Current Events > Trans people have been allowed in the Olympics since 2003

(+) Yeah! (+)

*links to a Breitbart video* geez you guys, why don't you give this video about the secret pedophile cabals poisoning the water supply a chance?

Basically what's happening here

---

gunplagirl posted...

Basically what's happening here

SOURCES I DONT LIKE CANT BE RIGHT

---

Logical is clearly winning this discussion. @Garioshi is just talking out of his ass, and all @gunplagirl offers is useless sarcasm.

---

logical posted...

SOURCES I DONT LIKE CANT BE RIGHT

I'm sure you think that Trump did have tons of proof the election was stolen, eh?

---

Anyone know how many have competed?

The only thing I can find on it is in this, but it could be wrong.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/olympic-advice-transgender-athletes-due-after-tokyo-games-n1150426

No transgender athletes are known to have competed at an Olympic Games since 2003, Budgett said.

---

gunplagirl posted...

I'm sure you think that Trump did have tons of proof the election was stolen, eh?

Quit wasting my time.

---

Imagine hopping on your alt to shitpost and then backing yourself up on your main

---

Mistere Man posted...

Anyone know how many have competed?

The only thing I can find on it is in this, but it could be wrong.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/olympic-advice-transgender-athletes-due-after-tokyo-games-n1150426

No transgender athletes are known to have competed at an Olympic Games since 2003, Budgett said.

There was supposed to be one last year iirc but she only barely qualified. :l Then pandemic.

---

NinjaWarrior455 posted...

Imagine hopping on your alt to shitpost and then backing yourself up on your main

You really think a guy named logical would do something as emotional as that?

The answer is yes, he totally would

---

So anyway, transwomen have an unfair advantage over biological women.

---

gunplagirl posted...

There was supposed to be one last year iirc but she only barely qualified. :l

Interesting and thank you.

---

NinjaWarrior455 posted...

Imagine hopping on your alt to shitpost and then backing yourself up on your main

i cant believe they're giving him responses, like at all. i'm too into it i guess, should prob take a step back

Wait. One person agrees with me, and you guys scream alt? And Im the emotional one? Where is your self-awareness?

---

So like, can anyone actually prove me wrong, or is this just gonna be one of those lets just try to insult him into submission without actually acknowledging any of his points sort of deals?

---

logical posted...

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/dec/07/study-suggests-ioc-adjustment-period-for-trans-women-may-be-too-short

Good, you've finally found a study! My major concern with this study is the sample size; double digits is quite low, but seeing as these are trans people in the US military during the Trump administration (although I thought they were banned?), I suppose I can't complain too much. Additionally, the article mentions the trans women undergoing testosterone suppression. I'm not familiar with the transition process, so I could be wrong, but I'm not sure if that includes taking estrogen and whether that would affect anything. Either way, the study shows that in 2 of the 3 categories, trans womens' advantages disappeared. The study itself doesn't take issue with trans women participating in the Olympics period, either, it just suggests a longer transition period before allowing them to participate. Is this what you're using to support your position?

---

---

And here's the nail in the coffin...sorry folks, but some things just are what they are. Our idea of morals mean nothing to nature.

https://youtu.be/Ntjo67kjBrA

---

logical posted...

So like, can anyone actually prove me wrong, or is this just gonna be one of those lets just try to insult him into submission without actually acknowledging any of his points sort of deals?

Prove you wrong on what, TC stated facts

---

RedJackson posted...

Prove you wrong on what, TC stated facts

Obviously, I'm referring to my argument that transwomen have an unfair advantage over biological women.

---

logical posted...

Obviously, I'm referring to my argument that transwomen have an unfair advantage over biological women.

You gave me a video of two people with doctorates saying 'we suck now - so here's some stats and a graph' lol


---

What the heck, why does it say I was mentioned here

---

RedJackson posted...

You gave me a video of two people with doctorates saying 'we suck now - so here's some stats and a graph' lol

Ive put out so many facts, examples, science, and data at this point that its not even funny. Believe what you want. Im not interested in discussing things with people who are either too stubborn, stupid, or both to argue in good faith.

---

logical posted...

Ive put out so many facts, examples, science, and data at this point that its not even funny.

You literally haven't. You posted unsourced YouTube videos.

If you don't want to respond to me, feel free, but go find another account name.

---

@logical you made a good and convincing case.

I'd like to ask you something else. What about the trans athletes' rights to participate in sports as equals? They probably have biological advantages (some more, some less) but so does a tall man over a short one in competitions where height is a deciding trait, and so on.

We accept trans women as women, therefore they should be able to compete as equals, regardless of their biological advantages, such as they are. Do you agree or not?

