you would get a pretty good overview of how female records changed as societal mores changed. And you would also be able to spot the time at which, in some sports, the rate of change ceased and the gap between male and female achievements became static. That, all things by then being societally more equal, would leave you with the differences accorded by sexed bodies.

You see, I didn't suggest it on a whim. This was my career.

However, I haven't seen a study which explains why men's athletic achievements are greater than women's. Everyone is just assuming it's a biological advantage, rather than due to some social factor. That's the problem.

Honestly, have you actually read any of the latest studies in to the physical sports advantages that males have?

yes or no

if so, which ones so we can all go read them and see where you are getting your information.

I wonder whether there are any instances of men at the top of their sport who then go on to identify as women?

Or is it just men who are failing with their own sex?

@greasyshoes

You just avoid any real discussion. What social factor would make 14-15 year old boys faster than Olympic women?

To answer your question. Many multi cohort longitudinal studies have been done and the results remain the same. Men have a physical advantage in many areas, notably speed and strength.

You can do one of these studies yourself. Look up the male and femal records of a range of sports and compare and contrast male and female results over say four decades.

I don't deny that men achieve better results in sports. The data is there and it shows men achieve faster running times, faster swimming times, etc.

However, I haven't seen a study which explains why men's athletic achievements are greater than women's. Everyone is just assuming it's a biological advantage, rather than due to some social factor. That's the problem.

Now you really are talking crap to propose this.

For all we know, society could account for 99% of the difference in athletic performance between men and women, whereas biology may only account for 1%. Without the concrete evidence, we don't know, that's all I'm saying.

And you talk about evidence, have you actually read the original studies? At all?

And not only that, but some posts have gone so far so as to suggest that men have biological advantages which supposedly give them an edge in less-physical sports such as snooker and darts.

I don't recall seeing anyone discuss darts. However, do you have anything that shows that there are no advantages to arm span and hand size in snooker? Anything at all to disprove it?

For someone without a 'strong opinion' you seem very keen on telling us that there is nothing 'proven' about males having physiological advantages.

And you still have not clarified just what you mean by 'society is a compounding factor'. Frankly, that could mean anything to anybody.

I'm just not convinced that the evidence for men's biological advantages is as compelling as we're being led to believe.

So post something that is convincing that evidence for men's biological advantages are not compelling. Instead of just talking around the issue.

For all we know, society could account for 99% of the difference in athletic performance between men and women, whereas biology may only account for 1%. Without the concrete evidence, we don't know, that's all I'm saying.

It's almost as though some posters think that the human females on MN pushed their brains out along with their placentas.

"I'm just not convinced that the evidence for men's biological advantages is as compelling as we're being led to believe."

No one cares Mr sea lion. Jog on

You are the one who mentioned snooker and darts. Others laughed, that being the only sensible response.

And are you seriously saying that you have no real life experience of the physiological realities of life?

You ask for 'compelling evidence' that 'decouples' and measures the effect of socialisation as if that actually makes sense. Think about how that could be achieved. How would you find a cohort that had not had the usual socialisation? Isolation for the first 20 years of life?

You may think you are making valid points but, like another poster who recently banged on about human beings not yet knowing everything there could ever be known, you are just shouting into a chasm to hear yourself speak.

To answer your question. Many multi cohort longitudinal studies have been done and the results remain the same. Men have a physical advantage in many areas, notably speed and strength.

You can do one of these studies yourself. Look up the male and femal records of a range of sports and compare and contrast male and female results over say four decades.

@greasyshoes

boysvswomen.com/#/

Look at this website. What accounts for the difference here given your belief that it isn't biological. By 15 boys are beating Olympic
women's times across events. What is your reasoning for this?

I know you are actually just trolling but if you want to back up your trolling - explan away!

So, this is the new approach. It is using this small number of sports to force open all the other sports. Just as it seems greasy is trying to convince us of here.

I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything. I don't have any strong positions on this. In this thread, everyone seems to be saying that men being stronger than women is some kind of foregone conclusion. And not only that, but some posts have gone so far so as to suggest that men have biological advantages which supposedly give them an edge in less-physical sports such as snooker and darts.

