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.

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

Are you sure? Can you link me sources please?

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.

Have I misunderstood then? I though testosterone levels that were introduced to allow the participation of trans athletes had to be revised so as not to exclude intersex competitors, as per that article.

Ok well as none of us are experts I don't see any point in further continuing this discussion. Anyway I have a cake to ice. Peace out ladies.

The solution is quite simple - do not let transwoman play women's sport, because they are and will always remain biologically male and biology is what matters when it comes to sport. They can continue to play men's sport if they want or play one of the many sports out there that are mixed sex but they should not be playing women's sport.

Indeed.

I completely understand where you're coming from, and I want to see that as a solution, but is it? Should transmen continue to compete as women? Or should all trans people compete as men?

Transmen should compete as women, if they are not on testosterone. if they are on testosterone, then they also compete with men.

Neither male people who are transitioning (or not transitioning, in the case of Laurel Hubbard ) nor female people on testosterone, will have an advantage over 'regular' male people. So the male league is whats fairest. They still get to compete, but they do not have an unfair advantage. I suspect that would not be good enough though, as the advantage is whats attractive.

Wow sorry, I had this page open since this morning and had not refreshed. Else I would have read the rest of the thread before commenting. Theres like an extra 80 posts since 8am

Don't worry your comment makes perfect sense and is entirely relevant to the thread.

Well I don't think anyone seriously thinks we can convince you, Rat - we are primarily articulating arguments on each side for the benefit of the lurkers.

To take one example:

You: here's a link to law in sport

Me: the case they're citing refers specifically to intersex individuals with partial or complete androgen insensitivity so in my opinion should not be generalised to transwomen with fully male biology and perfectly functioning androgen receptors.

You: but it's from a site called " law in sport".

Rat for your future reference that particular flawed line of argument is known as "appeal to authority". It doesn't work.

Don't worry, OnTheList, we have proceeded about 0.0000001 cm in the argument in the last 80 posts.

Me: the case they're citing refers specifically to intersex individuals with partial or complete androgen insensitivity so in my opinion should not be generalised to transwomen with fully male biology and perfectly functioning androgen receptors.

You: but it's from a site called " law in sport".

I wasn't appealing to authority, you misunderstand, it is about context. It is from a law site so about legal aspects of transgenderism in sport. It cites a legal case simply to demonstrate a repercussion of the testosterone based participation criteria, that being the case of an intersex athlete who was initially excluded on the basis of testosterone levels, but later reinstated on legal challenge.

So completely relevant in the context of the article.

Not a misrepresentation of anything, because the author wasn't trying to assert anything at all.

Well I don't think anyone seriously thinks we can convince you, Rat - we are primarily articulating arguments on each side for the benefit of the lurkers.

You know what, I finally agree with you.

I've just realised the reference to Expert Panels is now out of date. They used to be there to check up on transexuals

I was shocked to realise by the way (via google) that guidelines used to refer to "eligibility of athletes who have undergone sex reassignment surgery" - that's gone by the boards now, but they used to be checked by a medical panel to confirm the surgery and check the hormone levels.

I also note that the IOC have done away with case by case and expert panels so that's irrelevant and are going with self-id.

So RatRolyPoly we are back to the question of whether any man who wants to should be allowed to compete as a woman. And if not, how will we stop him?

I also note that the IOC have done away with case by case and expert panels so that's irrelevant and are going with self-id.

Can you link me please?

Honestly Maryz I very enjoy debating these things with you, but I'm just about done in with this today. Mumsnet, broaden your horizons and all that, I feel like I've been beaten up. I'm going to make a cup of tea and interact with my children and cry and think about your question. I'm not avoiding it.

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

Well, to some degree, yes. That is my position. Transwomen are not women, so why should they get to compete in the women's competitions?

If I have a disability, I don't get to compete in any Paralympic category I want, I have to go in the correct category for my disability (sight / lower limb / upper limb / LD etc). Why should a man get to choose to compete in my category because he feels like he is a woman?

RatRolyPoly

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.

Then why is your moral compass not 'concerned'? Surely people getting hurt physically overrides other concerns?

I linked

No checks for transgender athletes. Just normal drug tests (which would include testosterone levels, but they can be much, much higher than for natal women since they have been extended so that intersex people can compete - see the Chand case).

Rat Your moral compass seems to show incredibly high regard for the few and pretty much zilch for the many.

Rat Your moral compass seems to show incredibly high regard for the few and pretty much zilch for the many.

ODFOD

Rat's moral compass appears to have charted a course across multiple threads airily handwaving away women's boundaries, feelings and concerns.

Charming. There's always an insult available when the weakness of an argument gets exposed.

Seriously. Whoputthecatout. I have been having the argument non-stop for frickin' HOURS now; you know, raising the points with actual people who care to discuss the actual facts of the matter, and you swan in here with your petty insults and then make out like it's ME who's resorting to insults when the conversation gets too tough? The conversation you weren't even involved in?? Ugh, fine, whatever. Whatever you say.

But whoputthecatout is right, you are choosing the occasional man over all the women in any event.

One mediocre man winning, say, the Olympic women's long jump means a step down for many thousands of women who do long jump in hundreds of countries at tens of age groups. All those women training, and you think it's ok (and inclusive) to allow ONE man to win it.

That's the logical conclusion to your rather disordered thinking.

Sorry Rat - didn't realise you were so sensitive.

I am a long time poster, I have frequently posted on trans threads and am particularly interested and involved in sport and in posting on sports threads - I suspect quite a while before you "swanned" in to this one - to borrow your own phrase.

I have watched how the thread developed.. So many posters making so many logical points about the problems of trans women competing against women and it troubled me that your concern for the few takes precedence over the real concerns for the many so eloquently expressed by others.

Ironically, long jump isn't the best women's event to pick since the world record is a Soviet Union one from 1988 and is probably testosterone aided anyway [cynical]

Even so, it was beaten by the top JUNIOR MEN longjumpers. 18 year old boys can beat a cheating Russian woman.

Says it all, really.

Let me give you a real life example, Rat

Andrea Yearwood is a transwoman athlete who now competes in the girls / women's competitions. No physical or medical changes, just saying "I want to compete as a girl", and the local sports authorities (and the school, which is not that surprising given how important winning often is to the prestige of the school and the coach being allowed to keep their job)

This article covers one of the meets where Andrea raced against girls. Andrea's winning times were 11.99 seconds in the 100m and 26.34 in the 200m.

This means that Andrea was just 0.67 seconds off the qualifying time for the 2016 Olympics.

For her age, it puts her within touching distance of the best ever performance by a female U20 sprinter

Do you really look at the pictures in that article and think "yup, there's a young woman who should be competing against other females, that's totally fair"?

As a man I don’t think trans people (men) should be able to compete in all women’s events. Like I said earlier, some sports could incorporate mixed sex’s ie snooker, shooting, ect but strength and stamina events give the man an unarguable advantage.
Imagine a heavyweight boxer, maybe lost his belt then decides he now wants to compete as a female. It is not only wrong but could actually turn out lethal.
I personally don’t even understand why anyone thinks this is fair or sane for that matter.