8 ms·

But it doesn't change your skeletal structure, or the size of your lungs. Both of which dramatically affect your performance.

prox 5y ago
I think the core question is, does Hubbard have an advantage so she will win 95% of the time? If so, it’s not really a competition, especially if that result derives from her innate male physiology giving her an unfair advantage. We don’t allow doping either. If there is a way to level it out, that might be a solution, if it’s possible.
- andyxor 5y ago
  The core question is when sanity will return and men will no longer be allowed to compete against women. Hopefully the wave of opposition to this travesty will be strong enough to change the regulations. Boycott the Olympics.
  - maybeOneDay 5y ago
    It's possible to be against the idea of trans women competing in female competitive sports without intentionally misgendering all trans athletes/humans.
    - memling 5y ago
      > It's possible to be against the idea of trans women competing in female competitive sports without intentionally misgendering all trans athletes/humans. Genuine question, one about which I haven't seen much in the way of conversation—although my experience is relatively limited. Why is the subjective experience of gender privileged over the objective biology of sex? I can anticipate a couple possible responses for which I'm not sure I have very clear thoughts, either—maybe someone can contribute more light than heat here? 1. Biology isn't actually all that objective: one's subjective experience is at least partially determined by biology, too. 2. We can turn the question on its head: why should objective biology be privileged over subjective experience?
      - nandhinianand 5y ago
        1. is pretty close for ex: most brain functions can be called subjective, and therefore not that relevant. 2. is relatively a trend in how civilization has been moving. The cavemen bashed a skull that seemed unfamiliar or they didn't like, we don't we try to setup a legal system and judge a sense of justice. I don't think every subjective experience should be allowed to be used over other person's choices. I guess we would need something like "your right to swing your hand stops a feet/inch from my nose" kinda principle.
        memling 5y ago
        > 1. is pretty close for ex: most brain functions can be called subjective, and therefore not that relevant. Sorry for the delay. HN is not a great forum for long discussions (on purpose, I guess). I've been noodling on this for awhile, and so maybe just blathering into the ether. I'm not sure that subjective and irrelevant necessarily go together. I guess the argument I'm thinking of is more this: my pronoun preference is biological, so if my chromosomes disagree with my pronoun preference why should my chromosomes govern communication protocols instead of the rest of my biology? If these things are truly irrelevant, then the notion of gender identity is itself irrelevant and so, too, are pronouns, aren't they? (I mean, maybe not, but I don't see how one could say chromosomes don't matter but preferences do.) One of the real challenges gender identity raises is that it acknowledges that the body actually means something. It also implies that language means something. Mind and body go together, and when they disagree some kind of resolution is needed. Language shapes reality, so when language contradicts that resolution the reality of my existence, my very identity, is threatened or negated. If we stipulate that, I think we have to admit pronoun use really isn't neutral. It's not merely a matter of common decency and respect (although it certainly is part of that), but about what we think it means to be human and how we attempt to shape and react to reality. My own thoughts here aren't super well formed, hence my line of questioning and (perhaps poorly worded and thought out) reasoning...but I do think it bears some critical examination.
        nandhinianand 5y ago
        I think we're on the same page..I was collating subjective and irrelevant together for the sake of the parent comment. and it is quite common in the "objectivist philosophy/meta-physical" view . > Language shapes reality, Sorry I have disagree on this one. I don't think language shapes reality. It definitely shapes our perception, filters, and biases but shapes reality only in a very Probabilistic graphical model sense. And even then it shapes(as in cavemen---> civilization) reality as much as say, air shapes reality, mathematical formulae and theories shape reality . My usual stance on the gender identity debate comes along with the "freedom to swing your arm but not hit my nose" sense. In this case of weightlifting for ex: I recently saw a twitter mention comparing the same athlete before starting HRT therapy and now.(along with a co-competitor in the male category she used to compete with) It pointed out how much the gap between both the lifters progress has been because of the Hormones. Anyway, I don't have a clear stance on trans-people competing in their gender category .. I think the gender based categorization in sports has to move further, but I'm ambiguous even about how the sports laws work on even doping. So since I don't have skin-in-the-game I only try to add clarity to the discussion without taking either stance strongly.
- ivanbakel 5y ago
