Trans women and women's sports

[GuitarStv]

I agree for recreational sport.  Problems happen when this is applied to competitive sports though.  If you take two high level soccer teams, one mixed and one all male, the all male one will win the majority of the time.

Why do you make that assumption?

It's not an assumption.  Men are faster and stronger (I showed research proving this in my first post).  Given roughly the same skill level, in most sports men have an edge.  I linked a study in my original post that estimates sporting advantage to being somewhere between 10 and 50%.

That also coupled with decades now of both playing and coaching various competitive sports, both sex segregated and mixed.

If you can find research indicating that all women teams are more likely to win when playing competitive mixed sports, I'd be very interested to read it.

[Jenny Wren]

Yes, I am  beginning to believe that you are being purposefully obtuse on this topic if that is your take away from an article that was providing a single example of sex as a spectrum, especially since the example was following only one of the biologic determiners of sex. Perhaps more than a high school education in biology is necessary to grasp the nuances. Assuming classification is biology is an erroneous and juvenile assessment. Classification is a messy, clunky tool that we biologists use, but it is also in flux and constantly evolving -- hell, two biologists won't even agree on the classification most of the time, and some don't even think it is useful (research lumpers and splitters if you doubt me). I am bowing out of the conversation as any further discussion is futile. 

[mspym]

I've been wobbling back and forth on whether to even open this topic because I've been on the internet long enough to know how this is going to go. The thing about the 'trans women and women's sports' arguments is they are TERF/Gender-Critical stalking horses and I have as little time for the feminist version of biological destiny/gender essentialism as I do for the patriarchal version.

The real problem with these arguments is that in the name of preventing theoretical harm to women they cause actual harm to
- trans youth who just want to play team sports
- trans youth who have to listen to people in power debating their existence
- trans youth being denied actual medical treatment they need
- cis-women being denied the right to compete in sport because their bodies naturally produce androgens outside of the levels deemed acceptable for women Gonna capslock here: DUDES DON'T GET DENIED THE RIGHT TO PLAY SPORT ON THE BASIS OF NATURALLY OCCURRING HORMONAL ADVANTAGE, ONLY WOMEN.
- cis and trans-women being policed for their level of gender presentation, including masc-presenting cis-women being denied the right to use their actual bathrooms etc.

It's just another way to encourage the policing of women by society, yet again in the name of protecting them, and I have zero tolerance for this. I grew up watching my gay friends have their right to exist be publicly debated and legislated. Why the hell are we repeating the same mistakes and arguments over trans-people?

EDIT TO ADD: When weighing up Harm to Women, this is the equivalent of throwing all your resources into stopping welfare cheats and ignoring the billionaire tax evasion that is domestic or sexual violence/pay disparity/work requirements for single mothers etc etc. It feels like a way to distract people from the real problems.

[Kris]

I've been wobbling back and forth on whether to even open this topic because I've been on the internet long enough to know how this is going to go. The thing about the 'trans women and women's sports' arguments is they are TERF/Gender-Critical stalking horses and I have as little time for the feminist version of biological destiny/gender essentialism as I do for the patriarchal version.

The real problem with these arguments is that in the name of preventing theoretical harm to women they cause actual harm to
- trans youth who just want to play team sports
- trans youth who have to listen to people in power debating their existence
- trans youth being denied actual medical treatment they need
- cis-women being denied the right to compete in sport because their bodies naturally produce androgens outside of the levels deemed acceptable for women Gonna capslock here: DUDES DON'T GET DENIED THE RIGHT TO PLAY SPORT ON THE BASIS OF NATURALLY OCCURRING HORMONAL ADVANTAGE, ONLY WOMEN.
- cis and trans-women being policed for their level of gender presentation, including masc-presenting cis-women being denied the right to use their actual bathrooms etc.

It's just another way to encourage the policing of women by society, yet again in the name of protecting them, and I have zero tolerance for this. I grew up watching my gay friends have their right to exist be publicly debated and legislated. Why the hell are we repeating the same mistakes and arguments over trans-people?

Yes, exactly. It is “benevolent” patriarchy, but in reality it is patronizing.

It is always about “protecting” women, but in actuality, it is about protecting a vision of what a woman is that reifies masculinity. And patriarchy.

In short, sexist bullshit.

[gooki]

It's not an assumption.  Men are faster and stronger (I showed research proving this in my first post).  Given roughly the same skill level, in most sports men have an edge.  I linked a study in my original post that estimates sporting advantage to being somewhere between 10 and 50%.

That also coupled with decades now of both playing and coaching various competitive sports, both sex segregated and mixed.

If you can find research indicating that all women teams are more likely to win when playing competitive mixed sports, I'd be very interested to read it.

Is world champion levels speed and strength critical for success in soccer. No it's not. Outside of the soccer field professional players are a far cry from the fastest and strongest. I'd argue, that once you've reached a certain baseline level of speed and strength, that further improvements have little impact on outcomes. Where as improvements in technique, ball skills and teamwork will always impact outcomes.

Is that baseline achievable by all women? No. Is it achievable by all men? No. Is it achievable by those that are athleticly inclined regardless of gender? Yes.

[GuitarStv]

It's not an assumption.  Men are faster and stronger (I showed research proving this in my first post).  Given roughly the same skill level, in most sports men have an edge.  I linked a study in my original post that estimates sporting advantage to being somewhere between 10 and 50%.

That also coupled with decades now of both playing and coaching various competitive sports, both sex segregated and mixed.

If you can find research indicating that all women teams are more likely to win when playing competitive mixed sports, I'd be very interested to read it.

Is world champion levels speed and strength critical for success in soccer. No it's not. Outside of the soccer field professional players are a far cry from the fastest and strongest. I'd argue, that once you've reached a certain baseline level of speed and strength, that further improvements have little impact on outcomes. Where as improvements in technique, ball skills and teamwork will always impact outcomes.

Is that baseline achievable by all women? No. Is it achievable by all men? No. Is it achievable by those that are athleticly inclined regardless of gender? Yes.

Soccer is a very physically demanding sport.  Professional soccer players are very well conditioned athletes who run more than 10 km in a match with multiple max effort sprints (https://www.fourfourtwo.com/performance/training/how-fit-are-professional-footballers).  Technique is certainly important, but if your argument that only a minimal baseline of strength were true you would expect many older soccer players.  After all, age will bring better technique - and should overcome the negative impacts of aging related strength loss.  The average retirement age for soccer players though, is 35 (https://www.football-stadiums.co.uk/articles/what-do-footballers-do-when-they-retire/) and the majority of pro soccer players are between the ages of 21-29 (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00076/full).  The argument you're making then - that strength far less important than technique is wrong.

As far as the equality of men and women, there are few instances of male soccer teams playing female teams.  But what there is doesn't seem to support the idea that men and women are equal while playing soccer.  The Swedish National women's football team lost to a boys youth team -https://www.thelocal.se/20130116/45646/, the US women's national team lost to a boys youth team playing scrimmage - https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/a-dallas-fc-under-15-boys-squad-beat-the-u-s-womens-national-team-in-a-scrimmage/.  FIFA women's soccer team lost a match to a boy's youth team - https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/05/25/matildas-beaten-7-0-by-newcastle-jets-under-15-boys-team_a_21383895/.  I am not able to find an instance of a women's soccer team winning against a comparable men's team.

There has been plenty of research showing the significant different between women and men on the soccer field which explains the above:
Gender differences in match performance of UEFA Champions League -  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167945713001097?via%3Dihub

Pro women's soccer players have the sprinting ability of competitive 14/15 year old male soccer players - https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4663/6/4/161

Inferior kicking speed of female soccer players compared to male - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187770581400527X?via%3Dihub

Comparing male and female soccer players - https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstract/2020/08000/Sex_Differences_in_Physical_Capacities_of_German.28.aspx?context=LatestArticles

Given the above, when men and women have the same level of training it seems very reasonable to expect that men would have a significant performance edge playing the game.

FWIW, I'd love it if strength didn't matter and women could compete on a level playing field with men in soccer.  If there is any evidence and or research at all showing that this is the case, I'd be happy to see it.

[Kris]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7gDKbT_l2us

[LonerMatt]

As irrelevant as my feelings are, I think something I wonder a lot about is this:

Given that trans people are a minority of people and elite athletes an even smaller minority I would be so ok with trans men/women completing with cis-men/women in their respective sports. To me there just aren't enough competitors to overhaul the system and while trans people are not new, social awareness and increasing acceptance certainly seems to be. So for the handful of trans women competing with cis women I think it's more useful to accept them, if they win a race or two ok that's sport, and focus on the more complex topics of acceptance and kindness in community, action and language.

