8 ms·

Trans women have competed as women in the Olympics once ever and have 0 medals. By the numbers it's a non issue under previous rules (despite the incredible amo

by tdb7893 7mo ago

Trans women have competed as women in the Olympics once ever and have 0 medals. By the numbers it's a non issue under previous rules (despite the incredible amount of ink spilled over it). People are talking about trans women here but the vast majority of people affected by this change are women who are not trans who have a "disorder of sexual development".

deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
mothballed 7mo ago
The Olympics are looked up to by a large range of people and organization that don't actually participate in the Olympics. This goes beyond just affecting the Olympics, but setting an example for the world to follow and gives other organizations the cover and courage to follow while being able to deflect to simply setting the same standards of the Olympics.
lewdev 7mo ago
Is it fair to say that they can just compete in the men's division?
- harveychess 7mo ago
  It would not be fair, because the point of having divisions is allow women to compete in a competition that is not dominated by men.
  - bpodgursky 7mo ago
    [flagged]
  - rolymath 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    - watwut 7mo ago
      No it is not. They vote for Trump simply because they are assholes. Considering his party plans for women as such, none of them cares about women, actually
  - trickyager 7mo ago
    I think you're falling for Sticker Swap Fallacy. The goal is to have fair match-ups in sports. Gender and sex are two possible labels to use to assist with this, but they're imperfect enough that we probably ought to not use them as the primary differentiator. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/C7LcpRtrHiKJRoAEp/sticker-shortcut-fallacy-the-real-worst-argument-in-the https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/C7LcpRtrHiKJRoAEp/sticker-sh...
    - kelseyfrog 7mo ago
      The solution is simple: class every sport like boxing. Pick a sports-relevant metric and split into divisions. Some sports will naturally fall into gendered divisions, while others will have varying degrees of co-ed competition among competitors of similar ability. The way out of this is not to pick a better scissor of sex or gender, it's to pick a better scissor of ability.
      - fourseventy 7mo ago
        Dude, men are better than women at virtually every single sport. What are you talking about.
      - 2muchcoffeeman 7mo ago
        Doesn’t Boxing use weight classes?
        lbreakjai 7mo ago
        Weight classes within gender classes. Women would have no chance to compete against men of identical weight, all else equal. Men have more lean mass.
        kelseyfrog 7mo ago
        Sounds like lean mass would be the right way to structure divisions then.
  - RajT88 7mo ago
    > It would not be fair, because the point of having divisions is allow women to compete in a competition that is not dominated by men. Really, what it is is being dominated by Testosterone. Also why we ban steroid use, and many other things along the same lines. I would suggest that most Olympians - both female and male (whatever your definition) likely have a higher than normal amount of that hormone.
    - BobaFloutist 7mo ago
      Maybe we just make 100% of Olympic Athletes take E to balance things out.
- tdb7893 7mo ago
  From a biological perspective, the women being banned here are not just men and as far as I'm aware cannot realistically compete in the men's division any more than any other woman. Practically these changes bar women athletes with certain medical differences from competing in the Olympics. I'm not an expert so idk whether that's fair or not but that's what this decision is doing.
  - frumplestlatz 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    - tdb7893 7mo ago
      Like most things in biologicy, categorization is a nightmare unless you have a very specific use case in mind. In this case I'm talking about women phenotypically and socially (including self-identity) and especially athletes assigned female at birth. These women are clearly not just "males".
      - frumplestlatz 7mo ago
        As far as I understand the ontology of human phenotype, it is unchanged by use of cross-sex hormone therapy.
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
    - turtlesdown11 7mo ago
      [flagged]
  - yostrovs 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    - mikkupikku 7mo ago
      We can fix this, we have the technology. A pair of spring boots should do the trick.
- Dma54rhs 7mo ago
  For most of the sports there is no men's division - it's open for everyone.
MengerSponge 7mo ago
[flagged]
mvdtnz 7mo ago
Almost every single person on Earth is not built of the right genetic stuff to compete with male Olympic athletes, me and you included. Why do we need a carve out for one particular group because of their genetic bad luck?
- thrance 7mo ago
