Med paper on the impact of hormones before transition

[IntoDeepBlueSea]

I'm not sure if there's been a thread on this already, but it helped me answer a common question, about transwomen in female sport.

I knew already that it wasn't just about how much testosterone is in the body on the day of the race, or in the lead up to the race, but this gives actual figures.

Why is this ignored? Even if no one cares about the impact on women being marginalised, surely the science speaks to the unequal nature of the mixed teams?

Study here in PubMed "Transwoman Elite Athletes: Their Extra Percentage Relative to Female Physiology"

That's great. Thanks for the signpost. I've only skimmed it so far but it looks thorough, and the massive reference list is really helpful.

If you can bear to look, there's an excellent diagram on the DM showing the bullet points, but I couldn't bring myself to link it. I think they've only just reported on it, but the paper itself has been out a while.

I can't be the only one who never thought they'd be on the wrong side of the zeitgeist.. it's a bottle place to be. Esp when it means you're being aligned with said DM etc etc..

BAD, bad place to be. Obvs not bottle

Thanks OP, I’ll have a proper look later

The initial point that current T levels are not the only difference between male and female bodies is so blindingly obvious (and regularly highlighted on MN). I still want to know why the initial (and continuing in some cases…) presumption of so many sports bodies was that TW should be included in women’s sport!

We all repeatedly ask why.....

Why why why.

Why are men being prioritised and celebrated in this context?

The presumption that transgender people should be included in sporting competitions comes from inclusion being considered to be one of the core values in modern sport.

In the case of the IOC governed sports, principle 4 of the Olympic Charter specifies that participation in sport is a fundamental human right for every individual. The sporting federations use this as their starting point.

Doctors are not supposed to prescribe drugs that have negative side effects unless there is a medical need which exceeds them. Wanting to be allowed in a race is NOT a medical need that should offset the negative impacts of a drug.

If the following were the result of some medical condition there would be no question that they were bad things which should be treated if possible:

• Loss of physical strength
• Loss of libido
• Weight gain
• Lethargy
• Loss of bone density
• Reduced blood cell count

You would only prescribe drugs which cause the above if the patient had some medical necessity that made it necessary. Under what code of medical ethics does "I want to compete in women's sports" count as justifiable reason to prescribe such drugs.

There should be a lawsuit against a doctor for such misuse of drugs. Why isn't there?

Not that, to the OPs point, the above make a man suddenly okay to compete in women's sports, but it's a very pertinent question and a strong legitimate reason that this could be shut down. Can you imagine the furore if a doctor provided liposuction to an anorexic, or a surgeon amputated the health leg of an amputation fetishist? Why in Hell is "want to be a woman" being accepted as a reason to prescribe drugs (testosterone suppressants) with very real harmful effects.

Sport is about inclusion but why then did they make the decision to include males in the female category, effectively excluding half the sporting population from any reasonable chance of winning?

Can you imagine the furore if ... a surgeon amputated the health leg of an amputation fetishist?

Over 20 years ago there was a surgeon in Scotland doing just that. He was eventually prevented from doing any more amputations, but he insisted that the patients benefited from having their limbs amputated.

Yes. Inclusion would be everyone being able to compete in their own sex category regardless of gender identity, or the creation of an open category.

And he was stopped. The same reasoning should be applied to prevent doctors prescribing testosterone suppressants to physically healthy people.

It is important to be inclusive.

However the very first principle of the Olympic Charter is:

“Olympism is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example, social responsibility and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.”

Just for those who skim read.

respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.

Regardless of whether this Charter list is in prioritised order, these six words render male inclusion for inclusion sake as being counter to the principles.

It had been acknowledged by the IOC committee ( Dr Richard Budgett) that male people on hormones still retain advantage. I think people trying to focus only on principle 4 will be left behind. The World Athletics decision will now ripple through. It might take time but in the meantime, more evidence is mounting up with each male win in a female sporting event.

Principle 4 will be shown to need to balance ‘inclusion’ in a way that does not exclude female athletes, whether they are women or girls. There was always alternatives, yet the lobby groups demanded that women and girls move over for a group of male people . The antithesis of inclusion.

Some people dishonestly pretend that people are against transgender people participating in sport at all. I know everyone on this thread knows that isn't true, that we are arguing for everyone to be included in sport but where sex matters, to take account of that appropriately.

And how did the International Olympic Committee somehow move from their position on drugs? Drug taking was the big issue back in the 60s.
But somehow they have skipped from that principled position to thinking that drug taking, cheating males are ok, because, reasons.

Why is it not inclusive for a gender non-conforming male to compete in the mens events? This would do wonders for toxic masculinity and the stubborn homophobia in many sports. It's fair and sporting in the way that males competing against women so visibly isn't.

Interesting how much more accepting women are of lesbians and non-feminine women in their sports.

Males don't have to compete in female categories to participate or to be included. Males can compete in male categories, or else they can compete in 'open' categories.

LandofConfusion, disingenuous as always. As pp’s said, nobody is trying to exclude trans people from sport. Sport is segregated by sex because of fundamental biological differences between the sexed. No human can change sex (biological fact). So, again, why should biological males be included in women’s sport - it makes no sense

i can’t even believe I’ve taken the time to write this - it’s so fucking obvious!

Hagosaurus, you’re very charitable😇 to respond in such good faith to one of the frequent Drive-By Scolds & Admonishers that plop themselves onto FWR threads.

Here's the Daily Mail article. Lots of useable quotes.

@landOFconfusion - I've just come back to catch up, and I'm wondering, did you actually read the paper? Or at abstract? Or even, dare I say, the Daily Fail quick notes?

My concern is that they are not start from an equal point.

Being a lesbian has no impact on your muscle mass. Being a lesbian makes no difference to the angle at which your joints developed as a foetus and then child. Being a lesbian does not give you, on average, almost 20% more power.

Having been through the process of foetal development with male chromosomes, going through development as male until puberty hits, and then of course, any pubertal years, all work together to create the make body form.

You canNOT just excise parts, add extra hormones, and prosthetics, and say you've created a woman. You just can't. The chromosomes are in every single one of your cells. They don't change. The messages they've sent for the last eg 16 years cannot be negated by 2 years of procedures, therapy, and wishing it were so.

I have NO problem with transwomen taking up all the space they want, but it needs to be a NEW space, a bespoke space, something that reflects and benefits trans women, who can start, or continue to be themselves.

It would be a comparatively quick process, compared to the hundreds of years it's taken for women to carve out a still unequal space, and there are genuine reasons for ring-fencing that. And the reason, I think, that politicians and businesses are so quick to support using women's spaces, it's because they don't want to pay money, just lip service.

Anyway, this has all just been in my brain, I've never written or said it, so I may be missing something intrinsic.

Don't be ridiculous. Even mediocre men can play in men's sport - with all the other mediocre men. Inclusion.

If you include these men in women's sport, you exclude women.

Exclusion.