Trans women and women's sports

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

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.

Just curious, are you more concerned with the fairness in regards to the sport - i.e. non-competitiveness/non-trans women being displaced for scholarships to college or positions on the Olympic teams/whatever (if I'm misstating the sports reasons, I apologize) or the pushback and upset feelings against trans-athletes/trans people as a whole as a result of the controversy. If I missed you explaining this earlier in the thread, my bad.

[GuitarStv]

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.

Just curious, are you more concerned with the fairness in regards to the sport - i.e. non-competitiveness/non-trans women being displaced for scholarships to college or positions on the Olympic teams/whatever (if I'm misstating the sports reasons, I apologize) or the pushback and upset feelings against trans-athletes/trans people as a whole as a result of the controversy. If I missed you explaining this earlier in the thread, my bad.

I think that fairness in sport is of greater importance.  But a benefit of fairness is that it reduces upset feelings which should help with integration of trans people in society in general, so they both sort of happen together in my mind.

[Chris Pascale]

2 of my daughters wrestled. 1 was county champ and 8th in NY. The other was 2nd in Counties and 6th in NY (this was in very early 2020).

Prior to there being a girls program, 1 daughter was the captain of her jr high boys team. She lost every match in 7th grade and more than half of 8th grade.

She has said that boys are so much stronger. Despite weight class and even skill, some could beat her with brute strength alone.

http://longislandwrestling.org/liwa/hs/result20/sec11champGirls.htm

[ericrugiero]

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.

Just curious, are you more concerned with the fairness in regards to the sport - i.e. non-competitiveness/non-trans women being displaced for scholarships to college or positions on the Olympic teams/whatever (if I'm misstating the sports reasons, I apologize) or the pushback and upset feelings against trans-athletes/trans people as a whole as a result of the controversy. If I missed you explaining this earlier in the thread, my bad.

I think that fairness in sport is of greater importance.  But a benefit of fairness is that it reduces upset feelings which should help with integration of trans people in society in general, so they both sort of happen together in my mind.

I've played a lot of sports and it seems like people get more upset when they think something is unfair than just about anything else.  So, being fair is pretty important.  Also, if there is a perceived "unfairness" where a trans woman is dominating women's sports because of biological differences, that will contribute to negative feelings towards trans women. 

Realistically, almost no women can compete with top level men in sports where strength, size, weight, speed and bone density are a significant advantage.  They need to be head and shoulders above the men in skill to offset the physical differences.  So, there needs to be a different division for women to compete.  Birth sex (Chromosome and/or genitalia) is just the most distinct line to draw.  Anything else is very subjective and if a trans woman wins, it will be perceived as unfair.  Maybe there will be a better solution some time in the future, but I just haven't heard one yet.  The most obvious solution would be to have a trans woman division but there doesn't seem to be enough people with a desire for that. 

[GuitarStv]

Birth sex (Chromosome and/or genitalia) is just the most distinct line to draw.  Anything else is very subjective and if a trans woman wins, it will be perceived as unfair.

If someone transitions before puberty, they don't have any significant "male" advantages that I'm aware of . . . so simply using birth sex seems to prevent them from competing, that seems to be very unfair.

[ericrugiero]

Birth sex (Chromosome and/or genitalia) is just the most distinct line to draw.  Anything else is very subjective and if a trans woman wins, it will be perceived as unfair.

If someone transitions before puberty, they don't have any significant "male" advantages that I'm aware of . . . so simply using birth sex seems to prevent them from competing, that seems to be very unfair.

I haven't researched that so I will take your word.  But, how do you define "before puberty"?  Also, doesn't there still need to be a continued medication to prevent the changes?  How do you monitor that?   Does transitioning before puberty produce the same percentage of top level female athletes as the cis female population?  Do those top athletes have the same upper levels of strength, speed, size, etc?  If not, then it doesn't seem "fair".  I'm not saying that it can't be done, just that it gets much more complicated and hard to enforce fairly.

[MudPuppy]

The point is that “birth sex” isn’t an exact science as much as some might wish it were.

[Metalcat]

Birth sex (Chromosome and/or genitalia) is just the most distinct line to draw.  Anything else is very subjective and if a trans woman wins, it will be perceived as unfair.

If someone transitions before puberty, they don't have any significant "male" advantages that I'm aware of . . . so simply using birth sex seems to prevent them from competing, that seems to be very unfair.

I haven't researched that so I will take your word.  But, how do you define "before puberty"?  Also, doesn't there still need to be a continued medication to prevent the changes?  How do you monitor that?   Does transitioning before puberty produce the same percentage of top level female athletes as the cis female population?  Do those top athletes have the same upper levels of strength, speed, size, etc?  If not, then it doesn't seem "fair".  I'm not saying that it can't be done, just that it gets much more complicated and hard to enforce fairly.

