Trans athlete wins in female swimming race

[bonfireheart]

www.lbc.co.uk/news/female-swimmers-transgender-lia-thomas-podium-protest-atlanta-result/

Don't know how true this story is but wonder if the public reaction to stuff like this will become more common.

Oh my god why are people even engaging with @greasyshoes. Greasy, take your ignorant sexist attitude elsewhere, perhaps to Google, where you will find much evidence which demonstrates the profound biological differences between men and women. I can only imagine Greasy is a troll winding people up for laughs, no one can surely be that stupid.

Apologies if this has already been mentioned but there was a really interesting section on the bbc radio show More or Less a few weeks ago about exactly what advantage biological make atheletes have over biological female athletes. The resulting analysis was quite conclusive. Even those who are born male and transition to female (and have accordingly reduced testosterone levels) have a significant physical advantage over their fellow women competitors.

Girls in general are less likely to participate in sports and that is a social issue that needs addressing. But I wonder if Greasy thinks that women can socialize their way out of their hip angle, waist and breast shape, heart size and menstrual cycle, too?

@sweatergirl

Oh my god why are people even engaging with *@greasyshoes*. Greasy, take your ignorant sexist attitude elsewhere, perhaps to Google, where you will find much evidence which demonstrates the profound biological differences between men and women. I can only imagine Greasy is a troll winding people up for laughs, no one can surely be that stupid.

For my part because it was down to someone repeatedly engaging with a similar poster that gave me my lightbulb moment. It took a tenacious woman to show me I could rely on science and ignore the socialisation that demanded I was kind to people who were obviously having a hard time in life.

It made me speak to the trans people in my life and realise just how patronising that was. How much agency I had robbed them of. Which is much how I see most TRAs, many of whom are not themselves trans.

Basically I post for anyone doing as I did for a while, lurking, reading, leaping in and having specious arguments.

@Fuuuuuckit

Can you imagine the outcry if the same physically disparate athletes were arranging to take part in a physically combative sport such as boxing?

So, a mtf trans boxer, competing in a heavyweight category against a natal female. The risk assessment alone, especially regarding potential dangers to the equally 'heavyweight' natal female from the mtf would be far too complicated to navigate.

I'd hope, anyway...

It’s happened. 2014. Trans woman Fallon Fox fractured her opponent’s orbital bone. Fallon later bragged that Fallon enjoyed it.

It is said that the woman Fallon fought didn’t know in advance that Fallon was born male.

It made me speak to the trans people in my life and realise just how patronising that was. How much agency I had robbed them of. Which is much how I see most TRAs, many of whom are not themselves trans.

Actually, on Lia Thomas in particular, I can think of more trans people who have denounced his behaviour than who support him.

(But maybe that does just reflect who I pay attention to)

You have to be a particularly reality-detached evangelist to support this travesty, and in most trans people aren't that reality-detached. And they really don't fancy the backlash.

I responded to @greasyshoes because what they said has truth. It's just partial truth (as are all posts). This is just words on a screen but MN has reach, people read it.

Yes, explaining that greasy focusses on part of the whole story and then thrashed around thinking they are either making a clever point or obscuring one isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Lia Thomas could have been a trans swimmer on the male team, breaking down stereotypes. He could have been celebrated for being 'gender non conforming', and his male teammates applauded for being accepting and encouraging. It would have been progressive.

When you see a male forcong their way into a place where they are not wanted, dominating females and taking their opportunities, then no stereotype is broken. It's not progressive, it's regressive.

"Lia Thomas could have been a trans swimmer on the male team, breaking down stereotypes. He could have been celebrated for being 'gender non conforming', and his male teammates applauded for being accepting and encouraging. It would have been progressive."

He could, apart from the fact he's not good enough to make the cut in the men's team

He could, apart from the fact he's not good enough to make the cut in the men's team

Yup.

Lia chose to be noted for all the wrong reasons. When it could have been an utter celebration of who they are.

And that is why I refuse to believe this is no more to do with how they feel but what they want.

