Evidence for why transwomen should be in women's sport?

[GonadTheGaul]

I know some posters here have been wondering where the evidence is for including transwomen in women’s sport and sadly so far nobody has produced any. I went looking for some and found nothing with any actual evidence at Mermaids, Pride Sport, Gendered Intelligence or GIRES, although they might have something I didn't find. I did find this document from Athlete Ally:

www.athleteally.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/The-Future-of-Womens-Sport-includes-Transgender-Women-and-Girls-Statement_7.14.21_v5.pdf

There’s 8 pages of the statement so it won’t take you too long to read. They say that their document uses ‘a close reading of peer-reviewed, credible sources’ and also state that ‘The consensus among scholars from multiple disciplines, including human biology, kinesiology, law and policy, and gender studies, is clear: the future of sports for women and girls includes both transgender and cisgender women and girls’, although there’s no reference as to where this consensus came from.

There’s plenty about how doing sport is beneficial, which I’m sure we agree with, and how transgender people are often under-represented in sport, which is a shame and worth addressing, which I’m sure we also agree with. There are sections on sports policies and what they say, and the legislation around them. The document states that ‘most organizations have removed unscientific and exclusionary restrictions that prevent access’, referring to transwomen in women’s sport. There is no evidence provided to back up the assertion that these policies were unscientific.

On page 7 they deal with the science (don’t get excited!). They start by saying that the majority of studies on trans athletes are inconclusive, rely on false comparisons, use cherry-picked studies to support an ideology, and that they are ‘laden with limitations, flaws and biases’. So what are these limitations, flaws and biases, and why are the results so unreliable? They don’t seem able to elaborate on that at all. I was hoping for a good critical review of the research here but none is forthcoming.

Then they list a variety of factors that affect sports performance such as ‘aerobic capacity, cardiac capacity, flexibility, height, lean body mass, limb length, muscle mass, and red blood cell counts’ without any mention that these factors are affected by sex, but not by gender. They criticise the concentration of sports bodies on testosterone levels and say that ‘the link between testosterone and athleticism is inconclusive at best, and inherently flawed, at worst’, but don’t even consider the details about the difference between a testosterone-driven puberty and its effects, versus adult serum levels and the effects of maintaining/increasing/lowering them on performance. Again, where is the critical review of this literature?

On the last page they state ‘transgender inclusion in sport is fundamentally an ideological, rather than a scientific, issue.’ Which is interesting as they’ve claimed policies excluding transwomen from women’s sport are ‘unscientific’ (no evidence supplied), they’ve claimed the scientific evidence that transwomen have an advantage over women is flawed and unreliable (no evidence supplied) – so why not say the science doesn’t support the women’s category being for females only?

Finally, although they produce evidence for the benefits of sport and for increasing participation of transgender people in sport, they produce no evidence as to why transgender people should be included in a category for people of the sex they identify as, and not for the sex they are.

There are issues I’m sure others will pick up on, but while they’ve made a case for transgender people benefitting from participating in sport more, which I agree with, they haven’t addressed fairness or safety for female athletes, or made any coherent case as to why anybody should be included in the sex category that isn’t theirs. My overall impression is that it’s very disappointing and doesn’t really address the science at all.

I'm still interested in seeing the evidence if anyone has it though!

[GonadTheGaul]

That's a clear summary of the issues with that study.

[EmbarrassingAdmissions]

[quote Helleofabore]Dr Hilton posted this concise critique just today infact in response to the N=8 Japan videos released this week.

twitter.com/fondofbeetles/status/1418930372482584594?s=21[/quote]
archive version in case that's easier to read: archive.is/taX9I

[Helleofabore]

Dr Hilton posted this concise critique just today infact in response to the N=8 Japan videos released this week.

twitter.com/fondofbeetles/status/1418930372482584594?s=21

[GonadTheGaul]

@Helleofabore

news.sky.com/story/laurel-hubbard-transgender-weightlifter-is-set-to-make-history-at-tokyo-olympics-but-does-she-have-unfair-advantage-12359559

Just adding this latest article where Harper again admits knowing that there are advantages that are NOT mitigated by reducing testosterone but that Harper tries to tie those advantages into being the same as left handed advantage in tennis. As an example they have used.

