Boston Marathon (2nd version)

[ShotsFired]

"Transgender runners will be able to compete as their self-identified gender in the Boston Marathon on Monday, 16 April."

The article concludes:
"Perhaps critics concerned about fair competition when trans women run as women should turn their attention to the dehydration, reduced stamina and dizziness caused by treatments such as testosterone blockers. "

www.indy100.com/article/trans-women-compete-identified-gender-boston-marathon-criticism-transphobia-8297331

its about the rules, understanding how they have come to be changed and recognising the wider implications.

That's exactly it. It's not about the individual trans identifying runners (as much as they like to think it is).

It has a lot of wider implications in sport. On one hand you can have someone disqualified for using asthma medication at the same time as letting someone with male physiology compete against women.

"its about the rules, understanding how they have come to be changed and recognising the wider implications."

"That's exactly it. It's not about the individual trans identifying runners (as much as they like to think it is)."

Yes! I'm a runner and am delighted to see anyone out enjoying a run.

Categories and qualifying times are set because of the recognised physical disadvantage that getting older or being female brings with it.

If spaces in age categories are given to people who are not as old as they should be or in sex categories to people who are not female then older people and females lose out. For each space given away, a disadvantaged person loses out. All in the name of inclusivity.
At a time when there is apparently a push to encourage more women and girls to participate in sport.

Has there been any independent studies of the differences between male and female athletes in individual sports? Common sense and experience tells me that an average man is stronger, faster etc than the average women but what causes this and how does the impact of transiting (however this is defined) affect this? I would say prima facie that natural born men have physical advantages over natural born women and should compete separately in most sports unless it can be proved otherwise. I remember the battles that Oscar Pistorius had to prove that his blades did not give him an unfair advantage against other runners. It took him 5 years and numerous court cases to do this. Why hasn’t this happened for TIMs?

I remember the battles that Oscar Pistorius had to prove that his blades did not give him an unfair advantage against other runners. It took him 5 years and numerous court cases to do this. Why hasn’t this happened for TIMs?

Because Oscar Pistorius might have taken something away from other men thus disadvantaging them. In case of TIMs they are taking things away from women which apparently doesn't matter, I assume because
of a combination of;

Woman's sports are of a lesser importance to men's.
Woman are only allowed to have sports in the first place because men allow it therefore it's totally okay if they decide to rescind that.
Men's feelings are more important than women's reality.

"I remember the battles that Oscar Pistorius had to prove that his blades did not give him an unfair advantage against other runners. It took him 5 years and numerous court cases to do this. Why hasn’t this happened for TIMs?"
Let's take the case of the transabled -- people who don't actually need a wheelchair, but feel as if they should (I kid you not!). Suppose such a person decided they wanted to compete with wheelchair athletes in the 100m, say. Just because they are using a chair during the race, won't alter the fact, say, that before the race the fact they can stand means they can undergoa different training regime. So, what they can do before and during their personal sporting development matters, not just what their capabilities are on the day (where they are in a wheelchair just like the other athletes). And perhaps because a key factor in parasport is the correct assessment of actual capabilities and hence meaningful classes and competition..........

So, just as the transabled couldn't enter because although they gave the appearance of being disabled, and seemed to copy the capability of a disabled athlete on the day, they weren't actually disabled, so perhaps we can see although a transwoman athlete may give the appearance of being female, and seem to copy the capabilities of females on the day (by having lowered testosterone levels), since they're not actually female..............

Seems mad having to go that far to make an argument as to why it is unfair, but I think we have to look at it from the wider sporting angle, and expect the same criteria to apply as have already worked reasonably well in parasport.

Thanks - the lack of consistency is disturbing. I keep thinking there must be some substantial supporting information and research to show there are no differences. The logical disconnection between allowed testosterone levels for women and a higher level for TIMs which if women met they would be disqualified for.

Has there been any independent studies of the differences between male and female athletes in individual sports?