  Because apparently it's OK to hate on trans people, scapegoat any current issue on this particular demographics, and do everything possible to make their lives as miserable as possible.
  - mvdtnz 7mo ago
    What makes you think it's ok to hate on them? I don't think that's ok at all.
    - thrance 7mo ago
      You were asking "Why do we need a carve out for one particular group because of their genetic bad luck?". I'm telling you the reason is purely ideological: the right needs scapegoats and trans people are one of the current ones. Doesn't go further than than.
      - mlrtime 7mo ago
        The average person has 0 hate for this group. However, not wanting to bend societal rules for a very small vocal group does not equal hate. The only issue I see strong arguments here are private facilities [bathrooms] and sports. The hate you see is propaganda on both sides.
        thrance 7mo ago
        Trans people are explicitly on the receiving end of Republican's bigotry. They are constantly targeted through law and rhetoric, stripped of their rights and demonized at every occasions. Exactly like gay people were a few decades ago. The Left's position on the issue is "let them be" whilst the Right's "they shouldn't exist". https://translegislation.com/ https://translegislation.com/
canucker2016 7mo ago
The guidelines for trans female athletes for the 2024 Paris Olympics involved transitioning before the age of 12/puberty to be eligible. There's more info at https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/paris-2024-olympics-transgender-athletes-b2582038.html https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/paris-2024-olym...
- kg 7mo ago
  Incidentally, many countries/states are working hard to make it impossible to transition that early.
  - andsoitis 7mo ago
    At 12 you simply do not have sufficient capacity to make a good decision on the matter.
    - appreciatorBus 7mo ago
      [flagged]
      - Ralfp 7mo ago
        Have you considered that due to their education and research those people may know more on the subject than you do? Regret rates for transition remain notoriously low (within 2%) with main reasons for regret stated to be transitioning too late or environmental lack of acceptance or support. Besides, despite some orgs claiming there is a "transgender trend", we are just not seeing this in the data.
        AdrianB1 7mo ago
        That sounds like appeal to authority, it is classified as a fallacy.
        Ralfp 7mo ago
themgt 7mo ago
The IOC policy is specifically that athletes need to test negative for the SRY gene to be eligible to compete in the female category. Imane Khelif won gold in the 2024 Summer Olympics women's boxing event, and has since admitted to having the SRY gene. So it isn't a non-issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imane_Khelif#2026 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imane_Khelif#2026
- Philadelphia 7mo ago
  The page you link to doesn’t say that. “As of February 2026, Khelif had not described herself as intersex or as having a DSD.”
  - decimalenough 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    - fretboard 7mo ago
      [flagged]
    - space_fountain 7mo ago
      The article is saying that there are fairly credible denials no?
      - blippz 7mo ago
        [flagged]
        blks 7mo ago
        [flagged]
        blippz 7mo ago
        [flagged]
bonesss 7mo ago
> By the numbers The numbers tell the opposite story. Hierarchical and ranked sports enjoy displacement at every subsequent point from unfair entrants. By the numbers, looking just at #1-3 spots of results list where tens of thousands of subsequent entries have been improperly displaced and claiming no impact is mathematically absurd. Contextually it ignorant of how competitive sports work at a scholastic or professional level, particularly for women. In 2026 based on the number, volume, and depth of rebuttals - at the international sporting level among others - that ignorance could readily be seen as willing. LeBron James playing in your kids 16 and under basketball league, even if he promises to keep his team at or lower than 4th place, will be visible on the numbers and also peoples sentiments and desire to participate. Primates understand ‘fair’ viscerally (cucumber experiments). The intersex argument based on the ratios you are presenting also breaks the other way. Those women, as female sports mature and expand (into combat sports especially), have been excluded from female competition for number of reasons. To your point, mostly this is about safety and then fairness, the trans angle is a minority even there with less scientific or sporting grounds for inclusion in competitive divisions. [In olden days people who couldn’t make the team would participate and help with equipment, logistics, fundraising, training, or tutoring. These days you can run virtual competitions with GPS tracking, and there are a bunch of individual sports that are already tracked by large category spreadsheets, with plenty of room for more. I hope these bans help end the wasteful discussion and focus energies on collaboration and social inclusion.]