---

This is a bizarre issue because people are using bad science and even just illogical premises to justify ideological or human rights positions they've already landed on. I'm fine with the ideology and the human rights arguments, but state that ahead of time. Don't twist the argument into some weird gaslighting in the form of "there is no difference in male/female biology" or "there is no evidence" or "this is all just too complicated" or "there is no advantage because some women are better than some men".

Women's sport is a protected sports category (mens isn't), so obviously it's a contentious issue any time you want to discuss widening the inclusion into that category, and how to define it. To reduce it into "you're either a terf or you're not" style of arguments is intellectually dishonest to a fault. No one should be strapped to a cross for wanting to understand and reason out why these categories exist in sport and how they should be defined.

---

without watching it, is that RT vid seriously using Mack Beggs to argue against trans people in sports?

the Mack Beggs who is a trans man?
the Mack Beggs who wants to wrestle against other men?
the Mack Beggs who was denied that request by the state of Texas?

seriously? we're sitting here using the example of a man being forced to compete against women as the example of why we can't allow trans women to compete against women?

fuck. that.

---

I legitimately did not know it was allowed. Neat.

Ilishe posted...

@logical you made a good and convincing case.

I'd like to ask you something else. What about the trans athletes' rights to participate in sports as equals? They probably have biological advantages (some more, some less) but so does a tall man over a short one in competitions where height is a deciding trait, and so on.

We accept trans women as women, therefore they should be able to compete as equals, regardless of their biological advantages, such as they are. Do you agree or not?

There's two problems with this as I see it, one qualitative and one quantitative.

The quality is that "short men" is not a protected category. So take basketball as the example: We know that being tall is an advantage in basketball, but we don't have height categories. Why? Because no one has thought "we need to protect the class of short men who are disadvantaged in this sport". You could make an argument to say that we should, but we simply haven't. If there was a short person basketball category in elite sport, we'd have to defend it and prevent people from simply wanting to be in it. We have a women's sports category, so it has to be defended, or justified in some way that makes sense.

The second problem is quantitative. All else being equal, being short (or at least, not tall) is not an insurmountable problem in elite basketball. We have the data to show for that. Some basketball players have managed to enter the NBA and compete at that level despite being well under the general height range.

But sex? Or specifically, the androgenisation caused by male puberty, driven primarily by testosterone in normal individuals without DSDs? No way. This is a completely insurmountable advantage. There is basically not a single female in the history of any athletic event or weights event who is even in the top 3000 men. The fastest females in history are being beaten by teenage boys and semi elite athletes.

We have the data to show for that too. And it doesn't help to make arguments like "but my friend Sarah is faster than me at running". The point isn't to look at atypical examples, or a mediocre male athlete vs an elite female athlete. It's to look at typical, like-for-like examples. And this model basically erases women from elite sport altogether, except in a few fringe cases like equestrian and so on.

The point is, having a female category allows women a protected space to compete as equals. When Shelly-Ann Fraser Price won a Olympic gold medal, she did so even though she was 10% slower than Ussain Bolt. We recognise them equally, even if the raw performance is different, because categories create equality in sport. If this category did not exist, there would be no women (trans or cis) competing in any events at any elite level, let alone winning medals.

Now you might still argue "so what, trans women are women, let them compete in that protected space". Fine, but then you undermine the reasoning for having that space in the first place (namely the insurmountable male physiological advantage).

---

Garioshi posted...

They have won 0 medals combined.

Considering not 1 has participated this isnt surprising.......

---

after a lot of thinking it seems the best option is to simply allow trans athletes in all sports except hand to hand combat sport like boxing or mma (which will be an Olympic sport soon).

---

*I'll add to what I just said: if it could be shown conclusively that someone who transitions (MTF) loses the physiological advantages after a certain amount of time and comes into a normal female range, then there's not a problem anymore. And equally if someone starts transitioning before puberty then there's no rational to exclude them either (assuming transitioning before puberty is the ethical choice, and that's not an issue I understand well).

Currently it seems there's a lot of woolly research around this area. A couple of badly done studies on trans athletes that come to different conclusions. Some better studies (not on athletes) that show that not all advantages are lost and many are retained to a level that gives a considerable edge.

I think it's not wrong for women's sport to demand exclusion until evidence shows that someone who has transitioned has lost their "male" advantage. I don't think it would be correct for sport to allow inclusion until evidence shows. It's a protected category, so if you want to make an evidence-based argument then exclusion should be the default.

---

pinky0926 posted...

*I'll add to what I just said: if it could be shown conclusively that someone who transitions (MTF) loses the physiological advantages after a certain amount of time and comes into a normal female range, then there's not a problem anymore. And equally if someone starts transitioning before puberty then there's no rational to exclude them either (assuming transitioning before puberty is the ethical choice, and that's not an issue I understand well).

Currently it seems there's a lot of woolly research around this area. A couple of badly done studies on trans athletes that come to different conclusions. Some better studies (not on athletes) that show that not all advantages are lost and many are retained to a level that gives a considerable edge.

