11 ms·

I feel like with this issue at some point we are bound to reach a breaking point. It's just a question of how far along things will go before we get there. Peop

I feel like with this issue at some point we are bound to reach a breaking point. It's just a question of how far along things will go before we get there. People are more and more open about being transgender and there is more and more support for transgender individuals having the chance to live life as their correct gender. This is a great thing! However, it presents a huge problem for women's athletics, particularly in sports where strength differences are a large determiner of performance differences. If, as it is said in some circles, a full .5% of the human population is transgender, we are going to continue to see huge increases in openly transgender people competing in sport. In sports where long term exposure to male hormones enhance performance, it's hard to see how life-long XX bodies will be able to compete. Which seems like a bad outcome since the whole point of the existence of women's sport is to allow women to have space to compete without facing insurmountable built-in disadvantages. It may take a couple more decades but I don't see a stable equilibrium where MTF athletes are competing with cis-women in high level sport, especially if they made their transition during adulthood. I would be fascinated to hear about different models for how this plays out. I've read the occasional news article about it but I'm not really very familiar with the thinking on the other side of this issue, particularly when it comes to the physical advantages trans women have over cis women in sport.

trainsplanes 5y ago
I won't risk saying this in real life or anywhere where my real identity is known, but I do wonder if the end result will be similar to what's common in many parts of Asia: a third/fourth gender. Instead of saying trans people are 100% identical to the gender they identify as, they'll be seen as something different. E.g., In Thailand there's the concept of kathoey (westerners refer to them as ladyboys). The Indian subcontinent and culturally related areas have hijra. They're not seen as the same as women, but they're not seen as men either. They're something else, and it's okay. I've also seen a lot of westerners trying to push their ideas of gender globally and getting enraged when it doesn't fit. Some people get enraged when, for example, Thai kathoey aren't simply referred to as women, but for a lot of those people in Thailand, they don't see themselves as identical to women. So while trying to stop people from misgendering people, they overstep and misgender people who weren't being misgendered.
- stOneskull 5y ago
  like in Samoa, they've always had the 3rd gender, Fa’afafine.
  - tiahura 5y ago
    In Tahiti they’re Māhū or raerae.
- Mediterraneo10 5y ago
  It is common to hear a transwoman claim (indeed, even occasionally here on HN) that anything other than recognizing them as equal to ciswomen is an act of violence and prejudice against them, and at worst, they utter some invective about “TERFs”. So, suggesting the recognition of a new gender is unlikely to satisfy at least those strident individuals.
  - moeris 5y ago
    Referring to trans people as "a transgender" is rude. If your other statements are as ill informed and inconsiderate, then it's no wonder your conversations with the trans community have been confrontational.
    - aardvarkr 5y ago
      Anddd that’s proving his point. Assuming you’re not a troll making a satirical post, this is pretty much textbook toxic behavior. You respond with aggression when instead you could be nice. People respond with an equal and opposite reaction so when you come out swinging you lose an opportunity where you could educate them instead of spreading more hate.
      - adaml_623 5y ago
        Reminds me of a funny story where I was informed that transgendered[0] isn't a word. And in fact you can see a definition on Urban dictionary where someone has said it is "a word that doesn't exist". It turns out that while the word was once used widely it has recently become forbidden for grammatical reasons. It's not surprising this debate is so broken when basic terms aren't even constant. [0] - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/transgendered https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/transgendered
babesh 5y ago
There are many disadvantages/advantages that various groups face/possess. It is ideological which ones we choose to elevate. Genes for height, genes for fast twitch muscles, testosterone, etc… aren’t the same for different groups. Some of these disadvantages are just as insurmountable. Many sports are closed to poor people. Equestrian, sailing, etc… aren’t sports for the poor. Richer countries often have better technology (see those Nike shoes and the swimsuits that were banned). We are just in the land of competing interests.