[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog as far I can see, this boils to the following: What are the main results of sexual dimorphism in humans?

[Unthinking Majority]

So surgery/meds are OK on all other medical cases except for gender reassignment? Seems like a very arbitrary decision. The cosmetic "self-image" issues that an asymmetric face due to a cleft palate or a crooked nose should take priority over the "self-image" issues of being in the wrong gender body.

No, your reading comprehension is poor or you're purposefully misrepresenting my arguments, this is a strawman. I said that major cosmetic medical procedures like hormones, puberty blockers, genital surgery etc OR breast implants, butt implants, nose jobs etc for otherwise healthy minors without medical abnormalities or health issues (ie: car accident, burns etc, cleft palate) shouldn't allowed. Any doctor who gives an otherwise healthy minor a puberty blocker because they want it for cosmetic reasons is a nut that should have their license revoked.

Also, nobody is born in the "wrong body". What a terrible thing to say. If your gender expression is female and your body is male, that's who you are and there's nothing wrong with it. Same with having a big nose, a small butt, or small breasts etc. You are 100% healthy physically. If you're an adult and of sound mind you're free to cut up your body any way you wish.

So you don't think psychiatry is part of medicine? You don't think depression is a real disease? Anxiety? or Schizophrenia? These are all "in your head" and therefore "lesser" diseases?

I never made this claim, another strawman.

Well, that was my whole point. Chess does not involve much of what we traditionally associate with athleticism and/or masculinity. There should not be any reason what so ever for males to outperform women, yet we still see this phenomenon.

If you want to argue that trans women should be able to compete in women's sports where being biologically male doesn't give a competitive advantage (generally) I'm fine with that. Nobody cares about chess. People care if a 6'4 trans woman is slaying cis women in swimming or any other event where having male biology would give a competitive advantage.

I bolded the negative that you are asking me to prove.

Ok i'll rephrase: if you think trans women and cis women compete on an equal competitive playing field due to biology, please provide evidence for this claim.

This is just a red herring. If hormones levels is the one thing that bothers you, there are organizations such as the Olympic committees that already regulate the hormone levels.

This is a dodge, i'm not asking the opinion of the Olympics, i'm asking what your position is. So again: Do you support trans women not on hormones competing against cis women in women's events? You believe they are "real women" after all.

Same thing. There are organizations that already addressed this.

Again a dodge. You either have no problem with anyone using steroids in sports, or you do, or you don't with limits. You've already said you have no problem with steroid users within certain ranges.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog as far I can see, this boils to the following: What are the main results of sexual dimorphism in humans?

I think that depends on what it is you are trying to understand or achieve from this.

For me, it is more about the social effect of trans athletes than worrying about what definition we should use for “woman”. I think it would be best to leave it to the female directors of each female sporting organisation. Having the rules be different for each sport and level of sport makes more sense to me, since some sports would be greatly impacted by sexual dimorphism while others would not, and frankly, it does not seem to matter as much at the level most of us participate in sports: i.e. the community or amateur level.

The social impact aspect seems far more interesting, considering how huge the backlash has been despite the very few trans athletes we see competing at high levels.

[XogGyux]

No, your reading comprehension is poor or you're purposefully misrepresenting my arguments, this is a strawman. I said that major cosmetic medical procedures like hormones, puberty blockers, genital surgery etc OR breast implants, butt implants, nose jobs etc for otherwise healthy minors without medical abnormalities or health issues (ie: car accident, burns etc, cleft palate) shouldn't allowed. Any doctor who gives an otherwise healthy minor a puberty blocker because they want it for cosmetic reasons is a nut that should have their license revoked.

Also, nobody is born in the "wrong body". What a terrible thing to say. If your gender expression is female and your body is male, that's who you are and there's nothing wrong with it. Same with having a big nose, a small butt, or small breasts etc. You are 100% healthy physically. If you're an adult and of sound mind you're free to cut up your body any way you wish.