You admit you haven't researched this subject, but seem to have strong opinions on the facts of what's fair???

[CodingHare]

To me, if you accept that trans women are actually women, then excluding them from women's sports isn't fair at all.  Focusing on their biological markers is singling them out from other women based on characteristics they can't control.  I don't want to see a hard line drawn between cis-women and trans-women, personally.  It's one more way to discriminate against a gender minority.  I sincerely doubt that kicking trans women out of sports (since competing as a man is probably unacceptable on gender dysphoria medical grounds for them, and no one is going to create a separate bracket for < 1% of competitors) is somehow going to help trans acceptance.  It's the old out of sight out of mind, don't ask don't tell mindset that has been the rallying cry of people who don't like homosexuality or trans people and want to make their lives as hard as possible.

Want to be fair and help out trans acceptance in the wider populace?  Hiding your gays is not the way.  Identity is not ambiguous--you can just ask the person their pronouns.  This is the only option I see that respects the human rights of all players, not just the cis ones.

[ericrugiero]

Birth sex (Chromosome and/or genitalia) is just the most distinct line to draw.  Anything else is very subjective and if a trans woman wins, it will be perceived as unfair.

If someone transitions before puberty, they don't have any significant "male" advantages that I'm aware of . . . so simply using birth sex seems to prevent them from competing, that seems to be very unfair.

I haven't researched that so I will take your word.  But, how do you define "before puberty"?  Also, doesn't there still need to be a continued medication to prevent the changes?  How do you monitor that?   Does transitioning before puberty produce the same percentage of top level female athletes as the cis female population?  Do those top athletes have the same upper levels of strength, speed, size, etc?  If not, then it doesn't seem "fair".  I'm not saying that it can't be done, just that it gets much more complicated and hard to enforce fairly.

You admit you haven't researched this subject, but seem to have strong opinions on the facts of what's fair???

I have seen instances of a trans athlete winning competitions (ex: state high school track championship) that don't seem fair.  I have NOT researched enough to have a good enough handle on what the correct limits would be to promote fair competition.  (As mentioned, my benchmark of fair is that the trans women should have the same average and peak performance metrics as the cis women.)  The reason I said I haven't researched it is so you would know my I'm open to modifying my opinion if new data is presented.  I did read the entire thread and haven't heard a proposal that sounds fair yet without some major shortcoming (as I outlined above). 

[Chris Pascale]

I have seen instances of a trans athlete winning competitions (ex: state high school track championship) that don't seem fair.  I have NOT researched enough to have a good enough handle on what the correct limits would be to promote fair competition. 

The worst case was with Heather Swanson who entered the Colorado "Strong Woman" competition just 2 weeks after ID-ing as female. No hormone treatments, no surgery. Just 'I'm a lady and I'm here to kick some ass.' Pretty much an exact quote.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URz-RYEOaig

[CowboyAndIndian]

- Trans children before puberty should be allowed to play on whatever team they want. There is significantly less advantage pre-puberty as far as physiological differences go.

Totally disagree with this.

Consider the case of running. Hips are different between biological males and females. Irrespective of hormone levels, the hip structure gives an advantage to biological males.

There are high school girls who have not won high school meets in Connecticut because a trans girl has been winning all meets.  I find this highly discriminatory against the girls.

[GuitarStv]

I have seen instances of a trans athlete winning competitions (ex: state high school track championship) that don't seem fair.  I have NOT researched enough to have a good enough handle on what the correct limits would be to promote fair competition. 

The worst case was with Heather Swanson who entered the Colorado "Strong Woman" competition just 2 weeks after ID-ing as female. No hormone treatments, no surgery. Just 'I'm a lady and I'm here to kick some ass.' Pretty much an exact quote.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URz-RYEOaig

Yes, we covered this South Park episode several posts back.  While it's obviously hyperbole, there is a tiny grain of truth buried in there somewhere.

Andraya Yearwood and Terry Miller are two trans women competing in high school sport (who have competed without hormone blockers) and between the two of them have been winning many of the 55m, 100m, 200m, and 400m women's track events available, setting several state records along the way.  To me, this is problematic.

- Trans children before puberty should be allowed to play on whatever team they want. There is significantly less advantage pre-puberty as far as physiological differences go.

Totally disagree with this.

Consider the case of running. Hips are different between biological males and females. Irrespective of hormone levels, the hip structure gives an advantage to biological males.

There are high school girls who have not won high school meets in Connecticut because a trans girl has been winning all meets.  I find this highly discriminatory against the girls.

I agree with you about post puberty trans-women, and mentioned the two athletes you're referring to in my comment above.

Before puberty however, there is little to no difference between men and women.  Actually, there's even a study here (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2917783/) showing specifically that hip differences emerge during puberty.