  >I think the core question is, does Hubbard have an advantage so she will win 95% of the time? If so, it’s not really a competition, especially if that result derives from her innate ... physiology giving her an unfair advantage. But this is true of lots of sports. Most recently, Simone Biles was punished by scoring judges for a gymnastic move that only she is able to perform, due to her height and musculature. "Genetic freaks" who train hard but still have an unalterable physical advantage tend to dominate any individual sport, to the detriment of their competitors - what makes Hubbard different?
  - shard972 5y ago
    Hubbard's was a choice not a fact of nature.
  - prox 5y ago
    Yeah, so is it unfair? Simone Biles has a genetic advantage, something she probably didn’t have any control over or influence in. Hubbard does, to some extend? In Formula 1, Mercedes has dominated for the last 7 years or so. Is money their unfair advantage? Or is Hamilton just that good? It did make for a less attractive sport, if you already kind of know who will win.
  - rocqua 5y ago
    Are there any examples of this worry about "genetic freaks" in non-women categories? It seems much less relevant to me in a category where everyone can enter than one that is restricted to a subset to give that subset 'fair' competition.
    - chupasaurus 5y ago
      Aleksandr Karelin instantly comes to mind.
    - chopin 5y ago
      Not directly related to your question but we have weight classes in certain sports. This levels out at least some of genetic advantages. I always found it odd that there are not, let's say height classes for high jump. It always seemed unfair to me that I had to lift my center of mass higher than others for the same performance.
- yerwhat01010 5y ago
  > does Hubbard have an advantage so she will win 95% of the time? This graph would suggest she does: https://i.redd.it/vv4ws1848t671.jpg https://i.redd.it/vv4ws1848t671.jpg
  - dagw 5y ago
    If you read the article you'll see that Hubbard is top 10, but not top 3 in her weight class, and in no way a favorite to win. Even her scores pre-transition wouldn't guarantee her gold at the Olympics.
    - MaxBarraclough 5y ago
      To be clear, are you saying the graph is inaccurate?
      - dagw 5y ago
        I'm assuming it is accurate, it is still misleading. It makes it look like she should be breaking records and crushing the competition, when in truth she is doing neither.
        unrealhoang 5y ago
        She is crushing the competition by winning 95% of the time and got placed 4th at the age of 43, stealing the place & glory of another top-tier athlete at their peak performance. How is that not an extraordinary feat had she been a biological female? So no, there's nothing misleading about that chart, you just read it wrong.
        CRConrad 5y ago
        How many women over 40 regularly beat Hubbard?
    - unrealhoang 5y ago
      Yes, comparing a 43 years old who is in no way at the peak of their physical performance to a bunch of 20s shows the degree of unfairness. And no, Hubbard doesn't need to win gold for this to become unfair.
- stefs 5y ago
  there are athletes who might suffer from abnormal genetic mutations that might give them an advantage. the most popular example might be usain bolt who is, technically, too tall - but in combination with his abnormal muscularity ... then there is robert förstemann, a track cyclist who might suffer from a myostatin deficincy (a hormone that restricts muscle growth).
- dagw 5y ago
  does Hubbard have an advantage so she will win 95% of the time? The article suggests that she's top 10, but not top 3 in the world. She almost certainly won't win, but might get a medal (since 2 of the 3 best lifter in this category won't be competing in the Olympics for various reasons).
- nasmorn 5y ago
  Also Hubbard is old and probably not the best make weightlifter previously. So the best woman in the world will likely be beaten by someone who would under different circumstances have already retired and was never that great in the first place.
anaisbetts 5y ago
Why would having the same muscle but heavier bones as your competitors be an advantage in almost any sport?
- Supermancho 5y ago
  Increased bone density means less prone to injury and more momentum in pivots and swings/punches.
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    If it would be as simple as "having the same muscle but heavier bones" - then there would be advantages in climbing for example. But the worlds top climbers are male, too. (but the gap is in climbing seems to be smaller)
    - samatman 5y ago
      Grip strength is another easily-measured physical metric where there is practically no overlap between the bell curve for male and female humans. The applicability of higher grip strength to success in climbing is obvious, I hope.
  - CodeGlitch 5y ago
    Not only that - but look at the shape of the hip bone between men and women - the latter have wider hips to cater for child-birth. This means men have a massive advantage when running/swimming/cycling/lifting. The same applies to the arms (men have straighter arms) which obviously changes the mechanics when lifting. No amount of hormone therapy will change this.
nandhinianand 5y ago
And there's a bunch of trans people anecdotally debating it claiming things like height reduction and others. The truth trans people on (long-term) hormones have not been studied on physiological characteristics to be sure they're affected or not.