You are arbitrary making assessment of what qualifies as "healthy". Isen't a child with a weird lip healthy? Isent a girl with a crooked nose healthy? Isent a teeanger with acne "healthy"? What about a pubescent girl having her periods... isent having her periods healthy?
So you are telling me, a girl having her normal periods can have access to hormones, but a girl with a penis can't...

Nobody cares about chess.

I care about chess.

Ok i'll rephrase: if you think trans women and cis women compete on an equal competitive playing field due to biology, please provide evidence for this claim.

I have no reason to believe otherwise.

This is a dodge, i'm not asking the opinion of the Olympics, i'm asking what your position is. So again: Do you support trans women not on hormones competing against cis women in women's events? You believe they are "real women" after all.

It is not a dodge, it is the reality. Do you have a specific example or this is all hypothetical nonsense? This feels a lot like those hypotheticals of 40-year-old pedophiles putting up skirts to go into girls' bathrooms.

Again a dodge. You either have no problem with anyone using steroids in sports, or you do, or you don't with limits. You've already said you have no problem with steroid users within certain ranges.

This is not a dodge, it is merely an acknowledgment of the complexities of the situation. Only intellectually lazy people go with whatever nonsens "feels right" and almost unvariable they end up making a mess of the situation.

I think that depends on what it is you are trying to understand or achieve from this.

For me, it is more about the social effect of trans athletes than worrying about what definition we should use for “woman”. I think it would be best to leave it to the female directors of each female sporting organisation. Having the rules be different for each sport and level of sport makes more sense to me, since some sports would be greatly impacted by sexual dimorphism while others would not, and frankly, it does not seem to matter as much at the level most of us participate in sports: i.e. the community or amateur level.

The social impact aspect seems far more interesting, considering how huge the backlash has been despite the very few trans athletes we see competing at high levels.

Precisely. I agree. Society's impact on decisions like this is far greater than the relatively small impact this has in practice for actual athletes, especially when people are having so much trouble identifying and/or explaining the claimed advantages.

[Unthinking Majority]

You are arbitrary making assessment of what qualifies as "healthy". Isen't a child with a weird lip healthy? Isent a girl with a crooked nose healthy? Isent a teeanger with acne "healthy"? What about a pubescent girl having her periods... isent having her periods healthy?
So you are telling me, a girl having her normal periods can have access to hormones, but a girl with a penis can't...

So you're not making judgement calls based on ethics? So you would support a 10 year old getting cosmetic breast and boob implants?

I have no reason to believe otherwise.

What's your evidence for this "belief"?

It is not a dodge, it is the reality. Do you have a specific example or this is all hypothetical nonsense? This feels a lot like those hypotheticals of 40-year-old pedophiles putting up skirts to go into girls' bathrooms.

You again refuse to answer the question. I'm going to assume then that you refuse to answer the question because your answer will be inconvenient towards your arguments and shows the inconsistencies in your arguments. I will assume that you would not support trans women not on hormones to compete against cis women.

This is not a dodge, it is merely an acknowledgment of the complexities of the situation. Only intellectually lazy people go with whatever nonsens "feels right" and almost unvariable they end up making a mess of the situation.

There's nothing complex about healthy people taking performance enhancing drugs to gain an edge in competition. It should either be allowed, or not.

Precisely. I agree. Society's impact on decisions like this is far greater than the relatively small impact this has in practice for actual athletes, especially when people are having so much trouble identifying and/or explaining the claimed advantages.

If it can be proven through evidence/stats that trans women on hormones compete on a biologically equal competitive playing field as cis women then they should be allowed to compete with cis women. If not, they shouldn't be allowed.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Unthinking Majority

May I ask why the burden of proof should be on those who claim there is no advantage rather than on those who are claiming there is an advantage?

Since the implications of the hormones=advantage argument involve restricting freedoms, invasive medical tests, and limiting athletic careers, it seems that argument should be the one to be supported with science.