During puberty, hip-bending strength increases, particularly in boys, due to their greater FNW, reflecting changes in height, fat mass, and lean mass. In contrast, BR falls during puberty, particularly in girls, reflecting their smaller FNW relative to CT, involving mechanisms partly independent of height and body composition.

Sexual dimorphism in skeletal development is well recognized. At the hip, these differences have been reported to emerge during puberty and comprise largely greater periosteal apposition in boys, leading to greater femoral neck width (FNW) and bending strength (1). More rapid periosteal bone formation in boys, leading to greater cortical bone size, has also been reported at the midfemur (prepubertal children and young adults combined) (2), midtibia (peripubertal children) (3), and distal tibia and femoral neck (18 yr olds) (4). In terms of possible sex differences in endosteal apposition, a previous study based on metacarpal radiogrametry suggested that endocortical bone formation is more rapid during puberty in girls (5). On the other hand, 18-yr-old males were found to have greater cortical thickness (CT) of the distal tibia by peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) compared with age-, height-, and weight-matched females (4). A further study suggests that puberty acts to increase cortical bone mass in girls by increasing cortical density rather than thickness (6).

Sexual dimorphism in skeletal development may be more pronounced during puberty (3, 5), suggesting a role of sex hormones in their generation, as supported by correlations between sex steroid levels and changes in endocortical and periosteal surfaces during puberty (7). Rapid changes in fat and lean mass, which are thought to play a major role in bone mass acquisition in childhood (8-10), may also contribute to any relationship between puberty and sexual dimorphism. Consistent with this suggestion, sex differences in hip structure that emerged during the adolescent growth spurt largely disappeared after adjusting for height and lean mass (1). On the other hand, it is clear that sexual dimorphism of the skeleton is evident before the onset of puberty (11), suggesting that some components are independent of puberty.

Taken together, these studies suggest that sex differences in hip structure become more pronounced during puberty and are at least partly explainable by those in body composition. Here we report a cross-sectional study intended to examine these relationships in more detail in a large population-based cohort of peripubertal children. Specifically we investigated whether associations between pubertal stage and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-derived measures of hip structure differ between boys and girls and whether these differences are explained by those in body composition.

So my comments about little significant difference between pre-puberty boys and girls would seem to stand.

[ericrugiero]

During puberty, hip-bending strength increases, particularly in boys, due to their greater FNW, reflecting changes in height, fat mass, and lean mass. In contrast, BR falls during puberty, particularly in girls, reflecting their smaller FNW relative to CT, involving mechanisms partly independent of height and body composition.

Sexual dimorphism in skeletal development is well recognized. At the hip, these differences have been reported to emerge during puberty and comprise largely greater periosteal apposition in boys, leading to greater femoral neck width (FNW) and bending strength (1). More rapid periosteal bone formation in boys, leading to greater cortical bone size, has also been reported at the midfemur (prepubertal children and young adults combined) (2), midtibia (peripubertal children) (3), and distal tibia and femoral neck (18 yr olds) (4). In terms of possible sex differences in endosteal apposition, a previous study based on metacarpal radiogrametry suggested that endocortical bone formation is more rapid during puberty in girls (5). On the other hand, 18-yr-old males were found to have greater cortical thickness (CT) of the distal tibia by peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) compared with age-, height-, and weight-matched females (4). A further study suggests that puberty acts to increase cortical bone mass in girls by increasing cortical density rather than thickness (6).

Sexual dimorphism in skeletal development may be more pronounced during puberty (3, 5), suggesting a role of sex hormones in their generation, as supported by correlations between sex steroid levels and changes in endocortical and periosteal surfaces during puberty (7). Rapid changes in fat and lean mass, which are thought to play a major role in bone mass acquisition in childhood (8-10), may also contribute to any relationship between puberty and sexual dimorphism. Consistent with this suggestion, sex differences in hip structure that emerged during the adolescent growth spurt largely disappeared after adjusting for height and lean mass (1). On the other hand, it is clear that sexual dimorphism of the skeleton is evident before the onset of puberty (11), suggesting that some components are independent of puberty.

Taken together, these studies suggest that sex differences in hip structure become more pronounced during puberty and are at least partly explainable by those in body composition. Here we report a cross-sectional study intended to examine these relationships in more detail in a large population-based cohort of peripubertal children. Specifically we investigated whether associations between pubertal stage and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-derived measures of hip structure differ between boys and girls and whether these differences are explained by those in body composition.

So my comments about little significant difference between pre-puberty boys and girls would seem to stand.

Sure, we all have significant experience with pre-puberty boys and girls that match what you are saying.  Girls and boys at age 8 are pretty close athletically and can compete "fairly" against each other IMO.  I'll agree with you on that. 