Greasy is right that women's sport exists to promote the women's participation.

Because if there was just 'open to all sport' women wouldn't be competitive so wouldn't see any point in taking part.

Just a general sport category for everyone would mean total domination by men. Except in a very few categories. (Some gymnastics?)

Everyone knows this.

So if you want women to take part in sport you need specific categories for adult females.

Maybe I should also explain cognitive dissonance 🙃

boysvswomen.com/#/

This website offers some factual information. Women's record times and top women times are about the same as 14-15 year old boys. Before the years where boys really builk up and build a lot of muscle

I responded to @greasyshoes because what they said has truth. It's just partial truth (as are all posts). This is just words on a screen but MN has reach, people read it.

It is the truth. I don't think anyone can deny it is the truth albeit a partial truth.

Let's just see though what greasy comes back with. Because I feel there is something confused in their posts.

And I agree, I think greasy's posts need to be discussed and clarified. Because we only have to look at Sheree Bekker and there tweet thread to know there is discussion going on out there about this view.

twitter.com/shereebekker/status/1504899936843935746?s=20&t=UHvmDHOWM0McgXPiYoeNmQ

Starts with:

I have been hearing more frequently the narrative that women's sport apparently exists as a 'protected category' so that women can win (because on this account without it no woman will ever win again)

This is: a) not the reason why women's sport exists as a category, and b) it is not true that women will never win again.

This narrative is profoundly paternalistic and keeps women small.

Let's unpack this a little:

A. Women's sport exists as a category because the dominance of men athletes was threatened by women competing.

We see this over and over again in the history of sport...

Exhibit A1: Figure Skating

1902: Madge Syers enters the World Champs and comes 2nd (no rule preventing her, though no woman has ever entered before)

1903: Women banned from World Champs

1905: Segregated women's category

Exhibit A2: Skeet Shooting

1992 Barcelona: Zhang Shang wins the Gold Medal. The event had always been an open event (no gendered categories)

1996 Atlanta: women banned from shooting

2000 Sydney: Segregated women's category, fewer targets for women

Exhibit A3: Football

1920: Women's football thriving in the UK with 53000 strong crowds (men had been off fighting in WW1)

1921: FA bans women's football (men had returned from WW1)

1971: Fifty (50!) years later ban is lifted, women's football is still recovering

More examples exist but the pattern is clear:

Where women were included (or simply included themselves) it was only when they started threatening men's dominance/entitlement that we were segregated into a separate category.

It is why we still see Sport & Women's Sport

Women's inclusion was on the terms of those in power. They didn't want women 'taking opportunities' away from men so they segregated women.

It was never about a benevolent (still sexist) aim of supposedly 'giving women a chance to win'.

It was about control

And 12 more tweets later, including how 'cis' women are being kept 'small by this, ends with:

It is possible to have a different conversation here.

Gender expansiveness gives us all permission to break free from - and take up space beyond - societal norms, and I'm very much here for that.

Onward.

It is a swivel from 'there is no biological advantage' to 'meh! So there are biological advantages... but hey guess what, women are being kept 'small' by segregated sports. And here are some women who are crushing it - cue the ultra endurance athletes who we know do very well, surfing and (and I was happy to read this air rifle) www.espn.com/shooting/story/_/id/31828521/10m-air-rifle-sport-tokyo-olympics-where-women-outgun-men

Still. Very few sports indeed. And they are not illustrative of the main argument. Despite Bekkers attempts.

So, this is the new approach. It is using this small number of sports to force open all the other sports. Just as it seems greasy is trying to convince us of here.

That is why it is good to have this discussion. Because this will be the new discussion points we shall see. (And they are NOT new, we have of course seen them frequently used in the past)

@SamphiretheStickerist - thanks so much for typing such a clear answer! I can't believe greasy managed to miss most of it except the word 'half'

So, this is the new approach. It is using this small number of sports to force open all the other sports. Just as it seems greasy is trying to convince us of here.