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  That's true, but there are enormous differences between those other categories compared to sexuality! For one thing, we do not know exactly which genes code for each of these traits yet. And for another thing, the genes coding, for example, fast twitch muscles are not generally part of someone's identity the way gender is. I don't think the presence of those genes nor their uneven distribution does anything to defuse the social issue that we're talking about. To be completely clear, in some sports there appears to be a moderate risk that elite cis-women will be completely unable to compete with elite trans-women. This is going to be visible and apparent. I don't think this will be acceptable to the most people, and they will likely look to change the system. Nit-picking your other points: there are not really any popular rich-people-only sports any more, except perhaps auto racing. I don't think broader society is all that interested in the egalitarian properties of yacht sailing. R.e. the clothing technology: yes, and those things were banned because of the advantage they conferred. That's exactly what I'm talking about here.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    > Nit-picking your other points: there are not really any popular rich-people-only sports any more, except perhaps auto racing. I can assure you, from personal experience, that rowing, cycling, tennis, and lacrosse are overwhelmingly wealthy sports. You don’t have to pass a credit check to play them, but they are absolutely a class apart (both economically and racially) versus sports like baseball and basketball.
    - 5y ago
rodgerd 5y ago
> However, it presents a huge problem for women's athletics, Trans women have been able to compete for years in Olympic level sport, and they haven't wiped the floor with cis women. I fail to see evidence of the problem - I see a lot more evidence of it being a culture war and TERF talking point. It also doesn't really line up with the fact that we fawn over genetic quirks that let Michael Phelps dominate his sport. If we think that certain sorts of genetic quirks are unfair in women's sport, why do we allow them in men's?
- woodruffw 5y ago
  > It also doesn't really line up with the fact that we fawn over genetic quirks that let Michael Phelps dominate his sport. If we think that certain sorts of genetic quirks are unfair in women's sport, why do we allow them in men's? I appreciate that you’ve said this so concisely and clearly. The Olympics are, overwhelmingly, a show of extraordinary human abilities. Singling out transwomen for scrutiny and prejudice amounts to special pleading.
  - rantwasp 5y ago
    here is a thought experiment for you: no more genders in sports. at all. everyone competes under the same rules. we bother with quirks like gender? i mean, we want equality right? everyone competes under the same rules /s
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      Your snideness is noted, but this is precisely the stoic mindset: athleticism is most virtuously practiced when we only compare current selves to our best possible versions of ourselves. We can’t change anything about how others are; we can only better ourselves. Telling transwomen that they can’t perform athletic excellence on their own terms is myopic and inconsistent with our own praise for factors outside of our control. Worry less about them, and more about yourself.
      - rantwasp 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
vidarh 5y ago
All it is really doing is expose how much of current results are down to genetics and hormone levels anyway. This has always been a problem, but one where all but the sports most extremely affected, like e.g. weightlifting with weight classes, have pretended it is not. In powerlifting there additionally are "tested" and "untested" federations, where it's an open secret that the untested federations are full of steroids. The point being that one can keep pretending these differences don't exist and agonise over the effect trans people may have, or you can introduce class systems that equaliser by physical characteristics irrespective of sex and gender.
- soco 5y ago
  In most sports performance-enhancing therapies are banned. Entire federations and countries were banned from participating at major competitions. By allowing hormone therapies we are basically discriminating against hematocrit therapies and so on. It's a Pandora's box and it's open already so we better be handling it rather sooner than later.
lenkite 5y ago
Unless rules are made to enforce division based on sex and not gender, then it's just a matter of time until transgender athletes are the only winners in Women's events. Be prepared to see a lot of dropouts/boycotts by various nations in the Olympics. Eastern nations are not going to stand by silently. Some will shrug and directly enlist straight men in Women's events.
- kuschku 5y ago
  The olympic requirements are already having completely female hormone levels for 2 years. In fact, the limit for testosterone is significantly lower than for cis women, being a significant disadvantage for trans athletes, which is why in all the decades trans athletes have been allowed, you haven't seen any. Cis women with higher levels of testosterone, e.g. caster semenya, are already dominating the olympics, having natural hormone levels that'd be an immediate disqualification for any trans athlete.
  - lenkite 5y ago
    There are significant differences in skeleton muscle function that will never go away by having female hormone levels for 2 years.
  - snovv_crash 5y ago
    Muscle density isn't built to competitive Olympic levels in 2 years. Having a lifetime of male-level hormones and then 2 years of low testosterone is still an advantage, as we've seen in many events so far. This is also a strategy that has been used for doping, where athletes in their teens get pumped full of steroids, then go clean for some years and are suddenly very competitive in the 'clean' divisions.
