Trans athlete wins in female swimming race

Oh FFS! Seriously!

Here we now have the 'I don't like it so I won't comment on it' tactic.

So, a mtf trans boxer, competing in a heavyweight category against a natal female. The risk assessment alone, especially regarding potential dangers to the equally 'heavyweight' natal female from the mtf would be far too complicated to navigate.

Well boxing is categorised by weight, so two people fighting each other are going to be a similar weight to begin with.

Boxing is a very strange and unique case though. It's a particularly violent sport and I don't think risk assessments are applicable, given the risk of injury and even death in the sport is relatively high to begin with. Ethically, I disagree with boxing and I never watch it.

If most of the difference between male and female performance is due to sexism and inequality, then that means it could potentially be fixed and women would be capable of the same athletic performances as men.

Did you read all of my post? The one where you fixated on a couple of words?

I explained the sexed reactions to improved training regimes and the persistence of a measurable difference between the sexes.

And the poster above?

Did you look at that and comprehend any if it?

If you want me to go through each part of that poster I will tackle it in some detail tomorrow. I am too busy enjoying a sunny Sunday afternoon, but would have no objection to going through the basics that any 14 year old would be expected to understand.

If most of the difference between male and female performance is due to sexism and inequality, then that means it could potentially be fixed and women would be capable of the same athletic performances as men.

Have you even bothered reading the studies? I mean really actually read the studies?

MOST OF THE DIFFERENCE?

Seriously, you are on here saying that most of the difference is not physiological when the reality is that it doesn't matter in the end.

Change the social elements and the male still has the physiological advantages. That has been shown. And that not even the reduction of testosterone can address.

Are you honestly trying to say that we just don't have enough females competing in sport and if we did that females would be beating males in sport because the females with the bodies that could beat the males have suddenly 'entered the arena'?

Or are you saying that a male who has not been encouraged into sports but then joins should be able to play against females because they have not been encouraged to build their muscles or their sporting prowess?

You do seem to think that if males and females were being raised in an utopian society that females would be right up there competing against the best males and have just as much chance as any other male at winning.

Is that what you are proposing?

Can you imagine the outcry if the same physically disparate athletes were arranging to take part in a physically combative sport such as boxing?

So, a mtf trans boxer, competing in a heavyweight category against a natal female. The risk assessment alone, especially regarding potential dangers to the equally 'heavyweight' natal female from the mtf would be far too complicated to navigate.

I'd hope, anyway...

@greasyshoes is concerned about being seen to endorse sexism.
Where to start......

No they are not clever ( basic gcse biology is clearly lacking )and the more sunlight
the better.
I do still wonder how we got to this point though. How are some, including many women in the public eye, politicians etc. able to look at where this has taken us, and still go along with the ideology?

What does it matter if social expectations has meant a male may have worked on their 'strength' and it was that expectation that has meant they are stronger?

Well it's kind of important, because social factors can be changed, whereas biological factors are much more difficult to change. If most of the difference between male and female performance is due to sexism and inequality, then that means it could potentially be fixed and women would be capable of the same athletic performances as men.

I notice that you have not once addressed the effect of negative sexist discrimination experienced by females from birth when it comes to sport. As a parent of of teen, I can tell you it still is very much alive and happening today.

I'm aware of that and I was going to mention that society and sexism have a negative impact on women's athletic performance, but held back because I was afraid that a comment like that would be misconstrued as me endorsing such sexism.

On the other hand, and yes, we have been there and we have all done it before, but if we just keep pointing out the deficiencies of greaseballs arguments it does make it more interesting for those reading along.

Those reading who have seen this tired old trope flung out with great abandon on other social media platforms.

I mean, I am happy to start posting links to the studies and the papers. But then we almost need to have a disclaimer at the start of these threads of where to look for more information too.

Then again, I have noted that this push for 'social' factors to be the foundation for inclusion of males into female sport is being discussed on social media. The issue really is that now most pundits have to admit that there is no doubt about the male pubertal benefit. They have now swivelled to 'be kind' in a purer sense. Inclusion due to 'social' factors is literally a pure form of 'be kind'.

It is 'be kind' and include this male because he needs and deserves it even though he has all the physical advantages that we can no longer dispute. Just ... be kind.

But the good bit is that the drama student is roundly sniggered at across most social media and greasy's posting here is blindingly obviously lacking in any logic. We can dismiss it with common sense and the simplest of data, like the GCSE level poster above.

Such people really aren't clever. They simply believe they are and every time they try to evidence that they show how daft they actually are.

I mean, calling out Lord Winston on biology is a truly, truly stupid move. Many people will have been struck by that and may have ended up coming to an opinion when they had previously never considered the issue is at all.

More sunlight, as the saying goes.

How do we know what proportion of any perceived male advantage is due to biology, and not society?

I suggest you go and read up on the studies on this.

You are completely failing to make any compelling points at all.

And you seem confused.

What does it matter if social expectations has meant a male may have worked on their 'strength' and it was that expectation that has meant they are stronger?

This argument looks quite ill placed when you then consider the following:

• that male has leaner muscles than females
• that male muscle has the advantage of a richer blood blend so it works more effectively than females
• that male has a different blend of musculature than a female

And the list goes on and on and on.

It does not matter one iota that there might be different social elements at play.

I notice that you have not once addressed the effect of negative sexist discrimination experienced by females from birth when it comes to sport. As a parent of of teen, I can tell you it still is very much alive and happening today.