Sport provides an interesting exemplar of how to talk these changes through, but is not that important in of itself (especially as it's elite athletes that make the paper, a tiny minority of people). As mentioned upthread, there's a lot of bad actors using this to try and make a wedge issue (like with bathrooms!) in a way that seems to lend much more importance to sport's 'fairness' than really feels deserved. I hear nothing about women's sports from these commentators until there's a trans woman competing and then it's all systems go, which makes it hard to view their comments as anything other than reactionary, inflammatory and dishonest.

I think the harder question to work through is: in fields where sex can connote a measurable difference how can systems best accommodate our changing notion of gender and inclusion? I don't think there are many of those fields, perhaps it's just sport, but the rare times that happens it's a good chance to work through these things.

[gooki]

but if your argument that only a minimal baseline of strength were true

FWIW I never said minimal baseline.

[Metalcat]

As irrelevant as my feelings are, I think something I wonder a lot about is this:

Given that trans people are a minority of people and elite athletes an even smaller minority I would be so ok with trans men/women completing with cis-men/women in their respective sports. To me there just aren't enough competitors to overhaul the system and while trans people are not new, social awareness and increasing acceptance certainly seems to be. So for the handful of trans women competing with cis women I think it's more useful to accept them, if they win a race or two ok that's sport, and focus on the more complex topics of acceptance and kindness in community, action and language.

Sport provides an interesting exemplar of how to talk these changes through, but is not that important in of itself (especially as it's elite athletes that make the paper, a tiny minority of people). As mentioned upthread, there's a lot of bad actors using this to try and make a wedge issue (like with bathrooms!) in a way that seems to lend much more importance to sport's 'fairness' than really feels deserved. I hear nothing about women's sports from these commentators until there's a trans woman competing and then it's all systems go, which makes it hard to view their comments as anything other than reactionary, inflammatory and dishonest.

I think the harder question to work through is: in fields where sex can connote a measurable difference how can systems best accommodate our changing notion of gender and inclusion? I don't think there are many of those fields, perhaps it's just sport, but the rare times that happens it's a good chance to work through these things.

It's pretty much just women's sports, that's why this is the one trans issue that transphobic folks have decided to rally behind despite no one making all that much of a deal about real issues in women's sports like the decades long abuse and molestation of young girls in US gymnastics and how it was covered up for absolutely no reason.

Young female athletes do deserve to be cared about, but there are so many abuses not being addressed, I have a hard time believing that a few trans female athletes are the biggest problem facing female athletes.

I'm fairly certain most female athletes would welcome trans women if the trade meant they could stop being sexually assaulted by their coaches, which has been described as a "crisis of abuse" in global women's sports in a recent NYT article:

“Simple child safeguarding protections available in kindergarten are not being implemented in global sport,” Worden said. “It’s all guidelines, all voluntary, and no one is checking up on whether the president or head coach of the federation is going to a teenage girl’s hotel room at 2 a.m. to demand sex.”

The idea that sports federations can be relied on as a source of safety “is completely delusional,”

So yes, let's all care more about female athletes. Except...no, that would actually take more effort than just banning marginalized trans women, or specifically, the minority of trans women who happen to also be competitive athletes, so the minority of the minority.

Yeah, that's the major issue at stake here in women's sports. Not the epidemic of child sexual assault.

[LonerMatt]

Young female athletes do deserve to be cared about, but there are so many abuses not being addressed, I have a hard time believing that a few trans female athletes are the biggest problem facing female athletes.

Well said.

It's also hard to find the honesty that networks/writers/commentators who have not covered women's sports, or serious issues facing female athletes, perhaps even openly denigrating either, have now suddenly found that they too want just the best for all women.

I saw a satirical headline the other day:

'Bloke who has been making fun of WNBA and all female sports leagues suddenly wants what's best for women's sports' - spot on I thought.

It's kind of amazing how much irrational ugliness anything involving trans people or trans rights stirs up, truly bizarre.

[Metalcat]

Young female athletes do deserve to be cared about, but there are so many abuses not being addressed, I have a hard time believing that a few trans female athletes are the biggest problem facing female athletes.

Well said.

It's also hard to find the honesty that networks/writers/commentators who have not covered women's sports, or serious issues facing female athletes, perhaps even openly denigrating either, have now suddenly found that they too want just the best for all women.

I saw a satirical headline the other day:

'Bloke who has been making fun of WNBA and all female sports leagues suddenly wants what's best for women's sports' - spot on I thought.

It's kind of amazing how much irrational ugliness anything involving trans people or trans rights stirs up, truly bizarre.

Now, I do want to throw in the obvious caveat that there are people out there who are legitimately concerned about this issue.

It came up recently and a father of an athlete daughter was concerned about unfair competition for college scholarships.

So before anyone accuses us of saying that no one talking about this actually cares about fairness in women's sports, that's not what we're saying. We're criticizing those who clearly have never cared all that much about women's sports, who are suddenly making a huge deal of this while ignoring much more serious and far more pervasive issues facing women in sports all over the world.

The hypocrisy is just astounding.

[GuitarStv]

- trans youth who just want to play team sports

I think I've been very clear in my support of trans youth who want to play sports, this thread hasn't had a single argument against that happening.

Seriously, go back and check:
- pre-puberty trans kids playing any sport, no problem
- transition before puberty, no problem
- transition after puberty playing non-competitive sport, no problem

It's very specifically just the case of trans women who did not begin their transition before puberty who also want to play competitive women's sport where the controversy has been focused.

- trans youth who have to listen to people in power debating their existence
- trans youth being denied actual medical treatment they need
- cis and trans-women being policed for their level of gender presentation, including masc-presenting cis-women being denied the right to use their actual bathrooms etc.

These are all bullshit and valid reasons for frustration.

- cis-women being denied the right to compete in sport because their bodies naturally produce androgens outside of the levels deemed acceptable for women

Gonna capslock here: DUDES DON'T GET DENIED THE RIGHT TO PLAY SPORT ON THE BASIS OF NATURALLY OCCURRING HORMONAL ADVANTAGE, ONLY WOMEN.

It's just another way to encourage the policing of women by society, yet again in the name of protecting them, and I have zero tolerance for this.

Men aren't denied the right to play sport on any natural basis.  Neither are women who play on men's teams.  I remember when I was in highschool that Manon Rheaume made her appearance and played in the NHL.  Sarah Taylor joined and played men's cricket.  Toni Stone played professional baseball way back when pro baseball was segregated.  Kelly Kulick competed against men and won the Firestone Pro Bowling Association Tournament of Champions.

Conversely, men are always denied the right to play on women's teams.

Why is this?  Sex related advantage.  A guy man has an advantage in most sports when playing against women.  An incredibly talented woman can overcome and beat less talented men with this advantage, but on the whole this is more difficult (in most sports).  This advantage heavily influenced by sex hormones, both the circulating ones and the ones that come into play during puberty.

Do women's sports need to be protected?  I feel the need to pose the question to you.  Do you believe that there should be women's sport at all?

I grew up watching my gay friends have their right to exist be publicly debated and legislated. Why the hell are we repeating the same mistakes and arguments over trans-people?

Debate is how people reason out changes and come to conclusions.  What was the end result of the public debate and legislation regarding gay people?  Expansion of rights.  An end to overtly-discriminatory laws.  Much greater overall acceptance in society.

Change for the better is often hard and painful.  But the battle needs to be waged.  Putting it off for another day just delays the end result.

[GuitarStv]

but if your argument that only a minimal baseline of strength were true

FWIW I never said minimal baseline.

Fair enough.  I apologize for misunderstanding you then.  Could you elaborate on the point you were making?

[GuitarStv]

Young female athletes do deserve to be cared about, but there are so many abuses not being addressed, I have a hard time believing that a few trans female athletes are the biggest problem facing female athletes.

Well said.

It's also hard to find the honesty that networks/writers/commentators who have not covered women's sports, or serious issues facing female athletes, perhaps even openly denigrating either, have now suddenly found that they too want just the best for all women.

I saw a satirical headline the other day:

'Bloke who has been making fun of WNBA and all female sports leagues suddenly wants what's best for women's sports' - spot on I thought.

It's kind of amazing how much irrational ugliness anything involving trans people or trans rights stirs up, truly bizarre.