I'm just not convinced that the evidence for men's biological advantages is as compelling as we're being led to believe. Certainly, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that men would have an innate advantage in many of these sports. Yes, women will point to big and strong men. But there are also big and strong women who I could never compete against, and there are also soft and feeble men.

The biggest problem is trying to decouple the societal factors from the biological factors. Society is a compounding factor because clearly, men and women are socialised to behave and exercise differently. Is there any compelling research that has decoupled these factors? For all we know, society could account for 99% of the difference in athletic performance between men and women, whereas biology may only account for 1%. Without the concrete evidence, we don't know, that's all I'm saying.

@SamphiretheStickerist - thanks so much for typing such a clear answer! I can't believe greasy managed to miss most of it except the word 'half'

I responded to @greasyshoes because what they said has truth. It's just partial truth (as are all posts). This is just words on a screen but MN has reach, people read it.

It is the truth. I don't think anyone can deny it is the truth albeit a partial truth.

Let's just see though what greasy comes back with. Because I feel there is something confused in their posts.

And I agree, I think greasy's posts need to be discussed and clarified. Because we only have to look at Sheree Bekker and there tweet thread to know there is discussion going on out there about this view.

twitter.com/shereebekker/status/1504899936843935746?s=20&t=UHvmDHOWM0McgXPiYoeNmQ

Starts with:

I have been hearing more frequently the narrative that women's sport apparently exists as a 'protected category' so that women can win (because on this account without it no woman will ever win again)

This is: a) not the reason why women's sport exists as a category, and b) it is not true that women will never win again.

This narrative is profoundly paternalistic and keeps women small.

Let's unpack this a little:

A. Women's sport exists as a category because the dominance of men athletes was threatened by women competing.

We see this over and over again in the history of sport...

Exhibit A1: Figure Skating

1902: Madge Syers enters the World Champs and comes 2nd (no rule preventing her, though no woman has ever entered before)

1903: Women banned from World Champs

1905: Segregated women's category

Exhibit A2: Skeet Shooting

1992 Barcelona: Zhang Shang wins the Gold Medal. The event had always been an open event (no gendered categories)

1996 Atlanta: women banned from shooting

2000 Sydney: Segregated women's category, fewer targets for women

Exhibit A3: Football

1920: Women's football thriving in the UK with 53000 strong crowds (men had been off fighting in WW1)

1921: FA bans women's football (men had returned from WW1)

1971: Fifty (50!) years later ban is lifted, women's football is still recovering

More examples exist but the pattern is clear:

Where women were included (or simply included themselves) it was only when they started threatening men's dominance/entitlement that we were segregated into a separate category.

It is why we still see Sport & Women's Sport

Women's inclusion was on the terms of those in power. They didn't want women 'taking opportunities' away from men so they segregated women.

It was never about a benevolent (still sexist) aim of supposedly 'giving women a chance to win'.

It was about control

And 12 more tweets later, including how 'cis' women are being kept 'small by this, ends with:

It is possible to have a different conversation here.

Gender expansiveness gives us all permission to break free from - and take up space beyond - societal norms, and I'm very much here for that.

Onward.

It is a swivel from 'there is no biological advantage' to 'meh! So there are biological advantages... but hey guess what, women are being kept 'small' by segregated sports. And here are some women who are crushing it - cue the ultra endurance athletes who we know do very well, surfing and (and I was happy to read this air rifle) www.espn.com/shooting/story/_/id/31828521/10m-air-rifle-sport-tokyo-olympics-where-women-outgun-men

Still. Very few sports indeed. And they are not illustrative of the main argument. Despite Bekkers attempts.

So, this is the new approach. It is using this small number of sports to force open all the other sports. Just as it seems greasy is trying to convince us of here.

That is why it is good to have this discussion. Because this will be the new discussion points we shall see. (And they are NOT new, we have of course seen them frequently used in the past)

boysvswomen.com/#/

This website offers some factual information. Women's record times and top women times are about the same as 14-15 year old boys. Before the years where boys really builk up and build a lot of muscle

Maybe I should also explain cognitive dissonance 🙃