If you want to talk about advantages that are not physiological, let's talk about the depth of the effect of that negative sexist discrimination.

The worrying thing is that people such as @greasyshoes post this ‘gotcha’ anti scientific nonsense, repeat ad nauseum, and there will be people uneducated enough to take it on board. Then we’re faced with spectacles such as a drama student lecturing Sir Robert Winston on basic biology on question time. The disdain for women isn’t hidden.It’s in plain sight. Just a bit more effort will get us up to standards of male athletes apparently! It will be the end of women’s sport if the cheerleaders for this don’t wake up.

Aye. I have to admit it did make me laugh. That after all that I posted, the lack of stats, numbers, it being only a general discussion, all greasy could come up with was "Is it half?" when I was clear about looking at 2 main issues.

Bunbury Rules from here on.

I’m wondering if bunbury needs to visit this thread….

On the off chance they don’t, these differences can only be explained by biology.

Half as in there are two parts I was discussing. Socialisation and physical attributes.

I said nothing about the scale of effect of either of them.

Lung capacity, muscle fibre, the way we process oxygen, completely different pelvis shape, which impacts walking and running. Not to mention women menstruate every month and we are carrying around a uterus wherever we go.

How have you reached adulthood and not known this??

Disney is made up btw.

So that deals with the half your friend acknowledges.

Is it half?

How do we know what proportion of any perceived male advantage is due to biology, and not society?

[quote IamAporcupine]@SamphiretheStickerist - can I too?

I am currently having a discussion with someone (*) who argues that the physical differences between males and females are due to socialization... . That we are weaker beacuse of Dysney basically. She cites Colette Dawling, who I must admit have not read. It would be great to have your input

(*) she also finds 'difficult' to 'decide' what is male/female...[/quote]
Tell her that she is considering only half of the human condition - socialisation. That would tally with the Disneyfication. Usually referred to as the Victorian Perspective, but I suppose Post Modernism demands an update in everything, eventually.

When it comes to actually measuring the human body and it's potential in any physical activity then yes, that socialisation will have an effect. Think about the differences in how we persist in 'sexing' everything, whether via toxic masculinity or that Princess Effect. Boys will be boys etc. So young girls will be socially steered into 'acceptable' pursuits, away from boxing, rugby, etc.

But then look at how that has been changing over the last 50ish years. Nicola Adams, women's football and rugby etc etc. More young girls are starting those sports and, more importantly, the sports themselves not only accommodate them but encourage them.

So that deals with the half your friend acknowledges.

But the physical science tells the same story. Despite the amazing leaps in understanding the differences in exercise stress responses of sexed bodies, leading to different training regimes for males and females and an better understanding in the relative strengths and weaknesses between the sexes NOTHING can overcome the innate, built in differences.

Usually based, connected to the single most important for the species bodily differences of childbirth demand that female bodies have different hormones and different body responses to them. Think about the hormonal effects on muscle laxity during pregnancy. No male body experiences those changes, it is a sexed difference that has knock effects for anything to do with muscles, for good and bad, depending on the situation.

Placing all men along a spectrum for any bodily measure and women along a separate one the difference between any individual at the same point on the male and female lines will have the same measurable differences - that is men will be roughly 10 % stronger, faster etc. So whilst women's records in all sports have been set and broken, reset at an amazing rate that gap in absolute results remains.

That hasn't changed with the newer, better sexed training regimes. It has become more common. Yes there are areas where female bodies have an advantage. Those same childbearing abilities mean that women have a more stable stance. That Q angle of the pelvic girdle that betrays every transwomen once in motion means that all men have a narrower stance and are less stable, so in sports like archery women have an advantage in stance. But men retain the advantages of lever length, strength etc. So archery, with all the mechanical engineering of the bows etc might eventually make some different decisions about elite participants.

And the body's natural make up of lipids, muscle tissue etc is one we are getting to know more about in extreme endurance sports. Women may well, eventually, become the acknowledged elite performers here. But that allows that enough women will want to... Baby making will again have an effect.

But we know now that women's bodies can come back quite quickly after giving birth, see event cyclists etc. They regain their elite performance levels, but still don't beat elite male performers.

I might have missed something, and this is obviously an explanation not a lecture with all the stats and evidence. I hope it helps.

Used to question who were the dopers now it’s who actually are women

So disappointed

But this stuff makes me question any athletes now

Watching world indoors athletics and can I believe who is a woman now ?

In research that's been done into male vs female strength and physiology, how do the studies decouple social factors from physiological factors? Boys and girls are socialised very differently. There's a huge social pressure for boys to build upper body strength, for example.

We discuss the social factors all the time on this board in relation to sport.

However, when it comes down to it - the only thing that can be 'levelled' is the physical advantages. Hence why acknowledging male physical advantages is key to having a separate category in sport. It is controllable.

This is not any kind of 'gotcha' for inclusion of males into female sport.

I am currently having a discussion with someone () who argues that the physical differences between males and females are due to socialization... confused. That we are weaker beacuse of Dysney basically. She cites Colette Dawling, who I must admit have not read. It would be great to have your input*

This is probably the most important point that's been raised. In research that's been done into male vs female strength and physiology, how do the studies decouple social factors from physiological factors? Boys and girls are socialised very differently. There's a huge social pressure for boys to build upper body strength, for example.

Statistics can be manipulated, especially as it is way easier for a swimmer to post a slow time by taking it easy than it is to smash a record, even if you have an overwhelming physical advantage.