Now, I do want to throw in the obvious caveat that there are people out there who are legitimately concerned about this issue.

It came up recently and a father of an athlete daughter was concerned about unfair competition for college scholarships.

So before anyone accuses us of saying that no one talking about this actually cares about fairness in women's sports, that's not what we're saying. We're criticizing those who clearly have never cared all that much about women's sports, who are suddenly making a huge deal of this while ignoring much more serious and far more pervasive issues facing women in sports all over the world.

The hypocrisy is just astounding.

Generally I agree with this.  That's why I think that coming up with a logical set of rules for trans women in sport is so important - it would effectively close the 'fairness' argument, allowing more important problems to take the spotlight.

[Watchmaker]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7gDKbT_l2us

Thank you for posting this.

[Samuel]

Given that trans people are a minority of people and elite athletes an even smaller minority I would be so ok with trans men/women completing with cis-men/women in their respective sports. To me there just aren't enough competitors to overhaul the system and while trans people are not new, social awareness and increasing acceptance certainly seems to be. So for the handful of trans women competing with cis women I think it's more useful to accept them, if they win a race or two ok that's sport, and focus on the more complex topics of acceptance and kindness in community, action and language.

The relatively small number of people involved is actually why I largely agree with GuitarStv on the need to establish evidence based rules about when it becomes acceptably fair for trans women to compete in women's sports (at the upper levels where financial or other rewards are attached).

I understand that life is often quite difficult for trans people and we should all be hesitant to add any further difficulty or opportunities for ostracization to their lives but there are consequences to including them in women's sports leagues without evidence based rules around when the advantages of being born with male biology are sufficiently neutralized: They displace other women from spots on team rosters and the accompanying opportunities for scholarships, money, professional sports careers, representing their country in the Olympics, etc. Yes this impacts a very small number of women directly but that just doesn't sit well with me, that the costs of this societal push for inclusion would be borne by so few individuals. I can empathize with both the trans and cis women in such situations, I just have a hard time telling a few cis women they have to "take one for the (societal) team".

[mspym]

Cis women denied the right to compete as women - this story names five, all hit with the same ruling from the Olympics
- https://www.espn.com.au/olympics/story/_/id/31749541/namibia-female-runners-banned-olympic-400-meters-high-testosterone-levels

Two 18-year-old female runners from Namibia won't be allowed to run in the 400 meters at the Tokyo Olympics after medical tests showed they have high natural testosterone levels. That makes them ineligible under the same contentious rules that have sidelined South Africa's Caster Semenya.

[GuitarStv]

Cis women denied the right to compete as women - this story names five, all hit with the same ruling from the Olympics
- https://www.espn.com.au/olympics/story/_/id/31749541/namibia-female-runners-banned-olympic-400-meters-high-testosterone-levels

Two 18-year-old female runners from Namibia won't be allowed to run in the 400 meters at the Tokyo Olympics after medical tests showed they have high natural testosterone levels. That makes them ineligible under the same contentious rules that have sidelined South Africa's Caster Semenya.

Right.

Because the issue isn't cis or trans, it's an issue of protecting women's sport.  The IOC has decided to use testosterone levels as the determining factor.

I did previously ask you . . . Do women's sports need to be protected?  Do you believe that there should be women's sport at all?

If the answer is yes, then how do you propose is best to segregate the participants in women's sport?

[mspym]

Cis women denied the right to compete as women - this story names five, all hit with the same ruling from the Olympics
- https://www.espn.com.au/olympics/story/_/id/31749541/namibia-female-runners-banned-olympic-400-meters-high-testosterone-levels

Two 18-year-old female runners from Namibia won't be allowed to run in the 400 meters at the Tokyo Olympics after medical tests showed they have high natural testosterone levels. That makes them ineligible under the same contentious rules that have sidelined South Africa's Caster Semenya.

Right.

Because the issue isn't cis or trans, it's an issue of protecting women's sport.  The IOC has decided to use testosterone levels as the determining factor.

I did previously ask you . . . Do women's sports need to be protected?  Do you believe that there should be women's sport at all?

If the answer is yes, then how do you propose is best to segregate the participants in women's sport?

1 - I think there should be women's sport
1a - Women's sport should be open to cis and trans women
1b - Naturally occurring hormonal variation should not be a cause for determining who can compete or not.

This is because on a cost benefit analysis, the potential benefit to cis women does not justify the actual harm done to cis and trans women. How many trans women have displaced cis women at a competitive level? Is it more or less than the five cis women who are now barred from competing in their sport?

[CodingHare]

Cis women denied the right to compete as women - this story names five, all hit with the same ruling from the Olympics
- https://www.espn.com.au/olympics/story/_/id/31749541/namibia-female-runners-banned-olympic-400-meters-high-testosterone-levels

Two 18-year-old female runners from Namibia won't be allowed to run in the 400 meters at the Tokyo Olympics after medical tests showed they have high natural testosterone levels. That makes them ineligible under the same contentious rules that have sidelined South Africa's Caster Semenya.

Right.

Because the issue isn't cis or trans, it's an issue of protecting women's sport.  The IOC has decided to use testosterone levels as the determining factor.

I did previously ask you . . . Do women's sports need to be protected?  Do you believe that there should be women's sport at all?

If the answer is yes, then how do you propose is best to segregate the participants in women's sport?

I think you asked me the same question, so I'll answer now.

Do women's sports need to be protected?

Yes, because men have traditionally chased women out of male sporting spaces.  And because women deserve to have a space to compete without abuse (although as has been brought up upthread, women still get to enjoy covered up systemic sexual harassment and abuse even with female sports.)

And how to segregate--don't.  Identify as a woman?  Compete as a woman.  It's that simple.  As mspym noted, rules that "segregate" women into different groups hurt women, not help them.  You get systems like above that reject cis-women as well--the very group the rules are purported to protect.  There is no fair way to segregate based on biology, so let physical ability take care of it for you.

As far as women concerned that they are being out-competed go--they seriously want us to reorder the whole system for them?  Sorry, but I find sports are fundamentally unfair.  Physical ability cannot be 100% controlled for and removed in favor of skill. So being upset that a woman has a genetic advantage is understandable, but fundamentally that's a risk of competing against other people.  Not everyone can play on the high school soccer team.  Fewer still will go on to pro soccer.  Some people are just better than others at sports, and that's life.

[Kris]

Cis women denied the right to compete as women - this story names five, all hit with the same ruling from the Olympics
- https://www.espn.com.au/olympics/story/_/id/31749541/namibia-female-runners-banned-olympic-400-meters-high-testosterone-levels

Two 18-year-old female runners from Namibia won't be allowed to run in the 400 meters at the Tokyo Olympics after medical tests showed they have high natural testosterone levels. That makes them ineligible under the same contentious rules that have sidelined South Africa's Caster Semenya.

Right.

Because the issue isn't cis or trans, it's an issue of protecting women's sport.  The IOC has decided to use testosterone levels as the determining factor.

I did previously ask you . . . Do women's sports need to be protected?  Do you believe that there should be women's sport at all?

If the answer is yes, then how do you propose is best to segregate the participants in women's sport?

I think you asked me the same question, so I'll answer now.

Do women's sports need to be protected?

Yes, because men have traditionally chased women out of male sporting spaces.  And because women deserve to have a space to compete without abuse (although as has been brought up upthread, women still get to enjoy covered up systemic sexual harassment and abuse even with female sports.)

And how to segregate--don't.  Identify as a woman?  Compete as a woman.  It's that simple.  As mspym noted, rules that "segregate" women into different groups hurt women, not help them.  You get systems like above that reject cis-women as well--the very group the rules are purported to protect.  There is no fair way to segregate based on biology, so let physical ability take care of it for you.

As far as women concerned that they are being out-competed go--they seriously want us to reorder the whole system for them?  Sorry, but I find sports are fundamentally unfair.  Physical ability cannot be 100% controlled for and removed in favor of skill. So being upset that a woman has a genetic advantage is understandable, but fundamentally that's a risk of competing against other people.  Not everyone can play on the high school soccer team.  Fewer still will go on to pro soccer.  Some people are just better than others at sports, and that's life.

I just want to add how many of these discriminatory policies regarding policing women end up being unintentionally (benefit of the doubt) racist.

[mspym]

Also, this page is A Dude arguing against (predominantly) women in the name of Protecting Women's Sport.

[Kris]

Also, this page is A Dude arguing against (predominantly) women in the name of Protecting Women's Sport.

