Stats on why we have women and men sports?

[InaConfusedState]

I came across the story of Fallon Fox shattering Tamikka Brents eye socket a while ago. It’s so patently obvious that a woman is at serious disadvantage fighting a person with a male skeleton, muscle structure and build, I really couldn’t see why Fox wanted to compete against a woman let alone be allowed to do it. It led me to here and reading fascinating (and diverse) views.

After talking to someone about this case, it got me thinking about why we have women’s sports in the first place. I always thought it was because women are structurally different to men and therefore unable to compete against them on a level playing field. But if men are now able up compete against women, is this not true?

I wondered if anyone has links to evidence and stats that show why women have their own sports.

For example, what does going through puberty as a teenager do for male strength, muscles, etc compared to a female?

What advantage does testosterone confer?

What are the typical levels of testosterone in make and female sportspeople?

If a man competes as a woman, does he have to artificially bring his testosterone levels down (and if so is it to the same level as a woman?). Does the fact he’s been through puberty give him any advantage regardless of whatever testosterone level he now has?

What else - hormones, physical build - do men have as an advantage over woman that makes them faster/stronger?

I’m really interested in these physical aspects as it’s what got me (and several friends) questioning what it means for women if a man can become a woman.

Ereshkigal, perhaps when you look outside and think "the whole world's got this wrong", perhaps it isn't them... There's always the possibility. And here I am, exploring that possibility.

I've read the links. I'm just trying to get you to answer a list of questions in a logical order. In the hopes that you might come to a conclusion.

So far we've established that men and women have different competitions in order to be fair (otherwise there would be no women winners).

So my next question was "do you think that some men should be able to compete in the women's category?"

You may see where I'm going. My next one is going to be "How do we decide which men are allowed to and which aren't?"

If your answer is "let any man tick a box to say he's a woman and then he can compete in the women's category" we have a problem. Because that means any man who wants to can compete as a woman

So we no longer have sex segregation - so things are no longer fair, women will no longer have a chance to win.

Feel free to destroy my argument

@RatRolyPoly My concern isn't specifically for transfolk actually, it's that refusing or denying the trans phenomenon isn't the right thing to do. Simply that.

But unfortunately welcoming in the trans phenomenon as it is currently being mooted is directly bad for women. How can that possibly be seen as the right thing to do?

You can be as right-on and inclusive as you want, but we are not just being mean girls for shits and giggles. We will accept inclusivity when it doesn't damage us (the fair third space option). So far that has not been accepted. That is not our fault, nor our issue to resolve.

I did read the link.

Here's the bits it misses out.
Testosterone is (a) only part of the story (as explained upthread VO max and height and weight and skeletal differences also play a part), and (b) the fact that the limit for transwomen is set at 10 nmol/litre, 5 sigma above the average female level, at a level women could only reach by doping.

Here's the bit it wilfully misprepresents.
The Dutee Chand case involved an intersex (not a trans) athlete with hyperandrogism and complete androgen insensitivity (CAIS). She had raised levels of testosterone, but no receptors to enable her to process those raised levels into increased muscle bulk. Her lawyers therefore argued that forcing her to undertake medical treatment which was not needed was a violation of her rights. (Contrast other intersex athletes with partial androgen insensitivity, PAIS, - who are often required to take androgen blockers). Chand having won her case, it then opened the way for athletes with PAIS to take part without blockers, leading to the results of the Rio 800m final with PAIS women 1,2 and 3 and the rest of the pack a long way behind. (Chand was not in this race - she's a sprinter).

This has nothing to do with transwomen who are biologically male, have raised testosterone levels, and, equally importantly, fully working, normal male androgen receptors.

Ereshkigal, perhaps when you look outside and think "the whole world's got this wrong", perhaps it isn't them... There's always the possibility. And here I am, exploring that possibility.

I don't think the "whole world" thinks like you, Rat. Not in my experience of a wide range of people who are quite shocked when the penny finally drops about this, due to the obfuscation with which the trans agenda is generally presented to them by transactivists and the wider media,

Now I have done my absolute best not to get drawn into whether or not transmen are men or transwomen are women, because frankly I don't feel qualified - either in virtue of scientific or medical knowledge, or through personal experience - to think my answer to that would be definitive. But what I will do is trust the very many professionals who sat around the table to discuss whether or not they thought it was both right and appropriate to include these individuals in either category. I literally have to defer to that, and it would seem to me that almost everybody out there is coming at this from the perspective of how to best manageincluding those people in the competition of their chosen gender. Not my choice, not my rules, but I am literally no-one^ to argue with that right now.

So starting from that perspective, I will obviously fight tooth and nail to see that that is done with all consideration for the fairness and safety of women. And the thing is, that link I provided lists exactly the rules and regulation for entry into the various different mens' and womens' competitions of numerous different sports. Take one example: "under the IAAF's current regulations14 a male-to-female transsexual's eligibility to compete in female international athletics competition is dealt with by an expert medical panel on a case-by-case basis." An EXPERT MEDICAL PANEL tasked with establishing whether or not a single, individual transwoman's involvement preserves the safety and fairness for women? Sure they won't always get it right, and likely they haven't in the past, doesn't this quieten any of your concerns?

I read the link too and then further info on how testosterone isn’t the only determining factor that distinguishes strength, speed etc.

I came to the conclusion, having considered all the information, that sex discrimination exists for sound reasons.

Maryz is asking questions in a very concise way - what she’s saying is the logical end to allowing men to compete against women by ticking a box.