prox 5y ago

I think the core question is, does Hubbard have an advantage so she will win 95% of the time? If so, it’s not really a competition, especially if that result derives from her innate male physiology giving her an unfair advantage. We don’t allow doping either. If there is a way to level it out, that might be a solution, if it’s possible.

andyxor 5y ago
The core question is when sanity will return and men will no longer be allowed to compete against women. Hopefully the wave of opposition to this travesty will be strong enough to change the regulations. Boycott the Olympics.
- maybeOneDay 5y ago
  It's possible to be against the idea of trans women competing in female competitive sports without intentionally misgendering all trans athletes/humans.
  - memling 5y ago
    > It's possible to be against the idea of trans women competing in female competitive sports without intentionally misgendering all trans athletes/humans. Genuine question, one about which I haven't seen much in the way of conversation—although my experience is relatively limited. Why is the subjective experience of gender privileged over the objective biology of sex? I can anticipate a couple possible responses for which I'm not sure I have very clear thoughts, either—maybe someone can contribute more light than heat here? 1. Biology isn't actually all that objective: one's subjective experience is at least partially determined by biology, too. 2. We can turn the question on its head: why should objective biology be privileged over subjective experience?
    - nandhinianand 5y ago
      1. is pretty close for ex: most brain functions can be called subjective, and therefore not that relevant. 2. is relatively a trend in how civilization has been moving. The cavemen bashed a skull that seemed unfamiliar or they didn't like, we don't we try to setup a legal system and judge a sense of justice. I don't think every subjective experience should be allowed to be used over other person's choices. I guess we would need something like "your right to swing your hand stops a feet/inch from my nose" kinda principle.
      - memling 5y ago
        > 1. is pretty close for ex: most brain functions can be called subjective, and therefore not that relevant. Sorry for the delay. HN is not a great forum for long discussions (on purpose, I guess). I've been noodling on this for awhile, and so maybe just blathering into the ether. I'm not sure that subjective and irrelevant necessarily go together. I guess the argument I'm thinking of is more this: my pronoun preference is biological, so if my chromosomes disagree with my pronoun preference why should my chromosomes govern communication protocols instead of the rest of my biology? If these things are truly irrelevant, then the notion of gender identity is itself irrelevant and so, too, are pronouns, aren't they? (I mean, maybe not, but I don't see how one could say chromosomes don't matter but preferences do.) One of the real challenges gender identity raises is that it acknowledges that the body actually means something. It also implies that language means something. Mind and body go together, and when they disagree some kind of resolution is needed. Language shapes reality, so when language contradicts that resolution the reality of my existence, my very identity, is threatened or negated. If we stipulate that, I think we have to admit pronoun use really isn't neutral. It's not merely a matter of common decency and respect (although it certainly is part of that), but about what we think it means to be human and how we attempt to shape and react to reality. My own thoughts here aren't super well formed, hence my line of questioning and (perhaps poorly worded and thought out) reasoning...but I do think it bears some critical examination.
        nandhinianand 5y ago
        I think we're on the same page..I was collating subjective and irrelevant together for the sake of the parent comment. and it is quite common in the "objectivist philosophy/meta-physical" view . > Language shapes reality, Sorry I have disagree on this one. I don't think language shapes reality. It definitely shapes our perception, filters, and biases but shapes reality only in a very Probabilistic graphical model sense. And even then it shapes(as in cavemen---> civilization) reality as much as say, air shapes reality, mathematical formulae and theories shape reality . My usual stance on the gender identity debate comes along with the "freedom to swing your arm but not hit my nose" sense. In this case of weightlifting for ex: I recently saw a twitter mention comparing the same athlete before starting HRT therapy and now.(along with a co-competitor in the male category she used to compete with) It pointed out how much the gap between both the lifters progress has been because of the Hormones. Anyway, I don't have a clear stance on trans-people competing in their gender category .. I think the gender based categorization in sports has to move further, but I'm ambiguous even about how the sports laws work on even doping. So since I don't have skin-in-the-game I only try to add clarity to the discussion without taking either stance strongly.
ivanbakel 5y ago