The whole “protecting women’s sports” thing, honestly, has always felt very “benevolently” paternalistic to me.

[scottish]

Heh, I never looked at it that way!

I, for one, am perfectly happy to allow women to sort out the rules for competition in women's sports.

[MudPuppy]

I can’t imagine thinking that “protecting” women’s sports meant that you got to decide which women were the right amount of woman to be good enough women for competition.

[GuitarStv]

1 - I think there should be women's sport
1a - Women's sport should be open to cis and trans women
1b - Naturally occurring hormonal variation should not be a cause for determining who can compete or not.

How should the decision about who can compete in women's sport be made?

This is because on a cost benefit analysis, the potential benefit to cis women does not justify the actual harm done to cis and trans women. How many trans women have displaced cis women at a competitive level? Is it more or less than the five cis women who are now barred from competing in their sport?

I'd assume that there are thousands of trans women competing in women's sport right now.  Off the top of my head . . .

Andraya Yearwood and Terry Miller are two trans women in Connecticut who don't have to take hormone blockers and have been setting new women's records.  Laurel Hubbard - the oldest women to ever qualify for Olympic weightlifting.  Veronica Ivy - masters women's track champion, and Cece Telfer - NCAA Division II 400m Champion.

I think you asked me the same question, so I'll answer now.

Do women's sports need to be protected?

Yes, because men have traditionally chased women out of male sporting spaces.  And because women deserve to have a space to compete without abuse (although as has been brought up upthread, women still get to enjoy covered up systemic sexual harassment and abuse even with female sports.)

And how to segregate--don't.  Identify as a woman?  Compete as a woman.  It's that simple.  As mspym noted, rules that "segregate" women into different groups hurt women, not help them.  You get systems like above that reject cis-women as well--the very group the rules are purported to protect.  There is no fair way to segregate based on biology, so let physical ability take care of it for you.

As far as women concerned that they are being out-competed go--they seriously want us to reorder the whole system for them?  Sorry, but I find sports are fundamentally unfair.  Physical ability cannot be 100% controlled for and removed in favor of skill. So being upset that a woman has a genetic advantage is understandable, but fundamentally that's a risk of competing against other people.  Not everyone can play on the high school soccer team.  Fewer still will go on to pro soccer.  Some people are just better than others at sports, and that's life.

This is an interesting answer.

If women have been traditionally chased out of male sporting spaces, and women's sports exist only to prevent systemic sexual harassment/abuse . . . why not do away with discrimination entirely and force integration of all sport?

'Separate but equal' didn't work very well for racial relations.  It wasn't until full integration occurred that real social change took off.  If sex and gender are both a spectrum, then any differentiation based upon either would seem to be wrong, wouldn't it?

[GuitarStv]

I just want to add how many of these discriminatory policies regarding policing women end up being unintentionally (benefit of the doubt) racist.

Which policies are you referring to?

[CodingHare]

I think you asked me the same question, so I'll answer now.

Do women's sports need to be protected?

Yes, because men have traditionally chased women out of male sporting spaces.  And because women deserve to have a space to compete without abuse (although as has been brought up upthread, women still get to enjoy covered up systemic sexual harassment and abuse even with female sports.)

And how to segregate--don't.  Identify as a woman?  Compete as a woman.  It's that simple.  As mspym noted, rules that "segregate" women into different groups hurt women, not help them.  You get systems like above that reject cis-women as well--the very group the rules are purported to protect.  There is no fair way to segregate based on biology, so let physical ability take care of it for you.

As far as women concerned that they are being out-competed go--they seriously want us to reorder the whole system for them?  Sorry, but I find sports are fundamentally unfair.  Physical ability cannot be 100% controlled for and removed in favor of skill. So being upset that a woman has a genetic advantage is understandable, but fundamentally that's a risk of competing against other people.  Not everyone can play on the high school soccer team.  Fewer still will go on to pro soccer.  Some people are just better than others at sports, and that's life.

This is an interesting answer.

If women have been traditionally chased out of male sporting spaces, and women's sports exist only to prevent systemic sexual harassment/abuse . . . why not do away with discrimination entirely and force integration of all sport?

'Separate but equal' didn't work very well for racial relations.  It wasn't until full integration occurred that real social change took off.  If sex and gender are both a spectrum, then any differentiation based upon either would seem to be wrong, wouldn't it?

Equal in name only is bullshit too, though.   The glass ceiling still freezes women out of high level corporate positions (or we would see roughly 50% of that population be women.  In fact only 41 of the Fortune 500 companies are run by women.  That's 8.1 percent.  Equal opportunity enshrining systemic sexism.

This isn't about forcing segregation.  It's about empowering groups that have systematically been discriminated against the space to organize and set their own rules.  For an example on why women might seek out their own space without men... just look at the "What's wrong with men?" thread to see multiple instances of women being belittled, harrassed, and outright not believed about their own experiences.  You really can't understand why carving out space for ourselves is different than segregating people based on race in order to deny them services and dignity?

[Kris]

I just want to add how many of these discriminatory policies regarding policing women end up being unintentionally (benefit of the doubt) racist.

Which policies are you referring to?

The testosterone level bans on women in the Olympics have been mainly applied to Black women. As an example.

[mspym]

I'm out. If the only acceptable answer to what is repeatedly ide tified by the women in this thread as Not A Problem is "end all discrimination", then it is not a good faith discussion and only reinforces my belief that this entire "issue" is there to distract us while patriarchy continues to pick our pocket. It's a suckers game.

[Kris]

I'm out. If the only acceptable answer to what is repeatedly ide tified by the women in this thread as Not A Problem is "end all discrimination", then it is not a good faith discussion and only reinforces my belief that this entire "issue" is there to distract us while patriarchy continues to pick our pocket. It's a suckers game.

I don’t blame you. Leaving this thread is self-care.

[Kris]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7gDKbT_l2us

Thank you for posting this.

You are very welcome. I hope a few people will watch all of this.

[Sailor Sam]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7gDKbT_l2us

Thank you for posting this.

You are very welcome. I hope a few people will watch all of this.

ContraPoints is pretty incredible. Smart, and cogent, and has helped me on my journey towards reduced asholeism.

[Cool Friend]

Isn't higher education free in Canada? Take a fucking gender studies class. Christ.

[shelivesthedream]

A point which I think got lost somewhere along the way of this thread is: why? Why is this an issue? What is at stake for women or transwomen in sports?

I think it's pretty clear that that answer is different at different levels. What's at stake for a ten year old kicking a football around on a Saturday afternoon? Not much.

What's at stake for a fourteen year old competing for their school against another school? Honestly, at this level it's still supposed to be fun for most kids.

An eighteen year old in America competing for a full college scholarship in their sport? Well, quite a lot. Thousands of dollars, I believe.

A professional athlete whose win could get them millions of sponsorship dollars and whose loss could see them dropped forever from the team? That's their livelihood right there.

Personally, I would happily ban trans athletes from grown up professional "doing it for a living" sport. I don't think professional sport is very important in the grand scheme of things and there are so many physical attributes that effectively ban one from one sport or another. Someone mentioned upthread that they don't think it's a human right to be an Olympic athlete. That's basically my position. Whether you think being trans or transitioning is a choice or not, you got unlucky in the sports lottery and can't be a professional athlete. Nor can I, with my poor eyesight.

It's the other levels that I have more problems with and think it's more important that a solution be found. People have mentioned testosterone testing upthread. Has anyone ever suggested genetic testing? So not "men's" and "women's" sports but "XX" and "XY"? I don't think it's a great solution personally but I'd be interested to hear if it's been proposed and rejected and if so, why.

[MudPuppy]

It has been. @Botany Bae gave a great summary.


How can it simultaneously not be a human right to play sports for money and also need to be “protected” from transwomen?

[Metalcat]

A point which I think got lost somewhere along the way of this thread is: why? Why is this an issue? What is at stake for women or transwomen in sports?

I think it's pretty clear that that answer is different at different levels. What's at stake for a ten year old kicking a football around on a Saturday afternoon? Not much.

What's at stake for a fourteen year old competing for their school against another school? Honestly, at this level it's still supposed to be fun for most kids.

An eighteen year old in America competing for a full college scholarship in their sport? Well, quite a lot. Thousands of dollars, I believe.

A professional athlete whose win could get them millions of sponsorship dollars and whose loss could see them dropped forever from the team? That's their livelihood right there.