It is really clear that they are simply reaching deep to justify this inclusion considering it has been allowed due to their shoddy research.

Joanna Harper needs to look more objectively at the data. It's all very well trying to justify it by claiming Hubbard doesn't have an 'overwhelming' advantage, but what is 'overwhelming'? When the difference between a gold medal and silver medal in the womens 75kg+ category in Rio was 1kg (total 307kg vs 306kg, 0.3%), it's hard to justify any advantage, especially one so big it allows a competitor aged 43, well past the peak of performance (mid 20s in weightlifters) to be competing with the best women in the world. I wonder how many of the female weightlifters will still be at the Olympics when they are over 40?

I reserve most of my anger for the IOC who took on board Harper's earlier results. Somebody at the IOC should have seen that the evidence was so flimsy it didn't justify allowing male-born athletes to compete with women. The IOC clearly didn't care about fairness for female athletes and the decision to allow transwomen into the female category was theirs.

[Tesla73]

On todays Daily Signal there is a good article by doctors on this subject

www.dailysignal.com/2021/07/22/we-are-doctors-heres-the-truth-about-transgender-females-bodies-and-athleticism/

[andyoldlabour]

quiteathome

You are quite correct. I posted on another thread that all the transmen (female) and all the transwomen (Male), will be competing in the women's category in the Olympics.
How anyone can be aware of that and not question it, is beyond my meagre brainpower.

[merrymouse]

So, it is great that it is inclusive but is actually not the same at all and it is disingenuous to try to state that it is.

The direct equivalent would be men’s teams including trans women and non binary males.

[Helleofabore]

news.sky.com/story/laurel-hubbard-transgender-weightlifter-is-set-to-make-history-at-tokyo-olympics-but-does-she-have-unfair-advantage-12359559

Just adding this latest article where Harper again admits knowing that there are advantages that are NOT mitigated by reducing testosterone but that Harper tries to tie those advantages into being the same as left handed advantage in tennis. As an example they have used.

It is really clear that they are simply reaching deep to justify this inclusion considering it has been allowed due to their shoddy research.

[eurochick]

And @ErrolTheDragon the only people that will win from no sex or gender categories in sport are of course men - not women, not trans women and not trans men. How convenient.

[Helleofabore]

The trans lobby groups are happily using the NB Canadian women's footballer to attempt to make their argument. However, it will never stand up to scrutiny.

a) they are female and not taking any testosterone, so therefore just because they identify as NB makes absolutely NO difference to their performance. So, it is great that it is inclusive but is actually not the same at all and it is disingenuous to try to state that it is.

b) that footballer has not attempted to play with the male team ..... strange that.

Sure, celebrate diversity. However this merely creates more confusion which is exactly what they want to happen.

[334bu]

Japanese international female footballer playing for professional women's team in USA has come out as transman. Will only transition fully when they retire from football, suppose can't play if doping testosterone. Wonder why no transfer to a men's team is on the cards?

www.independent.co.uk/asia/japan/japan-soccer-yokoyama-transgender-b1871132.html#comments-area

[merrymouse]

One of the members of the Canadian women's football team identifies as non-binary.

They are somehow able to and expected to compete in a team that does not reflect their perception of their own identity. I think it is also assumed that they will be completely accepted by their team members.

What could possibly be the cause of these different expectations?

[quiteathome]

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ness_Murby

So identifies as trans masculine but competes in women's sports. (realistically knows they are a woman then)

However the dissonance is real as they probably know they don't stand a chance in the men's category. So Laurel Hubbard and other trans women should be competing with the men.

[quiteathome]

I also have a feeling, but I can't remember where I saw it that someone who identifies as a trans man is competing in the woman's category in the Paralympics. (I am going with the assumption they must have stopped hormones etc)

[EishetChayil]

The biggest proof that transwomen should' nt be in women's sport is the complete absence of transmen beating men's records in male sport.

[merrymouse]

The story I keep seeing is that physiology is inherently unfair: short people don't fare so well at basketball, brawny people have an advantage at rugby.