  - 2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
    Not sure where you’re getting your information. The weightlifting rules allows trans athletes to have testosterone levels of 10nmol/L. Some sports are 5nmol/L. Normal range for men is 9-31nmol/L Women range from 0.9-2.5nmol/L Even these guys (link below) who argue that the limits are arbitrary then go on to point to study in which 11 of 234 female athletes had T levels of 8nmol/L and 32 had 2.6nmol/L. 74 of 446 male athletes had 8.4nmol/L. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/mar/20/testosterone-limits-for-female-athletes-not-backed-by-science-say-academics https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/mar/20/testosterone-l...
onion2k 5y ago
we are going to continue to see huge increases in openly transgender people competing in sport We're discussing literally the first trans woman to compete at the Olympics. Obviously going from 0 to 1 is a huge increase in percentage terms, but there's no evidence that it's going to continue to the point where women's sports are 'destabilised'.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  First trans woman in the Olympics and she is essentially guaranteed to win the gold based on the numbers she put up during qualification. We are seeing high school and college athletics grappling with this issue. While it's early days, it's hard to picture a scenario where the Olympics can avoid making a decision on this over the long run.
- busymom0 5y ago
  Olympics is like the end stage. Transgender people competing in sport has been a common thing for past 3-4 years now. I personally know 3 girls who lost their sports scholarships to multiple transgender competing and taking all the top spots. A girl who's case is heading up to U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit wrote a post on USAToday a month ago before USAToday edited her post without her permission and made changes to it: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/05/22/transgender-athletes-girls-women-sports-track-connecticut-column/5149532001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/05/22/transgende... She did an interview last week: https://youtu.be/5HYL9pJGs8w https://youtu.be/5HYL9pJGs8w
rocqua 5y ago
Perhaps I am way of base here. But it seems to me like MTF athletes simply should not be allowed in sports where testosterone would be considered doping (or some other criterion to determine whether having been biologically male is a significant advantage). My proposal would clearly suck for MTF athletes. They'd be forced to either drop from competitions, or compete in the men's league. An MTF athlete competing in a men's league is likely to experience disphoria. It will also probably attract people saying "Look they are still a man, they are even in the mens league!". Both of these would be very hard to handle for MTF athletes. Probably causing many of them to drop from professional competition. I hope this would be addressed partially by not having a "mens league" but an "open league" and a "womens league". But otherwise, I think this is acceptable fallout to keep athletic competition fair. Yes, this policy will harm MTF athletes, and that is simply unfair. But the alternate policy is even more unfair. It might not harm individual MTF athletes, but it harms the acceptance of trans people in wider society a lot. Moreover, it harms athletes in general a lot. In the end, I feel the following harsh sentiment. If you are truly MTF, then transitioning is probably more important than keeping your profession. It really sucks to force people to give up their profession when they are already going through a tough time. But I don't see any other way.
- ladyattis 5y ago
  The problem with using testosterone as your marker is that many cis female athletes have higher serum levels naturally than trans women in this context. In fact, to get the benefits of secondary sex characteristics for trans women they often have to have LOWER testosterone and higher estrogen levels for cis women in their weight and age. This is done to overcome the masculinization they've gone through. Basically, to get the boobs you gotta carpet bomb the testes forever or snip snip.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    I think using instantaneous testosterone is probably not the right call. Probably a metric like aggregate exposure to testosterone/other androgens over the course of one's life. It would need to be one signal among many -- for example, cis-men should not compete in women's sport regardless of whether they have very low testosterone. But it seems like a signal like this may be needed at some point. Of course it is possible that we collectively decide that it's ok that cis women have no chance of winning the Olympic weightlifting gold ever again. That seems like a bad outcome to me, but I am only a single voice. If the relevant stakeholders are ok with that it won't be a great tragedy to me that my opinion is ignored. But, for example, my wife had a very negative reaction when I posed that scenario to her. It seems to me like as the implication of current policy becomes more clear, more folks are going to want to change the policy.