It seems that my carefully-thought out comments on the "everything is lovely and due process is followed" link are completely invisible.

Ho hum.

Not quite as annoying as when Rat pointedly ignored a number of transwomen on one of the other threads because their gender critical views didn't match up with her presuppositions, but still moderately annoying.

Here's the bits it misses out.
Testosterone is (a) only part of the story (as explained upthread VO max and height and weight and skeletal differences also play a part), and (b) the fact that the limit for transwomen is set at 10 nmol/litre, 5 sigma above the average female level, at a level women could only reach by doping.

Oh, so that isn't what they're talking about when they say,

"On the other hand, an approach based exclusively on testosterone levels (such as that of the English FA, and suggested by the Sports Council Equality Group) may not always cater for all scenarios (for example, factors such as height and size may also be relevant in certain sports)."

and

"After the onset of puberty, however (when male serum testosterone levels increase to around ≥10 nmol/L7, while female testosterone levels remain at around 0.1-3.08 nmol/L), the physical advantages enjoyed by men raise fairness and safety concerns in relation to the participation of trans athletes in line with their gender identity."?

I came to the conclusion, having considered all the information, that sex discrimination exists for sound reasons.

It does, of course it does!

Here's the bit it wilfully misprepresents.

Are you sure you read the article? And you did understand the context in that it is an article produced by "LAW IN SPORT"??

Oh come on everyone panders to the trans lobby now.

goodbye moral compass, you're bad for women!
If it's a moral compass that thinks women boxers should be in the ring with a man who ticked a box & lowered their testosterone levels for a year then yes that is bad for women. Men can hit harder & are less susceptible to damage as their bones are more dense.
Even if you disregard the honours of winning & the financial opportunities please ask your moral compass to consider women's safety!

rat what do you want out of this? Nothing we are proposing seems to be working for you. You've mentioned the "status quo" recently, which appears to be categorise athletes on the basis of gender ID. So you think it's ok for people like Laurel Hubbard and Fallon Fox to compete against women? Despite the increased safety risk to those women in contact sports?

Waddle you appear to have taken one single post in isolation and inferred that I have no concern for womens' safety, which you will see from my other posts I am very much concerned with.

inferred that I have no concern for womens' safety, which you will see from my other posts I am very much concerned with.

What about Hannah Mouncey? Currently banned from womens Australian Football due to safety concerns, she is joining the women's Australian handball team. She is 6'3" and weighed 16 stone when playing in the men's handball team.
She is appealing the decision not to let her play AFL as a woman. Would you let her play?
amp.theage.com.au/afl/womens-afl/hannah-mouncey-visits-afl-house-after-failing-to-get-information-from-officials-20180202-h0swtp.html

You've mentioned the "status quo" recently, which appears to be categorise athletes on the basis of gender ID.

That may be what it "appears" to be, but what precisely it is is listed quite extensively for many sports in the link I previously provided.

I guess I was hoping for some commonality of purpose, or at least to understand why we aren't finding any. All I can see is that even if it could be made entirely safe and fair for transwomen to compete in the women's competition that would still be unsatisfactory for many. And that, I suppose, is that.

I don't think anyone would have an issue with trans women competing alongside women if it was fair and safe. I think most of us think it won't be fair or safe.
What sports do you think it will be fair and safe for TW to compete in alongside women?

All I can see is that even if it could be made entirely safe and fair for transwomen to compete in the women's competition that would still be unsatisfactory for many. And that, I suppose, is that.

Maybe don't waste any more of your valuable empathising time?

Would you let her play?

I'm not one of the experts enlisted to make that decision, but for what little I know I agree with their decision. I'm all for expert panels and considering things on a case by case basis.

You do realise that the "case by case basis" and the EXPERT MEDICAL PANEL are deciding whether the man in question genuinely feels like a woman, not whether he has an unfair advantage over women. So provided he can prove he's a "genuine" transwomen (there is no physical test, by the way, just a box tick) they will pass him. So we are back to my questions:

Do you think that some men should be able to compete in the women's category? If so

How do we decide which men are allowed to and which aren't?

(it used to be a medical investigation, now it's a tick box sefl id plus a testosterone level test, it's becoming tick box only - where would you draw the line?)

If your answer is "let any man tick a box to say he's a woman and then he can compete in the women's category" we have a problem. Because that means any man who wants to can compete as a woman, so effectively getting rid of sex segregation which you yourself was there to make sport fair.

It's circular - where are you opting out of the circle?

The Olympic Committee have completely opted out. Self id is here The IOC has announced there will be no sex or gender testing for Korea 2018

Testosterone levels that were varied to allow intersex competitors to compete as women (which is another issue altogether) are being used to allow men to compete as women.

Do you not think "expert panels" have the potential to be influenced by politics?

Ereshkigal seriously, what exactly do you hope to achieve with that comment? For me to go away? No-one's making you engage with me. It can be like the playground if you like, if you fail at ditching me off you can all just take your self-affirming games somewhere else and hope I don't follow you, right? Jeez.

There can't be commonality of purpose. You have to decide that you agree either

(1) for reasons of fairness and safety women should compete separately from men in the sports where they currently do so; or

(2) any man can self-id as a woman and compete in the women's section (provided that he can prove he's managed to have a slightly lower than average male testosterone level for a year).

You have to choose a side. There is no middle ground. Get off the fucking fence and decide who you are going to stand up for.