Using this logic (it’s all about size, sex gives no inherent advantage) many women should run marathons faster than Eliud Kipchoge (5’6”).

[334bu]

theconversation.com/when-it-comes-to-sport-boys-play-like-a-girl-80328

This article was posted on another thread to show how alike girls and boys are in athletic performance before the age of 12. However, it also contains a graphic detailing the athletic performance of women and men up to over 70. The difference between men and women is incredible and it clearly shows that women in their twenties would be at a disadvantage even against 50 year old men. Really informative graphic.

[ErrolTheDragon]

@Persifleur

The story I keep seeing is that physiology is inherently unfair: short people don't fare so well at basketball, brawny people have an advantage at rugby. Ergo: people born male (are we even able to say that? Amab, then) are just a different sort of women with a natal advantage, like tall women or muscular women. The argument is utterly specious of course but that doesn't stop people parroting it.

Do they not realise that the conclusion of that line of thought is that there should be no women's and men's sport?

Is there any reason whatever for segregating sport by 'gender'?

[GonadTheGaul]

The whole thing is ridiculous and totally illogical. The categories were set up for either female or male bodies, due to the performance differences between those bodies and there are objective tests we can apply to determine if somebody is male or female. Now we are supposed to accept that the categories are based on ‘feelings’ regardless of body type, but that those feelings cannot be objectively tested. In fact only some members of the category actually need to have those feelings to be admitted, the rest don’t. The governing bodies such as British Cycling require a declaration of ‘feelings of being a woman’ only from transwomen, not from females who want to compete in the female category. So the category is not really for those with ‘feminine feelings’ (which are based only on self declaration) as most athletes in the category don’t even need to claim to have those feelings.

[RadandMad]

Christ, if humanity gets through the next 100 years, scholars are going to have a field day with this bullshit.

[CuriousaboutSamphire]

@Persifleur

The story I keep seeing is that physiology is inherently unfair: short people don't fare so well at basketball, brawny people have an advantage at rugby. Ergo: people born male (are we even able to say that? Amab, then) are just a different sort of women with a natal advantage, like tall women or muscular women. The argument is utterly specious of course but that doesn't stop people parroting it.

Yeah! They never point out that if you take, say, 2 short, muscly people of the same age, height, weight and sex only the one who puts in nigh on inhuman hours of training, works through the pain, goves up a 'normal' life, fights for funding, competes, takes the knocks, the defeats, carries on regardless, trains, pains and gains is ever even remotely likely to get anywhere vaguely elite in their sport of choice.

Let's just say that physiology rules biomechanics and that just ain't fair, if you are a male who can't be arsed to train hard and long then why shouldn't you be able to take your mediocre male sporting self into womens sport and rely on that same cursed physiology to be the most wonderful, super, brave and stunning record breaking athelete, but without having to do all that nasty training, pain and gain stuff?

As usual there isn't any internal logic. The thinking is automatically cognitively dissonant as it MUST rely on believing at least 2 opposing 'truths' at the same time.

[NiceGerbil]

Michael Phelps has big feet.

Therefore any male who identifies as a woman should compete with the women.

Logic innit.

[Persifleur]

The story I keep seeing is that physiology is inherently unfair: short people don't fare so well at basketball, brawny people have an advantage at rugby. Ergo: people born male (are we even able to say that? Amab, then) are just a different sort of women with a natal advantage, like tall women or muscular women. The argument is utterly specious of course but that doesn't stop people parroting it.

[NiceGerbil]

@Aroundtheworldin80moves

I've come to the conclusion that some men are threatened by the existence of transwomen so by pretending they are actually a type of women they are no longer a threat to their masculinity.

Yes exactly it's men and non men.

Men's masculinity norms are very strict and heavily enforced.

Many men I'm sure are keen to have any sort of men they don't see as 'real men' elsewhere.

The things for non men is the obvious place for them to go.

[TheWeeDonkey]

@Aroundtheworldin80moves

I've come to the conclusion that some men are threatened by the existence of transwomen so by pretending they are actually a type of women they are no longer a threat to their masculinity.

I think there is definitely an aspect of that in all of this.