[wat0n]

I think that depends on what it is you are trying to understand or achieve from this.

For me, it is more about the social effect of trans athletes than worrying about what definition we should use for “woman”. I think it would be best to leave it to the female directors of each female sporting organisation. Having the rules be different for each sport and level of sport makes more sense to me, since some sports would be greatly impacted by sexual dimorphism while others would not, and frankly, it does not seem to matter as much at the level most of us participate in sports: i.e. the community or amateur level.

The social impact aspect seems far more interesting, considering how huge the backlash has been despite the very few trans athletes we see competing at high levels.

So you don't think there are any objectively determinable differences between the biological sexes?

We can discuss just how relevant these differences may be for professional sports later, but do you agree that there is sexual dimorphism in humans?

[Pants-of-dog]

So you don't think there are any objectively determinable differences between the biological sexes?

Yes.

Do you think that the social reaction to trans athletes is an overreaction to the very few cases we see?

We can discuss just how relevant these differences may be for professional sports later, but do you agree that there is sexual dimorphism in humans?

Yes, sexual dimorphism exists.

Why do you think people have been making so many rules to outlaw trans people from sports for so long considering the vanishingly small number of trans athletes?

[wat0n]

Yes.

Do you think that the social reaction to trans athletes is an overreaction to the very few cases we see?

That depends on how sexual dimorphism influences sports performance.

Yes, sexual dimorphism exists.

How is it expressed? Can it be objectively measured?

Why do you think people have been making so many rules to outlaw trans people from sports for so long considering the vanishingly small number of trans athletes?

I think there are 3 reasons:

1) Because of sexual dimorphism

2) Because, despite the little time trans athletes have been competing, some have had top success which naturally raises some eyebrows.

3) Because we know that top female performance in several sports would not be close to matching male performance if there were no divisions by gender. It's noticeable even in semi-pro sports, for instance Lia Thomas had ended 462nd before transitioning and competing as a female.

Note that 2) and 3) are rationally noteworthy even if sexual dimorphism doesn't actually matter in high performance sports.

4) And for some, transphobia, but this is independent of the 3 above.

[Drlee]

You know I hate the term but I have to use it. There is altogether too much woke bullshit going on here.

Someone used the term "real woman". A male to female trans is NOT a "real woman". It is someone who psychologically wants to be treated as a woman, dress like a woman and live as a woman. But this Trans person is accomplishing "her" desires through largely cosmetic procedures. It is an act.

There are those who would maintain that all gender related expression is an act and some of it is. But not all.

POD wants someone to prove to him that a formerly male weightlifter does not have an advantage over a woman who has not been allowed to use performance enhancing drugs. His position is just too silly to spend much time with. Maleness IS a performance enhancing drug. And, as I pointed out earlier WRT the rules published by one organization, a male weightlifter, one year into hormone therapy has NOT lost all of the physical advantages of being a man.

Nobody yet has answered my question. Why don't we just have transsexual as a legitimate group upon which to build athletic competition.

If I was invited to attend a women's basketball game in which a male to female trans person was playing I would decline to attend. I am far to respectful of women to watch such disrespectful (to women) event.

[Pants-of-dog]

That depends on how sexual dimorphism influences sports performance.

That is just it.

No one knows how sexual dimorphism affects sports, yet everyone is making laws about it and trying to ban people despite not knowing.

They are literally reacting without knowledge of anything to react about.

How is it expressed? Can it be objectively measured?

Those who are arguing for restrictions feel it can be. Whether or not it actually can is still unknown, as far as I can tell.

I think there are 3 reasons:

1) Because of sexual dimorphism

How does sexual dimorphism explain this over-reaction?

2) Because, despite the little time trans athletes have been competing, some have had top success which naturally raises some eyebrows.

This idea of success is a result of media bias and observer bias. Is there scientific evidence of disproportionate wins?

After all, we have had a large thread about someone getting on the Olympic team, but hardly anyone discussed it when she lost. This is a clear indication that we only focus on the very few success stories.