I think it's not wrong for women's sport to demand exclusion until evidence shows that someone who has transitioned has lost their "male" advantage. I don't think it would be correct for sport to allow inclusion until evidence shows. It's a protected category, so if you want to make an evidence-based argument then exclusion should be the default.

What you're calling "male advantage" is actually just "testosterone advantage" and men, even low T 90 year old men have more of it than women on average.

So do you think sports classes should be divided up by Testosterone? A woman with high testosterone could potentially outperform a man with similar training with low testosterone.

---

which transathletes have competed in the Olympics?

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

What you're calling "male advantage" is actually just "testosterone advantage" and men, even low T 90 year old men have more of it than women on average.

Yeah although I put down "male" because people like to make the point that testosterone is not the only driver and that testosterone does not work exactly the same in all individuals (I don't think these are good points when it comes to dismissing T altogether but it's worth noting that it's the effect of testosterone that matters more than the amount of testosterone alone, namely androgenisation).

So do you think sports classes should be divided up by Testosterone? A woman with high testosterone could potentially outperform a man with similar training with low testosterone.

I think testosterone is a difficult marker for the reason given above - two individuals with the same testosterone can respond differently to it. Testosterone is the key and your receptors are the lock, so to speak. Some people have a broken lock, or a different size lock, etc.

But the difference in testosterone is so large between male and female that that is how sport is trying to do it currently. it's controversial and it's not very good, but so far it seems to be the best marker.

The issue becomes even more complex when legacy advantages of male puberty can be retained even after testosterone levels are diminished. I.e. if you go through male puberty and then transition and take HRT to bring your T to normal female levels, do you lose all of the physiological changes or just some of them, or most of them? This seems to be the contentious point because there's just not a lot of good studies on trans athletes.

---

TheOtherMike posted...

You literally haven't. You posted unsourced YouTube videos.

Posts 66 & 68 are full of facts, data, and sources. Youre just a selective observer.

---

Garioshi posted...

If you don't want to respond to me, feel free, but go find another account name.

Hello. I went to bed, but now Im back. Have you become a more logical, reality-accepting person in the past 8 hours? Because thats the only way this discussion would be worth continuing.

---

Here's a thread btw from a sports scientist on the issue. Becomes even more controversial in something like rugby where there's considered a welfare concern and not just an unfairness one:

https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/1297915789530497025


---

Medussa posted...

without watching it, is that RT vid seriously using Mack Beggs to argue against trans people in sports?

the Mack Beggs who is a trans man?
the Mack Beggs who wants to wrestle against other men?
the Mack Beggs who was denied that request by the state of Texas?

seriously? we're sitting here using the example of a man being forced to compete against women as the example of why we can't allow trans women to compete against women?

fuck. that.

This.

logical posted...

And here's the nail in the coffin...sorry folks, but some things just are what they are. Our idea of morals mean nothing to nature.

https://youtu.be/Ntjo67kjBrA

So the problem with this video is that the study is kind of bull. This is a reddit post, but the comments have links to all the studies that are brought up in why this study is garbage (first being, its not peer-reviewed, and Emma Hilton is apparently a well-known TERF activist in the UK)

https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCynical/comments/gl0k8j/important_terf_research_fellow_emma_hilton_is/

EDIT: I also didn't look very hard for that link, it was on the first page of google results when I looked up the woman who wrote the study

ktownslayer16 posted...

which transathletes have competed in the Olympics?

None

---

Proto_Spark posted...

This.

So the problem with this video is that the study is kind of bull. This is a reddit post, but the comments have links to all the studies that are brought up in why this study is garbage (first being, its not peer-reviewed, and Emma Hilton is apparently a well-known TERF activist in the UK)

https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCynical/comments/gl0k8j/important_terf_research_fellow_emma_hilton_is/

EDIT: I also didn't look very hard for that link, it was on the first page of google results when I looked up the woman who wrote the study

It should just be enough to say "this study is wrong because X". I kind of have a problem with the circular reasoning that terf gets thrown around with now. It's used as a hammer to smash the research and not the other way around. Also I'm not sure a reddit thread on /r/gendercynical counts as a peer review dismissal.

Another source might be Ross Tucker as above.

And I wish this sort of skepticism was applied to the study that Joanna Harper did on distance runners that is quoted every time this thread comes up, but it's not.

Edit: I see the comments linking to studies now, gonna have a read.

---

logical posted...

Posts 66 & 68 are full of facts, data, and sources. Youre just a selective observer.