Personally, I would happily ban trans athletes from grown up professional "doing it for a living" sport. I don't think professional sport is very important in the grand scheme of things and there are so many physical attributes that effectively ban one from one sport or another. Someone mentioned upthread that they don't think it's a human right to be an Olympic athlete. That's basically my position. Whether you think being trans or transitioning is a choice or not, you got unlucky in the sports lottery and can't be a professional athlete. Nor can I, with my poor eyesight.

It's the other levels that I have more problems with and think it's more important that a solution be found. People have mentioned testosterone testing upthread. Has anyone ever suggested genetic testing? So not "men's" and "women's" sports but "XX" and "XY"? I don't think it's a great solution personally but I'd be interested to hear if it's been proposed and rejected and if so, why.

Christine Mboma is XX, identifies as female, has been a natural athlete her whole life, made it to Olympic level, and was disqualified for having a body that produces too much testosterone.

She went through an invasive process of having to prove she was "woman enough" to compete, and still got disqualified.

She has more advantage from testosterone than any trans woman who transitioned before puberty ever could.

How would banning all trans women from high level sports because *some* of them have some biological advantage any different from banning black women from high level sports because *some* of them have higher than "acceptable" natural levels of testosterone?

Your position may feel simple and fair to you, but I have to wonder how extensively you've read up on this issue, or the other issues of race, women's issues in sports in general, and even doping.

This issue of trans women in sports CANNOT be addressed in a vacuum. It's so inextricably entangled with those other issues that it's entirely ridiculous to debate it in isolation.

This doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of all of the geopolitical aspects of global sport policy and human rights issues.

[PhilB]

A very interesting and thought provoking discussion.  My own thoughts at the end of it are a lot more nuanced than when I started so thank you for this.  I would now summarise my views as:

• It really isn't a big deal in the scheme of things if an XX cis woman with typical testosterone levels gets beaten in a sporting event by a trans, intersex or whatever else woman.  It's fundamentally not that different from a male swimmer getting beaten by Phelps.
• If we ever did get to the stage in a particular sport, at a particular level of competition, that it was proving consistently impossible for a cis woman to ever even make the team, then we might need to think about it further - but as far as I am aware we are nowhere near that.  Even if trans athletes achieved a total domination of the highest level of a sport, I believe that would not be a valid reason to take any action at lower levels where there would still be plenty of opportunity for cis women to compete - even if they did tend to get beaten by trans athletes when they encountered them.
• In the meantime and, as has been pointed out, there are much more important issues to be addressed in sport - both women's and men's.

[Kathryn K.]

I'm a woman who believes women's sports need to be protected. My take is that those AFAB with naturally occurring high levels of testosterone should be able to compete in women's sports but those AMAB who transitioned after puberty should not.

[Kathryn K.]

A very interesting and thought provoking discussion.  My own thoughts at the end of it are a lot more nuanced than when I started so thank you for this.  I would now summarise my views as:

• It really isn't a big deal in the scheme of things if an XX cis woman with typical testosterone levels gets beaten in a sporting event by a trans, intersex or whatever else woman.  It's fundamentally not that different from a male swimmer getting beaten by Phelps.
• If we ever did get to the stage in a particular sport, at a particular level of competition, that it was proving consistently impossible for a cis woman to ever even make the team, then we might need to think about it further - but as far as I am aware we are nowhere near that.  Even if trans athletes achieved a total domination of the highest level of a sport, I believe that would not be a valid reason to take any action at lower levels where there would still be plenty of opportunity for cis women to compete - even if they did tend to get beaten by trans athletes when they encountered them.
• In the meantime and, as has been pointed out, there are much more important issues to be addressed in sport - both women's and men's.

And now we have a man who seems to think he is qualified to speak for all women about what is and is not fair and important...

[MudPuppy]

@PhilB was sharing their views as influence by the discussion in this thread, they were not attempting to “speak for all women”

[GuitarStv]

Equal in name only is bullshit too, though.   The glass ceiling still freezes women out of high level corporate positions (or we would see roughly 50% of that population be women.  In fact only 41 of the Fortune 500 companies are run by women.  That's 8.1 percent.  Equal opportunity enshrining systemic sexism.

This isn't about forcing segregation.  It's about empowering groups that have systematically been discriminated against the space to organize and set their own rules.  For an example on why women might seek out their own space without men... just look at the "What's wrong with men?" thread to see multiple instances of women being belittled, harrassed, and outright not believed about their own experiences.  You really can't understand why carving out space for ourselves is different than segregating people based on race in order to deny them services and dignity?

I do understand that the motives for choosing to segregate based on fear of persecution, and agree that they're quite different than being forced to segregate because of systemic racism.  Yes, these are certainly different.

It seems that my previous language did not properly convey my intent very well, and for that I apologize.  Let me try again.  When I break down your argument to logical chunks I'm getting the following:

men have traditionally chased women out of male sporting spaces

- Men have chased women out of sports, this is why women's sports exist.

women deserve to have a space to compete without abuse (although as has been brought up upthread, women still get to enjoy covered up systemic sexual harassment and abuse even with female sports

- Women's sports have failed to provide a safe space for women

And how to segregate--don't.  Identify as a woman?  Compete as a woman.  It's that simple.

- Segregation for anyone who identifies as a woman is bad

There is no fair way to segregate based on biology, so let physical ability take care of it for you.

- There is no way to segregate between men and women based upon biology, so that shouldn't be considered at all with sport

From the above reasoning, the conclusion that I keep being forced to come back to is that "women's sport" shouldn't exist at all for two key reasons:

1 - Assuming same weight, height, and training - a person with XY chromosomes, higher testosterone, and male genitalia is going to have significant advantage over a person with XX chromosomes, lower testosterone, and female genitalia.  Segregation along these lines is not biologically supported among people who identify as the gender 'women'.  There exist a few trans women who share the same biological status as cis men (and also a few cis men who share the same biological status as cis women).  It would then follow that it is unfair to biologically separate men from women in competition.  No need for any kind of proving that someone is a man or women (by sex or gender), or for any sort of testing.

2 - The purpose of women's sport is to create a safe space for women and it has failed do that.  So rather than trying to fix sexism in women's sport it would seem to be a better goal to try and fix sexism in sport in general.  This would bypass the funding issues, the lack of television interest, and the 'separate but equal' treatment of women's sports that has been proven not to work.

I'd also like to point out that 'men' aren't a homogenous group.  There exist many men who would benefit from a safe space in sporting as well.  I don't believe that the policy of segregating women from sport while ignoring the issue of violence by some men is fair to them.  Bullying, harassment . . . these are not unique problems to women, and everyone would benefit by ending them.


By de-segregating this will also completely eliminate any concern about trans people competing unfairly - as everyone would be competing on a level playing field.  Sexism certainly needs to be addressed, but this is true whether or not women's sport exists - and I'd argue that segregation (however well intentioned) has never historically lead to improvements of integration - which is typically what leads to greater acceptance.  What do you think?

I just want to add how many of these discriminatory policies regarding policing women end up being unintentionally (benefit of the doubt) racist.

Which policies are you referring to?

The testosterone level bans on women in the Olympics have been mainly applied to Black women. As an example.

My understanding is that testosterone level testing is done on all Olympic athletes.  Testosterone is a banned substance, so WADA needs to ensure that levels for men and women are within expected ranges and this is a routine part of the biological passport screening (as described here: https://www.wada-ama.org/en/questions-answers/athlete-biological-passport-administrative-technical-version).  So from an application and testing standpoint, there doesn't seem to be racial bias.

That doesn't mean that there isn't a racial variation among women for testosterone though.  I've been skimming research in this area.  What I've seen seems to indicate that there is little to no racial disparity in testosterone levels for men:
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/92/7/2519/2598282
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/91/11/4326/2656429
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180625122437.htm
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057%2Fs41292-020-00200-w

I haven't found similar studies for testosterone in women though, so it's certainly possible that there is a racial component at play that would make hormone measurement an inappropriate metric to use for differentiation in sport.  Thank you, that's important to keep in mind.

[CodingHare]

@GuitarStv Sorry I was a bit snippy in my last reply.  I was not assuming ill intent on your part.  Text medium and intent don't always come through, so I wanted to be explicit about that.  Also not quoting your whole post so this one doesn't take up the whole page.

I think what you are saying does logically follow.  Let's put aside the history and bigotry and pretend that you and I can hand down "The Way Sports Should be Done" to folks.  Let's even assume that there are systems in place to prevent racial and gender harassment and discrimination, such that every person who wants to compete in a given sport can, regardless of their financial and personal background.  Then yes, a single integrated competitive sports, perhaps tiered based on physical output instead of gender, would work.  To each according to their ability, and we don't care about what is in your pants.