>I think the core question is, does Hubbard have an advantage so she will win 95% of the time? If so, it’s not really a competition, especially if that result derives from her innate ... physiology giving her an unfair advantage. But this is true of lots of sports. Most recently, Simone Biles was punished by scoring judges for a gymnastic move that only she is able to perform, due to her height and musculature. "Genetic freaks" who train hard but still have an unalterable physical advantage tend to dominate any individual sport, to the detriment of their competitors - what makes Hubbard different?
- shard972 5y ago
  Hubbard's was a choice not a fact of nature.
- prox 5y ago
  Yeah, so is it unfair? Simone Biles has a genetic advantage, something she probably didn’t have any control over or influence in. Hubbard does, to some extend? In Formula 1, Mercedes has dominated for the last 7 years or so. Is money their unfair advantage? Or is Hamilton just that good? It did make for a less attractive sport, if you already kind of know who will win.
- rocqua 5y ago
  Are there any examples of this worry about "genetic freaks" in non-women categories? It seems much less relevant to me in a category where everyone can enter than one that is restricted to a subset to give that subset 'fair' competition.
  - chupasaurus 5y ago
    Aleksandr Karelin instantly comes to mind.
  - chopin 5y ago
    Not directly related to your question but we have weight classes in certain sports. This levels out at least some of genetic advantages. I always found it odd that there are not, let's say height classes for high jump. It always seemed unfair to me that I had to lift my center of mass higher than others for the same performance.
yerwhat01010 5y ago
> does Hubbard have an advantage so she will win 95% of the time? This graph would suggest she does: https://i.redd.it/vv4ws1848t671.jpg https://i.redd.it/vv4ws1848t671.jpg
- dagw 5y ago
  If you read the article you'll see that Hubbard is top 10, but not top 3 in her weight class, and in no way a favorite to win. Even her scores pre-transition wouldn't guarantee her gold at the Olympics.
  - MaxBarraclough 5y ago
    To be clear, are you saying the graph is inaccurate?
    - dagw 5y ago
      I'm assuming it is accurate, it is still misleading. It makes it look like she should be breaking records and crushing the competition, when in truth she is doing neither.
      - unrealhoang 5y ago
        She is crushing the competition by winning 95% of the time and got placed 4th at the age of 43, stealing the place & glory of another top-tier athlete at their peak performance. How is that not an extraordinary feat had she been a biological female? So no, there's nothing misleading about that chart, you just read it wrong.
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        How many women over 40 regularly beat Hubbard?
  - unrealhoang 5y ago
    Yes, comparing a 43 years old who is in no way at the peak of their physical performance to a bunch of 20s shows the degree of unfairness. And no, Hubbard doesn't need to win gold for this to become unfair.
stefs 5y ago
there are athletes who might suffer from abnormal genetic mutations that might give them an advantage. the most popular example might be usain bolt who is, technically, too tall - but in combination with his abnormal muscularity ... then there is robert förstemann, a track cyclist who might suffer from a myostatin deficincy (a hormone that restricts muscle growth).
dagw 5y ago
does Hubbard have an advantage so she will win 95% of the time? The article suggests that she's top 10, but not top 3 in the world. She almost certainly won't win, but might get a medal (since 2 of the 3 best lifter in this category won't be competing in the Olympics for various reasons).
nasmorn 5y ago
Also Hubbard is old and probably not the best make weightlifter previously. So the best woman in the world will likely be beaten by someone who would under different circumstances have already retired and was never that great in the first place.

anaisbetts 5y ago

Why would having the same muscle but heavier bones as your competitors be an advantage in almost any sport?

Supermancho 5y ago
Increased bone density means less prone to injury and more momentum in pivots and swings/punches.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  If it would be as simple as "having the same muscle but heavier bones" - then there would be advantages in climbing for example. But the worlds top climbers are male, too. (but the gap is in climbing seems to be smaller)
  - samatman 5y ago
    Grip strength is another easily-measured physical metric where there is practically no overlap between the bell curve for male and female humans. The applicability of higher grip strength to success in climbing is obvious, I hope.
- CodeGlitch 5y ago
  Not only that - but look at the shape of the hip bone between men and women - the latter have wider hips to cater for child-birth. This means men have a massive advantage when running/swimming/cycling/lifting. The same applies to the arms (men have straighter arms) which obviously changes the mechanics when lifting. No amount of hormone therapy will change this.

nandhinianand 5y ago

And there's a bunch of trans people anecdotally debating it claiming things like height reduction and others. The truth trans people on (long-term) hormones have not been studied on physiological characteristics to be sure they're affected or not.