There are certainly years and years of records of results which show quite large differences between male and female athletes in individual sports e.g. www.olympic.org/olympic-results

As I understand it, trans participants in Boston (and possibly others) won't be testosterone tested.

So how do they know their T levels are at the right absurdly high for natal women but anyway levels, and thus what advantage or not they have?

But if they test the trans runners, then surely they need to test the women as well, if they are pushing the hypothesis that everyone is the same.

And then if they are testing all the females, they can't not test the males to be fair (perhaps for oestrogen?!)

This kind of Lear-esque nonsensical riddling just shows up the complete bloody farce it all is.

There certainly is a need for robust research into TIMs who are post op or take hormones.

In the case of self ID, no medical treatment TIMs I don't believe there needs to be research. We have a millennia of knowledge that males have a physical advantage over females. It's ludicrous that we have reached a point where denying this is somehow progressive.

A very basic difference is the shape of the pelvis which changes the angle of the legs to the knees. Aside from the fact that this enables men to run faster, it also means women suffer from a higher rate of injuries of knees and ankles.

IIRC I posted the qualifying times on the last thread, pointing out the substantial difference in requirements between the men and women competitors, as has already been posted upthread.

I also said that the requirement for the competitors to have competed in the same gender (their terminology) in the races where they met the qualifying standards as the gender in which they intend to run the Boston Marathon means that time after time after time the TIM runners will have been competing against - and probably beating - women runners. It's not just a one off event, for serious runners anyway: qualifying is tough and takes a lot of dedication

@OlennasWimple I still have the old tab open putting off a Windows update

You posted:

"And look at the difference in the qualifying times between men and women: there is a full 30 mins difference for all competitors until they get to the older runners, when from 65yo upwards there is 20 mins difference between the qualifying times.

30 mins is a really significant extra amount of time afforded to women (because of our pesky biology)"

For anyone who feels as though we're alone in this, gendertrender have covered it.

It is, generally, something of a relief to read their coverage of events. They take zero quarter and are unapologetic.

One of the comments struck me. In that if a man identifying as a woman happens to break one of the female records, it's unlikely that any female will ever be able to reclaim it.

gendertrender.wordpress.com/2018/04/09/no-hormones-boston-marathon-to-allow-men-to-compete-as-female-on-the-basis-of-feelings-alone/#comments

I liked April's point:

It’s insanity. If there’s no physiologic advantage, where are all the TIFs running in the men’s division? Shouldn’t they all drop 30 min from their marathon times as soon as they ID as men?

If it's all in our heads, I think I'll ID as a man and take on the 40kg barbell at my class today. I know I'm only a beginner on the lighter weights, but I should be able to ID out of that, right?

"There's no physiologic advantage to being assigned male at birth."

Can't disagree with that. I mean, if someone had decided to assign my gender as 'male' at birth, I suppose I might have been encouraged to do more physically challenging activities, but I'd have still turned out to be a short person with childbearing hips.

In an absolutely wonderful turn of events, a woman won!

"Desiree Linden has become the first American woman to win the Boston Marathon in over 30 years.

Ms Linden, a 35-year-old from Michigan, finished the race during a dreary, rainy day with a time of 2:39:54. The last American woman to win the race — one of the most prestigious events in road racing — did so in 1985."

And she did this incredible achievement while also helping out a fellow runner mid-marathon!

I am a little bit in love with her! (As well as being awed by her athleticism)

www.independent.co.uk/sport/boston-marathon-winner-results-2018-desiree-linder-first-american-woman-a8307491.html

Without wanting to appear a party pooper, and this is obviously a massive achievement for Desiree, the headline for that is that she's the first American woman to win in over 30 years - she won the woman's race, not the whole shebang.

Yuki Kawauchi finished the mens' race with a time of 2:15:58. Desiree would have needed to shave a full 11 minutes off her time to place in the top 15 of the mens' times.

11 minutes? I can't maths today >_

DAMMIT! I thought I had had enough tea to read it properly but apparently not. Thank you @Brash for correcting my misunderstanding

You're not alone! My initial reaction was the same - then read it again and was all "oh..."