But to me, this isn't just about physical ability.

1 - Assuming same weight, height, and training - a person with XY chromosomes, higher testosterone, and male genitalia is going to have significant advantage over a person with XX chromosomes, lower testosterone, and female genitalia.  Segregation along these lines is not biologically supported among people who identify as the gender 'women'.  There exist a few trans women who share the same biological status as cis men (and also a few cis men who share the same biological status as cis women).  It would then follow that it is unfair to biologically separate men from women in competition.  No need for any kind of proving that someone is a man or women (by sex or gender), or for any sort of testing.

This assumes the reason for segregating genders is solely about physical competition.  Women's spaces were created because men wouldn't let us play at all.  That wasn't about our physical ability to play--it was about societal ideas of what women were allowed to do.  Women's cricket evolved because women were literally not allowed to play cricket with men, so we formed our own leagues.  But that was ages ago, so why do we need women only sports now?

This all reminds me of the pushback against affirmative action.  If everyone has equal access, why can't we just let people compete without offering "legs up" to certain groups?  And the answer is everyone *doesn't* have equal access.  People discriminate against too black of sounding names, or too feminine.  Are you from a poor area?  Well you're probably not raised with a private tutor specifically prepping you for the SAT.  Systems that sound fair because they don't take into account where you are from don't fix societal inequalities.  They just enshrine them.  Only by being "unfair" and giving legs up and actually doing reparations do we start to untangle the inequalities so that those "fair" systems are feasible.

By de-segregating this will also completely eliminate any concern about trans people competing unfairly - as everyone would be competing on a level playing field.  Sexism certainly needs to be addressed, but this is true whether or not women's sport exists - and I'd argue that segregation (however well intentioned) has never historically lead to improvements of integration - which is typically what leads to greater acceptance.  What do you think?

As for integration being the only way to push for acceptance--I think this is a narrow view.  Discriminated against groups have always done better when they organize and are able to then advocate for themselves in groups.  Racial segregation in America didn't end because white people organized a committee and declared everyone equal.  It ended because black people organized within their own community (segregated from white people), created their own spaces (black churches), and then, as a group, pushed for change.  Women didn't magically get the right to vote.  Women organized and pushed for it, along with the right to own property and open their own bank accounts.  Employers didn't just decide that weekends were a great idea.  Labor organized and pushed for it.

There's this idea that discriminated against groups just need to act more male/white/able bodied and all our discrimination will disappear. I think that's bullshit. All of these outcomes led to more integration, more equality.  In other words, erasing differences between groups doesn't lead to more inclusion in my mind.  Rather, acknowledging our differences and our needs and adjusting society to accommodate where reasonable does increase integration, because we're actually allowed at the table as ourselves.

As for women's sport failing to provide a safe environment: It has definitely provided more opportunity for women.  Or how many women would we see playing pro soccer?  Maybe one or two in the whole sport.  Yes, this goes back to women (on the whole) are physically unable to compete with men at that level.  In the end, I think it comes down to do you value seeing women play?  As a woman, I relate to and am inspired by female role models more than male ones, so I value finding a way to see more women play.

TL;DR: Sports to me should be about encouraging people to be physically fit and have fun.  Women's sports specifically is needed due to societal reasons moreso than physical ability.  Trans women are women so they compete as women.  I don't claim this is a perfectly fair system.  But I do claim that systems designed to be "perfectly fair" don't exist in a vacuum and can therefore be unfair since not everyone has equal opportunity.

[Tyler durden]

Women's cricket evolved because women were literally not allowed to play cricket with men, so we formed our own leagues.  But that was ages ago, so why do we need women only sports now?

quoted from above.

That sounds good in theory. But the practical application would be much more difficult. Take standard american highschool. 4 teams for basketball. Men and Womens Varsity and JV. If instead there were no division among boys and girls and it was just ranked on ability, with Team A B C D. A being best team D being worst... would there be any girls at all on even team D ? Not at my highschool and certainly not as many as would play now. And you cant expand into that many more teams. The logistics don't work. If you have ever coached or played and managed court time or rink time you know. If you haven't trust me, it cant be done.

So we could do away with women only sports and in things like cricket it might make little to no difference. But in a lot of sports, the major ones it would 100% equal much less women involved. I feel like this entire thread has been dancing around that subject or its not something people want to address, other than Guitarstv, i think was trying to make that point. Could be wrong not trying to speak for him.

This would also hold true right up to the pros. With enough money behind it their could be 500 teams in basketball. But how many teams would need to be created before you start to see women playing on one ? Could that even function with enough viewers and paying salary etc?

[GuitarStv]

I'm a woman who believes women's sports need to be protected. My take is that those AFAB with naturally occurring high levels of testosterone should be able to compete in women's sports but those AMAB who transitioned after puberty should not.

This was also my take on the matter initially.  But then the problem is that we're assigning an awful lot of faith to the box being checked on the birth certificate.  Caster Semenya was AFAB, but is intersex and has pretty significant genetic advantage.  It seems a bit too arbitrary to tell an AMAB woman with the same hormone levels or lower that she can't play while allowing Semenya.

A point which I think got lost somewhere along the way of this thread is: why? Why is this an issue? What is at stake for women or transwomen in sports?

I think it's pretty clear that that answer is different at different levels. What's at stake for a ten year old kicking a football around on a Saturday afternoon? Not much.

What's at stake for a fourteen year old competing for their school against another school? Honestly, at this level it's still supposed to be fun for most kids.

An eighteen year old in America competing for a full college scholarship in their sport? Well, quite a lot. Thousands of dollars, I believe.

A professional athlete whose win could get them millions of sponsorship dollars and whose loss could see them dropped forever from the team? That's their livelihood right there.

Personally, I would happily ban trans athletes from grown up professional "doing it for a living" sport. I don't think professional sport is very important in the grand scheme of things and there are so many physical attributes that effectively ban one from one sport or another. Someone mentioned upthread that they don't think it's a human right to be an Olympic athlete. That's basically my position. Whether you think being trans or transitioning is a choice or not, you got unlucky in the sports lottery and can't be a professional athlete. Nor can I, with my poor eyesight.

It's the other levels that I have more problems with and think it's more important that a solution be found. People have mentioned testosterone testing upthread. Has anyone ever suggested genetic testing? So not "men's" and "women's" sports but "XX" and "XY"? I don't think it's a great solution personally but I'd be interested to hear if it's been proposed and rejected and if so, why.

Christine Mboma is XX, identifies as female, has been a natural athlete her whole life, made it to Olympic level, and was disqualified for having a body that produces too much testosterone.

She went through an invasive process of having to prove she was "woman enough" to compete, and still got disqualified.

I think that some of the language that you are using is a bit unfair.  Saying that someone needs to prove that they are 'woman enough' is not accurate.  Christine Mboma was tested for testosterone levels, as all men and women are by WADA.  While the test is certainly invasive (most drug testing in athletics is invasive, requiring needles, blood, urine, and coming at inopportune and unscheduled times) it wasn't unusually so.

Having or not having testosterone of a certain level doesn't make someone a woman or a man.  Again, I think that part of the issue is that we call it "women's sport".  If kept, that term is inaccurate and needs to be changed to something that more accurately describes the segregation in a better way.

She has more advantage from testosterone than any trans woman who transitioned before puberty ever could.

How would banning all trans women from high level sports because *some* of them have some biological advantage any different from banning black women from high level sports because *some* of them have higher than "acceptable" natural levels of testosterone?

I agree very much with this.  There is only a very small subset of trans women where athletic performance is a potential concern - pre-puberty transition seems to have no athletic benefit/advantage.

[Metalcat]

I'm a woman who believes women's sports need to be protected. My take is that those AFAB with naturally occurring high levels of testosterone should be able to compete in women's sports but those AMAB who transitioned after puberty should not.

This was also my take on the matter initially.  But then the problem is that we're assigning an awful lot of faith to the box being checked on the birth certificate.  Caster Semenya was AFAB, but is intersex and has pretty significant genetic advantage.  It seems a bit too arbitrary to tell an AMAB woman with the same hormone levels or lower that she can't play while allowing Semenya.

A point which I think got lost somewhere along the way of this thread is: why? Why is this an issue? What is at stake for women or transwomen in sports?