trainsplanes 5y ago

I won't risk saying this in real life or anywhere where my real identity is known, but I do wonder if the end result will be similar to what's common in many parts of Asia: a third/fourth gender. Instead of saying trans people are 100% identical to the gender they identify as, they'll be seen as something different. E.g., In Thailand there's the concept of kathoey (westerners refer to them as ladyboys). The Indian subcontinent and culturally related areas have hijra. They're not seen as the same as women, but they're not seen as men either. They're something else, and it's okay. I've also seen a lot of westerners trying to push their ideas of gender globally and getting enraged when it doesn't fit. Some people get enraged when, for example, Thai kathoey aren't simply referred to as women, but for a lot of those people in Thailand, they don't see themselves as identical to women. So while trying to stop people from misgendering people, they overstep and misgender people who weren't being misgendered.

stOneskull 5y ago
like in Samoa, they've always had the 3rd gender, Fa’afafine.
- tiahura 5y ago
  In Tahiti they’re Māhū or raerae.
Mediterraneo10 5y ago
It is common to hear a transwoman claim (indeed, even occasionally here on HN) that anything other than recognizing them as equal to ciswomen is an act of violence and prejudice against them, and at worst, they utter some invective about “TERFs”. So, suggesting the recognition of a new gender is unlikely to satisfy at least those strident individuals.
- moeris 5y ago
  Referring to trans people as "a transgender" is rude. If your other statements are as ill informed and inconsiderate, then it's no wonder your conversations with the trans community have been confrontational.
  - aardvarkr 5y ago
    Anddd that’s proving his point. Assuming you’re not a troll making a satirical post, this is pretty much textbook toxic behavior. You respond with aggression when instead you could be nice. People respond with an equal and opposite reaction so when you come out swinging you lose an opportunity where you could educate them instead of spreading more hate.
    - adaml_623 5y ago
      Reminds me of a funny story where I was informed that transgendered[0] isn't a word. And in fact you can see a definition on Urban dictionary where someone has said it is "a word that doesn't exist". It turns out that while the word was once used widely it has recently become forbidden for grammatical reasons. It's not surprising this debate is so broken when basic terms aren't even constant. [0] - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/transgendered https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/transgendered

babesh 5y ago

There are many disadvantages/advantages that various groups face/possess. It is ideological which ones we choose to elevate. Genes for height, genes for fast twitch muscles, testosterone, etc… aren’t the same for different groups. Some of these disadvantages are just as insurmountable. Many sports are closed to poor people. Equestrian, sailing, etc… aren’t sports for the poor. Richer countries often have better technology (see those Nike shoes and the swimsuits that were banned). We are just in the land of competing interests.

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
That's true, but there are enormous differences between those other categories compared to sexuality! For one thing, we do not know exactly which genes code for each of these traits yet. And for another thing, the genes coding, for example, fast twitch muscles are not generally part of someone's identity the way gender is. I don't think the presence of those genes nor their uneven distribution does anything to defuse the social issue that we're talking about. To be completely clear, in some sports there appears to be a moderate risk that elite cis-women will be completely unable to compete with elite trans-women. This is going to be visible and apparent. I don't think this will be acceptable to the most people, and they will likely look to change the system. Nit-picking your other points: there are not really any popular rich-people-only sports any more, except perhaps auto racing. I don't think broader society is all that interested in the egalitarian properties of yacht sailing. R.e. the clothing technology: yes, and those things were banned because of the advantage they conferred. That's exactly what I'm talking about here.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  > Nit-picking your other points: there are not really any popular rich-people-only sports any more, except perhaps auto racing. I can assure you, from personal experience, that rowing, cycling, tennis, and lacrosse are overwhelmingly wealthy sports. You don’t have to pass a credit check to play them, but they are absolutely a class apart (both economically and racially) versus sports like baseball and basketball.
  - 5y ago

