How do the people who believe gender is more important than sex think about the sport issue?

[PermanentTemporary]

I'm not going to ask posters in good faith to expose themselves on here (though if you do, thank you) and the classroom monitors never post on the sport threads. But anyone who understands the pro gender argument on sport?

I've seen some arguments that I do agree with. It is absolutely true that women's sport has historically been 'lesser' or not existed for sexist reasons - Victorian arguments that women shouldn't do sport at all because it might affect their fertility, or their health, or that it would mean exposing their bodies. And sexist arguments that women's sport has no value because women aren't as strong as men. And the issue that Title IX was meant to fix in the US, that women's sport wasn't funded properly because men weren't interested. And the fact that there are sporting events where women have won overall - ultrarunning for example, or that category of shooting which was unisex until a woman won the Olympic title, and the sexes were immediately separated after that.

I will accept all those, and believe that the only solution is probably open categories, with gatekept XX categories which include certain DSDs on a specific basis (probably only women with Swyer syndrome and CAIS would qualify).

I find it incredible that anyone can genuinely and convincingly defend the current mess in sport. The aim at present seems to be to pretend that the current situation is how it's been for a long time, and no changes can be made without more evidence, while shouting down any efforts to provide such evidence by eg keeping records of people's sex.

I suppose the big change came in 2003 and for a huge number of competitive sportspeople, that's before they were born, or when they were tiny.

Essentially the reasoning seems to go from what I can see:

There is no difference between female and TWs bodies
If there is, then it's too minor to matter
If it's not, then the transition has removed advantage over females
If it hasn't, then whataboutery galore re sex being a spectrum/massive weaponisation of people with DSD conditions
And if that doesn't work, then the bottom line is yes it sucks for females but females should appreciate how hard it is to be a TW, what a lovely experience it is for TW, and gladly and graciously collude in their own oppression for TW. In one case, counselling was offered to help females come to terms with their new enforced subordination.

Bloody hell, counselling? What was that about? Like Freudian counselling in the 50s to help women accept their 'natural' role as housewives?

I'm not sure it makes much of a difference. Once you've managed to have such a mental disconnect that you think it makes sense to categorise anything by gender stereotypes, you either have to determinedly keep ignoring the blatant problems with it or realise that you've been defending something indefensible.
It turns out a lot of people would rather double down than admit that they got something very, very wrong.

They don't care one TWAW OP quite unequivocally said so, they are not interested in sport so couldn't give a toss, much like the poster who couldn't give a toss about women in prison and blatantly said they deserved rape and sexual assault whilst in there because they were criminals.

I've read other examples of "unfair advantage" pointed out. Eg naming exceptionally tall or strong sportspeople and then saying that if a transwoman ever has an advantage over women, it is no different to the advantage example of very tall basketball player /strong tennis player has over their competitors.

Whenever I see supporters they always mention outliers or use examples of when a TW has not performed well to justify their view.

The pro-TRA IOC initially said testosterone should be reduced first for TW to compete, then to justify their balls up, or cock up, they went on to say that inclusion is as important as fairness.
Many TRAs parrot lines about "inclusivity" and how that's the most important thing in sport.

The same applies to toilets, though (and everything else). If we aren't going to segregate by sex, why segregate at all?

Unless, of course, it makes sense to have feminine changing rooms (painted pink with lots of hairdryers, presumably) and masculine prisons (heavy weights in the gym) etc

We could go back to having different rules for sports depending on gender, for example ladies' croquet had side hitting of the ball, as long dresses didn't allow for the stick to be swung between the legs. Rugby in high heels anyone?

I find a dose of knowledgable sports science via Ross Tucker to be helpful about all this.
The DM appears to agree as they've now published this article detailing Ross's analysis of Lia Thomas's latest win arguing that Thomas deliberately suppressed their performance:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10531049/How-trans-swimmer-Lia-Thomas-intentionally-suppresses-performance-pool.html

Oh I know what I think about the sport issue and follow Ross Tucker and Emma Hilton with approval. I want to understand how other people think.

@GrimDamnFanjo

Whenever I see supporters they always mention outliers or use examples of when a TW has not performed well to justify their view.

I read an excellent post on this board a few months ago which refutes this well, I can't remember word for word but it was along the lines of -

If a Tour De France competitor competed on an electric bike but lost he's still cheated.

they went on to say that inclusion is as important as fairness

That's it in a nutshell, isn't it? 'Inclusion' (aka making sure male-bodied people get access to whatever they feel entitled to, and whatever makes them feel good) is paramount. Sod everyone else (i.e. women).