I think it's pretty clear that that answer is different at different levels. What's at stake for a ten year old kicking a football around on a Saturday afternoon? Not much.

What's at stake for a fourteen year old competing for their school against another school? Honestly, at this level it's still supposed to be fun for most kids.

An eighteen year old in America competing for a full college scholarship in their sport? Well, quite a lot. Thousands of dollars, I believe.

A professional athlete whose win could get them millions of sponsorship dollars and whose loss could see them dropped forever from the team? That's their livelihood right there.

Personally, I would happily ban trans athletes from grown up professional "doing it for a living" sport. I don't think professional sport is very important in the grand scheme of things and there are so many physical attributes that effectively ban one from one sport or another. Someone mentioned upthread that they don't think it's a human right to be an Olympic athlete. That's basically my position. Whether you think being trans or transitioning is a choice or not, you got unlucky in the sports lottery and can't be a professional athlete. Nor can I, with my poor eyesight.

It's the other levels that I have more problems with and think it's more important that a solution be found. People have mentioned testosterone testing upthread. Has anyone ever suggested genetic testing? So not "men's" and "women's" sports but "XX" and "XY"? I don't think it's a great solution personally but I'd be interested to hear if it's been proposed and rejected and if so, why.

Christine Mboma is XX, identifies as female, has been a natural athlete her whole life, made it to Olympic level, and was disqualified for having a body that produces too much testosterone.

She went through an invasive process of having to prove she was "woman enough" to compete, and still got disqualified.

I think that some of the language that you are using is a bit unfair.  Saying that someone needs to prove that they are 'woman enough' is not accurate.  Christine Mboma was tested for testosterone levels, as all men and women are by WADA.  While the test is certainly invasive (most drug testing in athletics is invasive, requiring needles, blood, urine, and coming at inopportune and unscheduled times) it wasn't unusually so.

Having or not having testosterone of a certain level doesn't make someone a woman or a man.  Again, I think that part of the issue is that we call it "women's sport".  If kept, that term is inaccurate and needs to be changed to something that more accurately describes the segregation in a better way.

She has more advantage from testosterone than any trans woman who transitioned before puberty ever could.

How would banning all trans women from high level sports because *some* of them have some biological advantage any different from banning black women from high level sports because *some* of them have higher than "acceptable" natural levels of testosterone?

I agree very much with this.  There is only a very small subset of trans women where athletic performance is a potential concern - pre-puberty transition seems to have no athletic benefit/advantage.

From what I read, it was questioned early whether it not she was considered biologically female, so that's why I used the language "woman enough".

[GuitarStv]

@GuitarStv Sorry I was a bit snippy in my last reply.  I was not assuming ill intent on your part.  Text medium and intent don't always come through, so I wanted to be explicit about that.

None assumed, I understand the difficulties of the medium and appreciate your contributions to the discussion.  I'm sure that many of the comments I've typed have been very open to misinterpretation and can't hold anyone else accountable for something that I have trouble with myself.  :P

I think what you are saying does logically follow.  Let's put aside the history and bigotry and pretend that you and I can hand down "The Way Sports Should be Done" to folks.  Let's even assume that there are systems in place to prevent racial and gender harassment and discrimination, such that every person who wants to compete in a given sport can, regardless of their financial and personal background.  Then yes, a single integrated competitive sports, perhaps tiered based on physical output instead of gender, would work.  To each according to their ability, and we don't care about what is in your pants.

But to me, this isn't just about physical ability.

There has been significant data about the physiological differences between the average man and woman and how that impacts sport, so initially I was operating from the assumption that women's sport was a necessity so that enough women would have a spot and chance to play.

But I like your idea of a tiered system based upon skill/output.  I think that solves the problem.  While it's likely that few women would be present in the upper tiers of many sports, at least there would be a guaranteed level/place for them to play somewhere.  Whether or not that's enough though, I have some doubts.

1 - Assuming same weight, height, and training - a person with XY chromosomes, higher testosterone, and male genitalia is going to have significant advantage over a person with XX chromosomes, lower testosterone, and female genitalia.  Segregation along these lines is not biologically supported among people who identify as the gender 'women'.  There exist a few trans women who share the same biological status as cis men (and also a few cis men who share the same biological status as cis women).  It would then follow that it is unfair to biologically separate men from women in competition.  No need for any kind of proving that someone is a man or women (by sex or gender), or for any sort of testing.

This assumes the reason for segregating genders is solely about physical competition.  Women's spaces were created because men wouldn't let us play at all.  That wasn't about our physical ability to play--it was about societal ideas of what women were allowed to do.  Women's cricket evolved because women were literally not allowed to play cricket with men, so we formed our own leagues.  But that was ages ago, so why do we need women only sports now?

This all reminds me of the pushback against affirmative action.  If everyone has equal access, why can't we just let people compete without offering "legs up" to certain groups?  And the answer is everyone *doesn't* have equal access.  People discriminate against too black of sounding names, or too feminine.  Are you from a poor area?  Well you're probably not raised with a private tutor specifically prepping you for the SAT.  Systems that sound fair because they don't take into account where you are from don't fix societal inequalities.  They just enshrine them.  Only by being "unfair" and giving legs up and actually doing reparations do we start to untangle the inequalities so that those "fair" systems are feasible.

Sure, I understand this reasoning.  But either we have segregated women's sport or we don't.  That brings us back to the key question of the thread.  If we do have women's sport where all people who identify as women are allowed to compete, then we are creating a small minority of people who will have substantial physical advantage over everyone else.  To me, that seems very likely to breed resentment.  And resentment leads to hate, and hate leads to the dark side.  Or something like that.

By de-segregating this will also completely eliminate any concern about trans people competing unfairly - as everyone would be competing on a level playing field.  Sexism certainly needs to be addressed, but this is true whether or not women's sport exists - and I'd argue that segregation (however well intentioned) has never historically lead to improvements of integration - which is typically what leads to greater acceptance.  What do you think?

As for integration being the only way to push for acceptance--I think this is a narrow view.  Discriminated against groups have always done better when they organize and are able to then advocate for themselves in groups.  Racial segregation in America didn't end because white people organized a committee and declared everyone equal.  It ended because black people organized within their own community (segregated from white people), created their own spaces (black churches), and then, as a group, pushed for change.  Women didn't magically get the right to vote.  Women organized and pushed for it, along with the right to own property and open their own bank accounts.  Employers didn't just decide that weekends were a great idea.  Labor organized and pushed for it.

I both agree and disagree with your point here.

Organization to fight systemic oppression - absolutely important and a good idea.  Segregation based upon race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. - not a benefit.  The negro league of baseball didn't bring black Americans closer to white Americans, organized protests that led to legislation and legal changes did.  Gay bathhouses didn't normalize being gay, openness/discussion/exposure all led to the integration that then led to legislative and legal changes to expand gay rights.

There's this idea that discriminated against groups just need to act more male/white/able bodied and all our discrimination will disappear. I think that's bullshit. All of these outcomes led to more integration, more equality.  In other words, erasing differences between groups doesn't lead to more inclusion in my mind.  Rather, acknowledging our differences and our needs and adjusting society to accommodate where reasonable does increase integration, because we're actually allowed at the table as ourselves.

I agree completely with this.

As for women's sport failing to provide a safe environment: It has definitely provided more opportunity for women.  Or how many women would we see playing pro soccer?  Maybe one or two in the whole sport.  Yes, this goes back to women (on the whole) are physically unable to compete with men at that level.  In the end, I think it comes down to do you value seeing women play?  As a woman, I relate to and am inspired by female role models more than male ones, so I value finding a way to see more women play.

I agree with this too.  Women's segregated sport has value simply because it provides a way to showcase exceptional female athletes who can do exactly what you have seen - inspire and act as female role models.  This is important.  It's why the physical aspect of "women's sport" is important, and why people are trying to figure out rules for trans women to compete.

It's tricky to balance all the aspects out properly.

[CodingHare]

Sure, I understand this reasoning.  But either we have segregated women's sport or we don't.  That brings us back to the key question of the thread.  If we do have women's sport where all people who identify as women are allowed to compete, then we are creating a small minority of people who will have substantial physical advantage over everyone else.  To me, that seems very likely to breed resentment.  And resentment leads to hate, and hate leads to the dark side.  Or something like that.

Maybe this is because I don't play competitive sports, but I just don't see why letting women with natural advantages compete is so terrible.  Obviously other women in this thread have chimed in saying they do have a problem with it, so I don't represent all women myself.  But I run for fun.  I've done some races.  Lots of women trained harder than me.  Lots of them are taller and cover more ground in a single stride than me.  I don't get mad about it.  It's just the way things are.