3) Because we know that top female performance in several sports would not be close to matching male performance if there were no divisions by gender. It's noticeable even in semi-pro sports, for instance Lia Thomas had ended 462nd before transitioning and competing as a female.

Note that 2) and 3) are rationally noteworthy even if sexual dimorphism doesn't actually matter in high performance sports.

Do we know that? because it seems like an assumption based on popular ideas about sexual dimorphism rather than science.

You seem to be taking one or two cases and generalising from these few cases.

4) And for some, transphobia, but this is independent of the 3 above.

While I have a reputation for wanting to see bigotry everywhere, this explanation also seems odd. This is because we do not see the same media attention and scrutiny against trans men. It seems targeted at trans women.

So, while I agree that transphobia is a part of it, it seems that there is another factor too.

[Drlee]

@Pants-of-dog

No one knows how sexual dimorphism affects sports, yet everyone is making laws about it and trying to ban people despite not knowing.

They are literally reacting without knowledge of anything to react about.

Nonsense. We most certainly know that stronger is better in weightlifting. We certainly know that men have a performance advantage over women in most sports. The only thing we don't know is if/how much and how quickly this advantage fades once a man decides to cosmetically change his body by chemical or other means to appear more like a woman's body.

This is why your argument is failing.

While I have a reputation for wanting to see bigotry everywhere, this explanation also seems odd. This is because we do not see the same media attention and scrutiny against trans men. It seems targeted at trans women.

Well Duh. It is science. A woman transitioning is looking to gain strength. She either does or does not. If she does then maybe she has a chance at competing. In the overwhelming number of cases and in the majority of sports she simply does not gain enough strength to compete. Add to this the fact that, as a woman, the level of performance expected of her would not be up to that of boys/men prior to transition. This is not about personalities. It is about performance.

So, while I agree that transphobia is a part of it, it seems that there is another factor too.

I hate this term "whatever-phobia". It is usually bullshit in the first place. People are not afraid of Trans people. Public opinion of them ranges from those who feel joy for them in their happier post transition lives (my position) , to those who think the entire process is sinful/unnatural to the majority who just don't care much about this at all. I have never met someone who fears a transsexual.

You make the naked assertion that "we don't know...." when we most certainly do. I note that you have yet to address the disrespectful nature of this to women's sports in general. Or addressed why a separate category is unacceptable. We have many special categories in sport already.

I mean really. A male wanting to compete with women in weightlifting? This is the hill you want to die on? Your problem is not that you see bigots everywhere (they are quite easy to find without much effort). It is that you refuse to consider that there is an opposing view...And that sometimes that opposing view will carry the day. You share in common a trait of the far right that I imagine you dislike in them. That is the conviction that people who disagree with you are bad people driven by ill intent.

In this case I bear no ill will toward Trans people. I know quite a few and consider a couple of them friends. But if I was to offer advice as a friend to one of my trans friends, I would offer this:

"I get that you want to be treated as a woman. I get that you want the world to see you as a women with no difference. And, to the extent you are able to affect a female appearance and demeanor they likely will. But you have crossed a line too soon. Maybe someday when the science is settled and the world is more comfortable with gender as a choice. But this is not about gender bending. This is about sex and physiology. So you have to find another outlet for your desire to play sports. This is something you are doing for other trans people who have to live with the dissension your personal desire is stirring up. You may no longer see yourself as a man but this time you have to take one for the team".

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog

Nonsense. We most certainly know that stronger is better in weightlifting. We certainly know that men have a performance advantage over women in most sports. The only thing we don't know is if/how much and how quickly this advantage fades once a man decides to cosmetically change his body by chemical or other means to appear more like a woman's body.

This is why your argument is failing.

No. The existing literature shows that this is not necessarily the case.

For example, it shows that the supposed advantages depend on which sport is being discussed. Some sports show no difference whatsoever while other sports show clear differences. Therefore, this one size fits all approach where all trans athletes are banned or subject to the same regulations is illogical.