by tdb7893 7mo ago

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

mothballed 7mo ago

The Olympics are looked up to by a large range of people and organization that don't actually participate in the Olympics. This goes beyond just affecting the Olympics, but setting an example for the world to follow and gives other organizations the cover and courage to follow while being able to deflect to simply setting the same standards of the Olympics.

lewdev 7mo ago

Is it fair to say that they can just compete in the men's division?

harveychess 7mo ago
It would not be fair, because the point of having divisions is allow women to compete in a competition that is not dominated by men.
- bpodgursky 7mo ago
  [flagged]
- rolymath 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - watwut 7mo ago
    No it is not. They vote for Trump simply because they are assholes. Considering his party plans for women as such, none of them cares about women, actually
- trickyager 7mo ago
  I think you're falling for Sticker Swap Fallacy. The goal is to have fair match-ups in sports. Gender and sex are two possible labels to use to assist with this, but they're imperfect enough that we probably ought to not use them as the primary differentiator. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/C7LcpRtrHiKJRoAEp/sticker-shortcut-fallacy-the-real-worst-argument-in-the https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/C7LcpRtrHiKJRoAEp/sticker-sh...
  - kelseyfrog 7mo ago
    The solution is simple: class every sport like boxing. Pick a sports-relevant metric and split into divisions. Some sports will naturally fall into gendered divisions, while others will have varying degrees of co-ed competition among competitors of similar ability. The way out of this is not to pick a better scissor of sex or gender, it's to pick a better scissor of ability.
    - fourseventy 7mo ago
      Dude, men are better than women at virtually every single sport. What are you talking about.
    - 2muchcoffeeman 7mo ago
      Doesn’t Boxing use weight classes?
      - lbreakjai 7mo ago
        Weight classes within gender classes. Women would have no chance to compete against men of identical weight, all else equal. Men have more lean mass.
        kelseyfrog 7mo ago
        Sounds like lean mass would be the right way to structure divisions then.
- RajT88 7mo ago
  > It would not be fair, because the point of having divisions is allow women to compete in a competition that is not dominated by men. Really, what it is is being dominated by Testosterone. Also why we ban steroid use, and many other things along the same lines. I would suggest that most Olympians - both female and male (whatever your definition) likely have a higher than normal amount of that hormone.
  - BobaFloutist 7mo ago
    Maybe we just make 100% of Olympic Athletes take E to balance things out.
tdb7893 7mo ago
From a biological perspective, the women being banned here are not just men and as far as I'm aware cannot realistically compete in the men's division any more than any other woman. Practically these changes bar women athletes with certain medical differences from competing in the Olympics. I'm not an expert so idk whether that's fair or not but that's what this decision is doing.
- frumplestlatz 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - tdb7893 7mo ago
    Like most things in biologicy, categorization is a nightmare unless you have a very specific use case in mind. In this case I'm talking about women phenotypically and socially (including self-identity) and especially athletes assigned female at birth. These women are clearly not just "males".
    - frumplestlatz 7mo ago
      As far as I understand the ontology of human phenotype, it is unchanged by use of cross-sex hormone therapy.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - turtlesdown11 7mo ago
    [flagged]
- yostrovs 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - mikkupikku 7mo ago
    We can fix this, we have the technology. A pair of spring boots should do the trick.
Dma54rhs 7mo ago
For most of the sports there is no men's division - it's open for everyone.