I get the whole money aspect, of course, but even there I don't see why a cis woman is more entitled to the money than a trans woman.  Or are we also going to start quibbling about natural testosterone levels in women, and height?  If you are in the top 1% of height for cis women should you also be disqualified from scholarships?

And personally, since I know trans women in my personal life, I am much more worried about their safety and access to opportunities than your average cis woman's access to opportunities.

Also the whole pre-puberty trans women should be allowed thing.  At least in America, the ability to go on puberty blockers or transition prior to puberty is HIGHLY dependent on having supportive parents.  A lot of trans women I know had to wait until post college to transition because of unsupportive family.  So they shouldn't be able to have the chance to compete based on their parent's decision that will have lifelong consequences for them?  Seems unfair.

I both agree and disagree with your point here.

Organization to fight systemic oppression - absolutely important and a good idea.  Segregation based upon race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. - not a benefit.  The negro league of baseball didn't bring black Americans closer to white Americans, organized protests that led to legislation and legal changes did.  Gay bathhouses didn't normalize being gay, openness/discussion/exposure all led to the integration that then led to legislative and legal changes to expand gay rights.

Eh, I'd still say those things are all stepping stones to integration and normalization and good things.  A group has to believe in itself first and form a cohesive identity before they can push together on larger society.  And to be clear, I think there will be a need for self determined segregation in society for a long time yet.  Young men needing male role models to bounce off of, or women only groups to support female business owners.  In a truly gender-neutral society those wouldn't matter.  But we are not there yet, and I am suspicious we may never get there.  But this is drifting out of my realm of historical/sociological expertise (IE, I'm a software engineer and have none ;) ), so I am happy to agree to disagree on opinion here.

As for women's sport failing to provide a safe environment: It has definitely provided more opportunity for women.  Or how many women would we see playing pro soccer?  Maybe one or two in the whole sport.  Yes, this goes back to women (on the whole) are physically unable to compete with men at that level.  In the end, I think it comes down to do you value seeing women play?  As a woman, I relate to and am inspired by female role models more than male ones, so I value finding a way to see more women play.

I agree with this too.  Women's segregated sport has value simply because it provides a way to showcase exceptional female athletes who can do exactly what you have seen - inspire and act as female role models.  This is important.  It's why the physical aspect of "women's sport" is important, and why people are trying to figure out rules for trans women to compete.

It's tricky to balance all the aspects out properly.

@GuitarStiv Reading over our exchange, I feel like we basically agree on what an ideal state might look like.  Maybe we disagree most on our levels of pessimism on getting there. As you said, the whole thing is tricky to balance because people are all biologically different, external social issues play huge roles in determining who gets to do what, and general disagreement about what even the purpose of sports in society should be (IE, should it be the big money thing is it today or restructured to be lower stakes, if that is even possible?)  So in other words, like many big social questions, we are left struggling to find the best compromise for the most people, since no one solution satisfies everyone.

Women have good reason to be suspicious of integrated sports--it looks like a raw deal for us to settle for less representation.  And $$$$ due to sponsorships.  So that seems like a non-starter to me.

Excluding minorities from playing for factors outside of their control feels outright bigoted to me.  So to me, the best compromise in 2021 is letting folks identify with one of the two main genders and compete there.  Maybe in the future I'd feel comfortable taking gender out of sports entirely--but we're not in a post sexism society yet.  And I don't think integrating sports overall now will get us there.

[GuitarStv]

Sure, I understand this reasoning.  But either we have segregated women's sport or we don't.  That brings us back to the key question of the thread.  If we do have women's sport where all people who identify as women are allowed to compete, then we are creating a small minority of people who will have substantial physical advantage over everyone else.  To me, that seems very likely to breed resentment.  And resentment leads to hate, and hate leads to the dark side.  Or something like that.

Maybe this is because I don't play competitive sports, but I just don't see why letting women with natural advantages compete is so terrible.  Obviously other women in this thread have chimed in saying they do have a problem with it, so I don't represent all women myself.  But I run for fun.  I've done some races.  Lots of women trained harder than me.  Lots of them are taller and cover more ground in a single stride than me.  I don't get mad about it.  It's just the way things are.

I get the whole money aspect, of course, but even there I don't see why a cis woman is more entitled to the money than a trans woman.  Or are we also going to start quibbling about natural testosterone levels in women, and height?  If you are in the top 1% of height for cis women should you also be disqualified from scholarships?

I think that this is a large part of some of the responses that have been given in this thread.  There's a difference between exercise (non-competitive) and sport (competitive).  While it's possible to play sports simply for exercise (as in running a race but not caring about the results) for many people in sport the chance of winning is what drives the motivation to push on harder and longer than you would be able to do otherwise.

Physical advantages are complex - they don't always impact a sport in the way expected.  For example, height doesn't confer a significant advantage while running sprints (longer stride is a benefit when up to speed, but it's easier for shorter people to get out of the blocks and accelerate faster) or long distances (again, height means a longer stride but shorter people have better surface to air ratio and cool better which confers an advantage).

That said, there certainly are some physical attributes that convey advantage.  Michael Phelps has several unusual attributes (height, flexibility, leg/torso/arm ratios) that all work together to give him significant advantage while swimming.  But these advantages are typically very sport specific.  Phelps would not be advantaged against weightlifters, soccer players, or cyclists.  The difference between men and women are not narrow, sport specific advantages.  Power, tendon strength, bone mass . . . these are broadly useful and convey an advantage is the majority of sports.  A Michael Phelps who is perfectly adapted for a given sport comes along very rarely - the adaptation has to be present, and then the interest in the perfect sport needs to be present.  Benefit due to going through male puberty and having testosterone cycling through your body is broadly beneficial for just about any sport that is played.

Also the whole pre-puberty trans women should be allowed thing.  At least in America, the ability to go on puberty blockers or transition prior to puberty is HIGHLY dependent on having supportive parents.  A lot of trans women I know had to wait until post college to transition because of unsupportive family.  So they shouldn't be able to have the chance to compete based on their parent's decision that will have lifelong consequences for them?  Seems unfair.

Agreed, it's not fair that their parent's decision has lifelong consequences for them.  But it's just as unfair that their parent's decision has lifelong consequences for women who are displaced from sport by them.  We're trading one unfairness for another, not getting rid of unfairness.

My point wasn't so much that post puberty trans women should never be allowed to competed anyway - my argument was that we need to see what the science says regarding whether or not they are unfairly advantaged . . . and then determine the best way to negate that advantage so that fair competition could take place.  It seems like that's the most fair way to go forward for everyone - not perfect certainly, but hopefully better than the alternatives.

@GuitarStiv Reading over our exchange, I feel like we basically agree on what an ideal state might look like.  Maybe we disagree most on our levels of pessimism on getting there. As you said, the whole thing is tricky to balance because people are all biologically different, external social issues play huge roles in determining who gets to do what, and general disagreement about what even the purpose of sports in society should be (IE, should it be the big money thing is it today or restructured to be lower stakes, if that is even possible?)  So in other words, like many big social questions, we are left struggling to find the best compromise for the most people, since no one solution satisfies everyone.

Agreed - although it's unusual for me to be accused of being one of those filthy optimists.  :P  I'd also like to thank you for sharing your views and opinions, they've helped me expand my viewpoints.

Women have good reason to be suspicious of integrated sports--it looks like a raw deal for us to settle for less representation.  And $$$$ due to sponsorships.  So that seems like a non-starter to me.

That is my conclusion as well.

Excluding minorities from playing for factors outside of their control feels outright bigoted to me.  So to me, the best compromise in 2021 is letting folks identify with one of the two main genders and compete there.  Maybe in the future I'd feel comfortable taking gender out of sports entirely--but we're not in a post sexism society yet.  And I don't think integrating sports overall now will get us there.

There are two different approaches to the problem.

A - We try to determine rules for what is fair without enough evidence (which seems to be the current path being taken by the IOC and others) and place some limits on trans women in sport.
B - We say "fuck it" and just see what happens by allowing everyone who wants to compete in women's sport compete and fix problems if/when they arise.

My initial leanings are towards A, rather than B . . . because in my experience it's often very difficult to change established rules in sport, and because I think that it's the option that will bring about fewer upset feelings towards trans athletes.  That said, I can see a strong argument for B from a human rights perspective, and have no idea which is the correct approach.