Your evidence is only on paper, there's absolutely nothing on whether or not that testosorone amount is thwarted by a minds ability to persevere

Your case completely omits the concept of pure competition - anybody that has tried to 'win' at anything knows that a persons desire to win will always trump the amount of potential skill that actually ends up getting realized. There's been countless of efforts made to try and attach racial connotations to why some athletes do better - I guess some people like Hussein Bolt are happy because of some geographical advantage, but we don't really say 'this race of people tend to run faster' because that's sort of moot with proper training and conditioning

Idk man just inject cis women with testosorone then if yer that worried, play to win right?


---

pinky0926 posted...

It should just be enough to say "this study is wrong because X". I kind of have a problem with the circular reasoning that terf gets thrown around with now. It's used as a hammer to smash the research and not the other way around.

Another source might be Ross Tucker as above.

And I wish this sort of skepticism was applied to the study that Joanna Harper did on distance runners that is quoted every time this thread comes up, but it's not.

Thats fair. The problems with the study itself are more in line with "she's ignoring a lot of the previous research into the topic" and basically comes down to she started at the conclusion and worked backwards. So in this situation the entire study is organized with malicious intent.

If you look at the reddit post there are links to papers about cherry picking data or using inaccurate data, or just poor methodology in order to justify the conclusion she started at.

The TERF is just an explanation for why this study is so flawed.

Imagine letting a novice user posting anti trans propaganda pieces with no reliable sources shit up this topic instead of just putting them on the block list

Will CE ever learn?

---

Proto_Spark posted...

Thats fair. The problems with the study itself are more in line with "she's ignoring a lot of the previous research into the topic" and basically comes down to she started at the conclusion and worked backwards. So in this situation the entire study is organized with malicious intent.

If you look at the reddit post there are links to papers about cherry picking data or using inaccurate data, or just poor methodology in order to justify the conclusion she started at.

The TERF is just an explanation for why this study is so flawed.

True. I'm having a look at these papers in the comments. Am I correct with this one that it suggests that bone mass and density is preserved in the first 1-2 years of transitioning?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25377496/

Anyway, my takeaway here is that if transitioning after X amount of times removes any perceived "male" performance advantage, then there's no argument anymore to be had. That amount of time (X) would be the marker that should be where MTF athletes compete in the female category, in my view. I just don't think self-ID alone works for sport.

I don't think there's any risk of MTF athletes dominating womens sport. Nor do I think there even will be many. Nor do I think that people are transitioning for the purpose of winning medals, that one is the most ridiculous of the lot.

But I do think it's very reasonable to consider that at the top level of sport elite athletes (you know, those guys who cheat all the damn time) could easily abuse a well-meaning policy if its not carefully constructed. If elite athletes will risk their health and their credibility to take performance enhancing drugs to win medals, I don't think it's unfeasible that they would abuse a system like this to do so. I.e. a cis athlete could use a loose policy guideline to win in a category they have a better chance in.

And I also think if sports have a welfare concern (like rugby seems to), they need to be very, very sure.


---

RedJackson posted...

Your evidence is only on paper, there's absolutely nothing on whether or not that testosorone amount is thwarted by a minds ability to persevere

Your case completely omits the concept of pure competition - anybody that has tried to 'win' at anything knows that a persons desire to win will always trump the amount of potential skill that actually ends up getting realized. There's been countless of efforts made to try and attach racial connotations to why some athletes do better - I guess some people like Hussein Bolt are happy because of some geographical advantage, but we don't really say 'this race of people tend to run faster' because that's sort of moot with proper training and conditioning

Idk man just inject cis women with testosorone then if yer that worried, play to win right?

If I'm understanding you correctly, are you essentially arguing that physiology and talent are entirely irrelevant next to the pure resolve to win?

Bro that's the plot of Bleach. That's not how elite sports works.

Secondly are you suggesting we should sanction using performance enhancing drugs on otherwise healthy individuals so that they can win medals better?

---

RedJackson posted...

Your evidence is only on paper, there's absolutely nothing on whether or not that testosorone amount is thwarted by a minds ability to persevere

Your case completely omits the concept of pure competition - anybody that has tried to 'win' at anything knows that a persons desire to win will always trump the amount of potential skill that actually ends up getting realized.

Determination is extremely important, but when it comes to roughhouse sports, physical prowess (strength, speed, skill) is what will almost always decide the outcome.


---

Proto_Spark posted...

So the problem with this video is that the study is kind of bull. This is a reddit post, but the comments have links to all the studies that are brought up in why this study is garbage (first being, its not peer-reviewed, and Emma Hilton is apparently a well-known TERF activist in the UK)

So are you saying that the information relayed in the video is untrue? Because there's a difference between "this person has a bias that I disagree with" and "this person is objectively incorrect". If the person is objectively incorrect (the only thing I care about), then I'll dig deeper.

---

Gwynevere posted...

Imagine letting a novice user posting anti trans propaganda pieces with no reliable sources shit up this topic instead of just putting them on the block list

Will CE ever learn?

Change your diaper.

---