There is no logical response that concludes why it is in fact fair, that's why there's a concerted effort to shut down conversation and scare people into not saying what they think. It was refreshing to see many condemning on twitter the latest swim related ridiculousness.

@Artichokeleaves

Essentially the reasoning seems to go from what I can see:

There is no difference between female and TWs bodies
If there is, then it's too minor to matter
If it's not, then the transition has removed advantage over females
If it hasn't, then whataboutery galore re sex being a spectrum/massive weaponisation of people with DSD conditions
And if that doesn't work, then the bottom line is yes it sucks for females but females should appreciate how hard it is to be a TW, what a lovely experience it is for TW, and gladly and graciously collude in their own oppression for TW. In one case, counselling was offered to help females come to terms with their new enforced subordination.

Also: but there are tall/strong/fast natal women so essentially aren't they all taking advantage of their natural physicality, in a way? And: it's not important, it's an edge case, and anyone who claims to think it is important is only pretending, because they hate trans women. (As are those saying they care about the rights and experiences of lesbians, according to one poster on here )

I look forward to the TRAs campaigning for Trans Men to be allowed to take steroids so they get a chance of qualifying/competing in male events.

why are the TRAs not campaigning for Trans Men to be given a level playing field in mens sport?

its such a mystery isnt it.

Didn’t Mckinnon/Ivy argue that TWAW and therefore it doesn’t matter if they dominate because women are winning the women’s category. Women come in all different shapes and sizes and it is discriminatory to exclude TW. Also you cannot compare TW’s performance to male performance because TW are not males. Mckinnon/Ivy is also against any requirement to lower testosterone because (and they are correct on this) lowering testosterone doesn’t make any significant difference to performance and it is immoral to have an invasive medical requirement to make you eligible for a category. Obviously these arguments only work if you believe TWAW. If you believe TWAM it’s just old fashioned misogyny.

Also inclusion is a human right.

I look forward to the TRAs campaigning for Trans Men to be allowed to take steroids so they get a chance of qualifying/competing in male events.

My understanding is that TM are allowed to take testosterone and compete. Thing is any advantage it gives them is in no way enough to get them anywhere close to competing in men’s elite sports. Which is why elite TM continue to compete in the female category and put off taking T until their sporting days are over.

TM are allowed to take testosterone and compete in the male category

There was that amazing poster a while ago who thought women should use their natural attributes of not being as big as TW and could thereby succeed in the "ducking under a bar" event, I seem to recall.

@Signalbox

TM are allowed to take testosterone and compete in the male category

Yet another example of how little regard is placed on women's health that they can take testosterone, which will be a high risk strategy for enhancing performance.

Meanwhile , all that trans men need to do is... nothing, just use their natural testosterone and muscular skeletal advantage. easy- peasy.

Still there's no answer as to why we can't just have trans categories. It's almost like a shame thing. Surely the rational thing to do is have a separate group, not pretend you're identical to born women

Some say things like some women have advantages over other women in sport, longer legs, more speed etc and so all sport is fundimentally unfair and has inequalities built into it, so transwomen just have an advantage given by nature and its all fine.
I think it was Lisa Nandy I heard with this argument.

We have seen the arguments here and on other social media that because transitioned males will ‘shape’ their bodies to suit their perception of female, that means they lose muscle etc. This means they simply cannot compete as males.

Does that also mean any female who goes on a drastic diet to lose kilograms and have the figure they want should compete with the under 16s?

I mean posters have seriously used the argument that their own decision to reduce muscle condition and take hormones should be rewarded somehow. That the female category is their reward.

When it is perfectly clear that many females have to make very hard decisions on medications etc that will mean them not competing in their sports. The logic alludes me why anyone thinks this argument works for transitioned males when it doesn’t for any other able bodied category.

I’m just checking in here to read the well argued, well thought out and scientifically based arguments from some of our regular contributors/ monitors.

Is there really nothing apart from

1. Transwomen are more like women as a class than they are like men as a class.

1. Transwomen should get what they want regardless of the cost to women. Because there is some indefinable and unspeakable quality that transwomen have which means that their views matter more than women’s views .

Another argument is that affects so few people because transwomen are a tiny minority, so why even bother worrying about it.