I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything. I don't have any strong positions on this. In this thread, everyone seems to be saying that men being stronger than women is some kind of foregone conclusion. And not only that, but some posts have gone so far so as to suggest that men have biological advantages which supposedly give them an edge in less-physical sports such as snooker and darts.

I'm just not convinced that the evidence for men's biological advantages is as compelling as we're being led to believe. Certainly, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that men would have an innate advantage in many of these sports. Yes, women will point to big and strong men. But there are also big and strong women who I could never compete against, and there are also soft and feeble men.

The biggest problem is trying to decouple the societal factors from the biological factors. Society is a compounding factor because clearly, men and women are socialised to behave and exercise differently. Is there any compelling research that has decoupled these factors? For all we know, society could account for 99% of the difference in athletic performance between men and women, whereas biology may only account for 1%. Without the concrete evidence, we don't know, that's all I'm saying.

@greasyshoes

boysvswomen.com/#/

Look at this website. What accounts for the difference here given your belief that it isn't biological. By 15 boys are beating Olympic
women's times across events. What is your reasoning for this?

I know you are actually just trolling but if you want to back up your trolling - explan away!

You are the one who mentioned snooker and darts. Others laughed, that being the only sensible response.

And are you seriously saying that you have no real life experience of the physiological realities of life?

You ask for 'compelling evidence' that 'decouples' and measures the effect of socialisation as if that actually makes sense. Think about how that could be achieved. How would you find a cohort that had not had the usual socialisation? Isolation for the first 20 years of life?

You may think you are making valid points but, like another poster who recently banged on about human beings not yet knowing everything there could ever be known, you are just shouting into a chasm to hear yourself speak.

To answer your question. Many multi cohort longitudinal studies have been done and the results remain the same. Men have a physical advantage in many areas, notably speed and strength.

You can do one of these studies yourself. Look up the male and femal records of a range of sports and compare and contrast male and female results over say four decades.

"I'm just not convinced that the evidence for men's biological advantages is as compelling as we're being led to believe."

No one cares Mr sea lion. Jog on

For all we know, society could account for 99% of the difference in athletic performance between men and women, whereas biology may only account for 1%. Without the concrete evidence, we don't know, that's all I'm saying.

It's almost as though some posters think that the human females on MN pushed their brains out along with their placentas.

Now you really are talking crap to propose this.

For all we know, society could account for 99% of the difference in athletic performance between men and women, whereas biology may only account for 1%. Without the concrete evidence, we don't know, that's all I'm saying.

And you talk about evidence, have you actually read the original studies? At all?

And not only that, but some posts have gone so far so as to suggest that men have biological advantages which supposedly give them an edge in less-physical sports such as snooker and darts.

I don't recall seeing anyone discuss darts. However, do you have anything that shows that there are no advantages to arm span and hand size in snooker? Anything at all to disprove it?

For someone without a 'strong opinion' you seem very keen on telling us that there is nothing 'proven' about males having physiological advantages.

And you still have not clarified just what you mean by 'society is a compounding factor'. Frankly, that could mean anything to anybody.

I'm just not convinced that the evidence for men's biological advantages is as compelling as we're being led to believe.

So post something that is convincing that evidence for men's biological advantages are not compelling. Instead of just talking around the issue.

To answer your question. Many multi cohort longitudinal studies have been done and the results remain the same. Men have a physical advantage in many areas, notably speed and strength.

You can do one of these studies yourself. Look up the male and femal records of a range of sports and compare and contrast male and female results over say four decades.

I don't deny that men achieve better results in sports. The data is there and it shows men achieve faster running times, faster swimming times, etc.

However, I haven't seen a study which explains why men's athletic achievements are greater than women's. Everyone is just assuming it's a biological advantage, rather than due to some social factor. That's the problem.

@greasyshoes

You just avoid any real discussion. What social factor would make 14-15 year old boys faster than Olympic women?

I wonder whether there are any instances of men at the top of their sport who then go on to identify as women?

Or is it just men who are failing with their own sex?