rodgerd 5y ago

> However, it presents a huge problem for women's athletics, Trans women have been able to compete for years in Olympic level sport, and they haven't wiped the floor with cis women. I fail to see evidence of the problem - I see a lot more evidence of it being a culture war and TERF talking point. It also doesn't really line up with the fact that we fawn over genetic quirks that let Michael Phelps dominate his sport. If we think that certain sorts of genetic quirks are unfair in women's sport, why do we allow them in men's?

woodruffw 5y ago
> It also doesn't really line up with the fact that we fawn over genetic quirks that let Michael Phelps dominate his sport. If we think that certain sorts of genetic quirks are unfair in women's sport, why do we allow them in men's? I appreciate that you’ve said this so concisely and clearly. The Olympics are, overwhelmingly, a show of extraordinary human abilities. Singling out transwomen for scrutiny and prejudice amounts to special pleading.
- rantwasp 5y ago
  here is a thought experiment for you: no more genders in sports. at all. everyone competes under the same rules. we bother with quirks like gender? i mean, we want equality right? everyone competes under the same rules /s
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    Your snideness is noted, but this is precisely the stoic mindset: athleticism is most virtuously practiced when we only compare current selves to our best possible versions of ourselves. We can’t change anything about how others are; we can only better ourselves. Telling transwomen that they can’t perform athletic excellence on their own terms is myopic and inconsistent with our own praise for factors outside of our control. Worry less about them, and more about yourself.
    - rantwasp 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

vidarh 5y ago

All it is really doing is expose how much of current results are down to genetics and hormone levels anyway. This has always been a problem, but one where all but the sports most extremely affected, like e.g. weightlifting with weight classes, have pretended it is not. In powerlifting there additionally are "tested" and "untested" federations, where it's an open secret that the untested federations are full of steroids. The point being that one can keep pretending these differences don't exist and agonise over the effect trans people may have, or you can introduce class systems that equaliser by physical characteristics irrespective of sex and gender.

soco 5y ago
In most sports performance-enhancing therapies are banned. Entire federations and countries were banned from participating at major competitions. By allowing hormone therapies we are basically discriminating against hematocrit therapies and so on. It's a Pandora's box and it's open already so we better be handling it rather sooner than later.

lenkite 5y ago

Unless rules are made to enforce division based on sex and not gender, then it's just a matter of time until transgender athletes are the only winners in Women's events. Be prepared to see a lot of dropouts/boycotts by various nations in the Olympics. Eastern nations are not going to stand by silently. Some will shrug and directly enlist straight men in Women's events.

kuschku 5y ago
The olympic requirements are already having completely female hormone levels for 2 years. In fact, the limit for testosterone is significantly lower than for cis women, being a significant disadvantage for trans athletes, which is why in all the decades trans athletes have been allowed, you haven't seen any. Cis women with higher levels of testosterone, e.g. caster semenya, are already dominating the olympics, having natural hormone levels that'd be an immediate disqualification for any trans athlete.
- lenkite 5y ago
  There are significant differences in skeleton muscle function that will never go away by having female hormone levels for 2 years.
- snovv_crash 5y ago
  Muscle density isn't built to competitive Olympic levels in 2 years. Having a lifetime of male-level hormones and then 2 years of low testosterone is still an advantage, as we've seen in many events so far. This is also a strategy that has been used for doping, where athletes in their teens get pumped full of steroids, then go clean for some years and are suddenly very competitive in the 'clean' divisions.
- 2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
  Not sure where you’re getting your information. The weightlifting rules allows trans athletes to have testosterone levels of 10nmol/L. Some sports are 5nmol/L. Normal range for men is 9-31nmol/L Women range from 0.9-2.5nmol/L Even these guys (link below) who argue that the limits are arbitrary then go on to point to study in which 11 of 234 female athletes had T levels of 8nmol/L and 32 had 2.6nmol/L. 74 of 446 male athletes had 8.4nmol/L. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/mar/20/testosterone-limits-for-female-athletes-not-backed-by-science-say-academics https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/mar/20/testosterone-l...