MengerSponge 7mo ago

[flagged]

mvdtnz 7mo ago

Almost every single person on Earth is not built of the right genetic stuff to compete with male Olympic athletes, me and you included. Why do we need a carve out for one particular group because of their genetic bad luck?

thrance 7mo ago
Because apparently it's OK to hate on trans people, scapegoat any current issue on this particular demographics, and do everything possible to make their lives as miserable as possible.
- mvdtnz 7mo ago
  What makes you think it's ok to hate on them? I don't think that's ok at all.
  - thrance 7mo ago
    You were asking "Why do we need a carve out for one particular group because of their genetic bad luck?". I'm telling you the reason is purely ideological: the right needs scapegoats and trans people are one of the current ones. Doesn't go further than than.
    - mlrtime 7mo ago
      The average person has 0 hate for this group. However, not wanting to bend societal rules for a very small vocal group does not equal hate. The only issue I see strong arguments here are private facilities [bathrooms] and sports. The hate you see is propaganda on both sides.
      - thrance 7mo ago
        Trans people are explicitly on the receiving end of Republican's bigotry. They are constantly targeted through law and rhetoric, stripped of their rights and demonized at every occasions. Exactly like gay people were a few decades ago. The Left's position on the issue is "let them be" whilst the Right's "they shouldn't exist". https://translegislation.com/ https://translegislation.com/

canucker2016 7mo ago

The guidelines for trans female athletes for the 2024 Paris Olympics involved transitioning before the age of 12/puberty to be eligible. There's more info at https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/paris-2024-olympics-transgender-athletes-b2582038.html https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/paris-2024-olym...

kg 7mo ago
Incidentally, many countries/states are working hard to make it impossible to transition that early.
- andsoitis 7mo ago
  At 12 you simply do not have sufficient capacity to make a good decision on the matter.
  - appreciatorBus 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    - Ralfp 7mo ago
      Have you considered that due to their education and research those people may know more on the subject than you do? Regret rates for transition remain notoriously low (within 2%) with main reasons for regret stated to be transitioning too late or environmental lack of acceptance or support. Besides, despite some orgs claiming there is a "transgender trend", we are just not seeing this in the data.
      - AdrianB1 7mo ago
        That sounds like appeal to authority, it is classified as a fallacy.
        Ralfp 7mo ago

themgt 7mo ago

The IOC policy is specifically that athletes need to test negative for the SRY gene to be eligible to compete in the female category. Imane Khelif won gold in the 2024 Summer Olympics women's boxing event, and has since admitted to having the SRY gene. So it isn't a non-issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imane_Khelif#2026 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imane_Khelif#2026

Philadelphia 7mo ago
The page you link to doesn’t say that. “As of February 2026, Khelif had not described herself as intersex or as having a DSD.”
- decimalenough 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - fretboard 7mo ago
    [flagged]
  - space_fountain 7mo ago
    The article is saying that there are fairly credible denials no?
    - blippz 7mo ago
      [flagged]
      - blks 7mo ago
        [flagged]
        blippz 7mo ago
        [flagged]

bonesss 7mo ago

> By the numbers The numbers tell the opposite story. Hierarchical and ranked sports enjoy displacement at every subsequent point from unfair entrants. By the numbers, looking just at #1-3 spots of results list where tens of thousands of subsequent entries have been improperly displaced and claiming no impact is mathematically absurd. Contextually it ignorant of how competitive sports work at a scholastic or professional level, particularly for women. In 2026 based on the number, volume, and depth of rebuttals - at the international sporting level among others - that ignorance could readily be seen as willing. LeBron James playing in your kids 16 and under basketball league, even if he promises to keep his team at or lower than 4th place, will be visible on the numbers and also peoples sentiments and desire to participate. Primates understand ‘fair’ viscerally (cucumber experiments). The intersex argument based on the ratios you are presenting also breaks the other way. Those women, as female sports mature and expand (into combat sports especially), have been excluded from female competition for number of reasons. To your point, mostly this is about safety and then fairness, the trans angle is a minority even there with less scientific or sporting grounds for inclusion in competitive divisions. [In olden days people who couldn’t make the team would participate and help with equipment, logistics, fundraising, training, or tutoring. These days you can run virtual competitions with GPS tracking, and there are a bunch of individual sports that are already tracked by large category spreadsheets, with plenty of room for more. I hope these bans help end the wasteful discussion and focus energies on collaboration and social inclusion.]