However, at puberty, boys get much bigger stronger and faster while girls hips change to allow child birth.  These hip changes negatively impact girls athleticism compared to boys.  If you give the boys hormone blockers pre-puberty, they won't develop like they would have otherwise.  But, I still don't believe their hips change like a girls do in puberty.  So, even if you give the boys hormone blockers to prevent the extra strength, they still could have a structural advantage in their hips. 

[GuitarStv]

Sure, we all have significant experience with pre-puberty boys and girls that match what you are saying.  Girls and boys at age 8 are pretty close athletically and can compete "fairly" against each other IMO.  I'll agree with you on that. 

However, at puberty, boys get much bigger stronger and faster while girls hips change to allow child birth.  These hip changes negatively impact girls athleticism compared to boys.  If you give the boys hormone blockers pre-puberty, they won't develop like they would have otherwise.  But, I still don't believe their hips change like a girls do in puberty.  So, even if you give the boys hormone blockers to prevent the extra strength, they still could have a structural advantage in their hips.

There are two different sets of drugs that are used pre-puberty with trans people.  There are pubertal blockers - which delay the onset of puberty entirely, and there are sex hormones which trigger development of either the biological male/female sex characteristics.  If someone goes through transition with sex hormones of their chosen gender during puberty, everything that I've read is that the physical changes which take place are very similar to those anyone who was cis-born of that gender would go through.

We know that significant physical differences exist which impacts sporting events when comparing a post-puberty trans-woman and a cis-woman, so it makes sense to consider limits to sport participation until this is resolved.  It's also certainly a possibility that structural advantage will be present in the hips as you're hypothesizing.  But I think that it's reasonable to want some evidence that this structural advantage both exists and is significant enough that it would make a difference in competitive sport before we start trying to ban participation in sport over it.

[Chris Pascale]

I have seen instances of a trans athlete winning competitions (ex: state high school track championship) that don't seem fair.  I have NOT researched enough to have a good enough handle on what the correct limits would be to promote fair competition. 

The worst case was with Heather Swanson who entered the Colorado "Strong Woman" competition just 2 weeks after ID-ing as female. No hormone treatments, no surgery. Just 'I'm a lady and I'm here to kick some ass.' Pretty much an exact quote.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URz-RYEOaig

Yes, we covered this South Park episode several posts back.  While it's obviously hyperbole, there is a tiny grain of truth buried in there somewhere.

Andraya Yearwood and Terry Miller are two trans women competing in high school sport (who have competed without hormone blockers) and between the two of them have been winning many of the 55m, 100m, 200m, and 400m women's track events available, setting several state records along the way.  To me, this is problematic.

Ah, sorry about that.

What I like about the clip is that it takes a very real thing that can be done (or maybe could be at one time) - identifying as female while operating with a 100% male body and mind.

There was an MMA fighter, Fallon Fox, who had a 5-1 record. Opponents said that there was a serious difference in grip strength.

And, as mentioned earlier, my daughter who wrestled in a boys JH league said the boys were much stronger. My estimate is that with the boys over 2 years she might have won 4 out of 15 matches. Then as a freshman in girls varsity she had a record of 12-9, and most losses were a result of being out-skilled, or making a mistake.

[GuitarStv]

I have seen instances of a trans athlete winning competitions (ex: state high school track championship) that don't seem fair.  I have NOT researched enough to have a good enough handle on what the correct limits would be to promote fair competition. 

The worst case was with Heather Swanson who entered the Colorado "Strong Woman" competition just 2 weeks after ID-ing as female. No hormone treatments, no surgery. Just 'I'm a lady and I'm here to kick some ass.' Pretty much an exact quote.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URz-RYEOaig

Yes, we covered this South Park episode several posts back.  While it's obviously hyperbole, there is a tiny grain of truth buried in there somewhere.

Andraya Yearwood and Terry Miller are two trans women competing in high school sport (who have competed without hormone blockers) and between the two of them have been winning many of the 55m, 100m, 200m, and 400m women's track events available, setting several state records along the way.  To me, this is problematic.

Ah, sorry about that.

What I like about the clip is that it takes a very real thing that can be done (or maybe could be at one time) - identifying as female while operating with a 100% male body and mind.

There was an MMA fighter, Fallon Fox, who had a 5-1 record. Opponents said that there was a serious difference in grip strength.

And, as mentioned earlier, my daughter who wrestled in a boys JH league said the boys were much stronger. My estimate is that with the boys over 2 years she might have won 4 out of 15 matches. Then as a freshman in girls varsity she had a record of 12-9, and most losses were a result of being out-skilled, or making a mistake.

My background in sports involves a lot of time spent boxing, wrestling, and with martial arts.  There is absolutely a huge difference in those sports between men and women.

Fallon Fox transitioned post puberty, but had been taking hormone replacement for more than two years.  She does fall into the category where I believe there's reason to suspect that some unfair advantage could still exist.