onion2k 5y ago

we are going to continue to see huge increases in openly transgender people competing in sport We're discussing literally the first trans woman to compete at the Olympics. Obviously going from 0 to 1 is a huge increase in percentage terms, but there's no evidence that it's going to continue to the point where women's sports are 'destabilised'.

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
First trans woman in the Olympics and she is essentially guaranteed to win the gold based on the numbers she put up during qualification. We are seeing high school and college athletics grappling with this issue. While it's early days, it's hard to picture a scenario where the Olympics can avoid making a decision on this over the long run.
busymom0 5y ago
Olympics is like the end stage. Transgender people competing in sport has been a common thing for past 3-4 years now. I personally know 3 girls who lost their sports scholarships to multiple transgender competing and taking all the top spots. A girl who's case is heading up to U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit wrote a post on USAToday a month ago before USAToday edited her post without her permission and made changes to it: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/05/22/transgender-athletes-girls-women-sports-track-connecticut-column/5149532001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/05/22/transgende... She did an interview last week: https://youtu.be/5HYL9pJGs8w https://youtu.be/5HYL9pJGs8w

rocqua 5y ago

Perhaps I am way of base here. But it seems to me like MTF athletes simply should not be allowed in sports where testosterone would be considered doping (or some other criterion to determine whether having been biologically male is a significant advantage). My proposal would clearly suck for MTF athletes. They'd be forced to either drop from competitions, or compete in the men's league. An MTF athlete competing in a men's league is likely to experience disphoria. It will also probably attract people saying "Look they are still a man, they are even in the mens league!". Both of these would be very hard to handle for MTF athletes. Probably causing many of them to drop from professional competition. I hope this would be addressed partially by not having a "mens league" but an "open league" and a "womens league". But otherwise, I think this is acceptable fallout to keep athletic competition fair. Yes, this policy will harm MTF athletes, and that is simply unfair. But the alternate policy is even more unfair. It might not harm individual MTF athletes, but it harms the acceptance of trans people in wider society a lot. Moreover, it harms athletes in general a lot. In the end, I feel the following harsh sentiment. If you are truly MTF, then transitioning is probably more important than keeping your profession. It really sucks to force people to give up their profession when they are already going through a tough time. But I don't see any other way.

ladyattis 5y ago
The problem with using testosterone as your marker is that many cis female athletes have higher serum levels naturally than trans women in this context. In fact, to get the benefits of secondary sex characteristics for trans women they often have to have LOWER testosterone and higher estrogen levels for cis women in their weight and age. This is done to overcome the masculinization they've gone through. Basically, to get the boobs you gotta carpet bomb the testes forever or snip snip.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  I think using instantaneous testosterone is probably not the right call. Probably a metric like aggregate exposure to testosterone/other androgens over the course of one's life. It would need to be one signal among many -- for example, cis-men should not compete in women's sport regardless of whether they have very low testosterone. But it seems like a signal like this may be needed at some point. Of course it is possible that we collectively decide that it's ok that cis women have no chance of winning the Olympic weightlifting gold ever again. That seems like a bad outcome to me, but I am only a single voice. If the relevant stakeholders are ok with that it won't be a great tragedy to me that my opinion is ignored. But, for example, my wife had a very negative reaction when I posed that scenario to her. It seems to me like as the implication of current policy becomes more clear, more folks are going to want to change the policy.