Well Duh. It is science. A woman transitioning is looking to gain strength. She either does or does not. If she does then maybe she has a chance at competing. In the overwhelming number of cases and in the majority of sports she simply does not gain enough strength to compete. Add to this the fact that, as a woman, the level of performance expected of her would not be up to that of boys/men prior to transition. This is not about personalities. It is about performance.

If it were about science, then people would provide scientific evidence to corroborate their claims. At your request, I looked over the thread for such evidence and most of it showed a lack of scientific basis for these policies.

I think this reaction against trans women and not trans men is because trans women offend our sense of femininity, which is a common criticism of female athletes. It also appeals to an outmoded sense of chivalry where men want to protect women from other men.

I hate this term "whatever-phobia". It is usually bullshit in the first place. People are not afraid of Trans people. Public opinion of them ranges from those who feel joy for them in their happier post transition lives (my position) , to those who think the entire process is sinful/unnatural to the majority who just don't care much about this at all. I have never met someone who fears a transsexual.

People should not use their feelings about words as a basis for an argument.

Also, it does not mean “fear of trans people”. It means “bigotry against trans people”.

You make the naked assertion that "we don't know...." when we most certainly do. I note that you have yet to address the disrespectful nature of this to women's sports in general. Or addressed why a separate category is unacceptable. We have many special categories in sport already.

Actually, I am the only person in this thread who has actually provided evidence about how these policies impact women’s participation in sports.

Rather than protecting women and giving them space to participate in sports, these polices have the opposite effect: they exclude many women from sports.

Anyone who supports women’s athletics should oppose these policies.

I mean really. A male wanting to compete with women in weightlifting? This is the hill you want to die on? Your problem is not that you see bigots everywhere (they are quite easy to find without much effort).

Yes, I pointed out that I have that reputation.

It is that you refuse to consider that there is an opposing view...And that sometimes that opposing view will carry the day. You share in common a trait of the far right that I imagine you dislike in them. That is the conviction that people who disagree with you are bad people driven by ill intent.

Not at all. Many cases of harmful bigotry are not intentional, or more correctly, the perpetrators mean well and do not understand that their policies actually make things worse.

In this case I bear no ill will toward Trans people. I know quite a few and consider a couple of them friends. But if I was to offer advice as a friend to one of my trans friends, I would offer this:

"I get that you want to be treated as a woman. I get that you want the world to see you as a women with no difference. And, to the extent you are able to affect a female appearance and demeanor they likely will. But you have crossed a line too soon. Maybe someday when the science is settled and the world is more comfortable with gender as a choice. But this is not about gender bending. This is about sex and physiology. So you have to find another outlet for your desire to play sports. This is something you are doing for other trans people who have to live with the dissension your personal desire is stirring up. You may no longer see yourself as a man but this time you have to take one for the team".

I would offer different advice, obviously.

But from my work with trans people and female athletics, I have found that the best advice I can give is not to trans people or female athletes. It is to men. My advice to them is to stop and listen to what trans people and female athletes have to say.

[wat0n]

That is just it.

No one knows how sexual dimorphism affects sports, yet everyone is making laws about it and trying to ban people despite not knowing.

They are literally reacting without knowledge of anything to react about.

No, but we do know how it affects people on average. Or we don't?

Does sexual dimorphism affect things like muscle mass, strength, height and endurance on average?

Those who are arguing for restrictions feel it can be. Whether or not it actually can is still unknown, as far as I can tell.

So scientific findings such as the ones cited below are fake?

Size, weight and body shape

Externally, the most sexually dimorphic portions of the human body are the chest, the lower half of the face, and the area between the waist and the knees.[6][full citation needed]
Men weigh more than women.[7]
On average, men are taller than women by about 10%.[7]
On average, men have a larger waist in comparison to their hips (see waist–hip ratio) than women.
In women, the index and ring fingers tend to be either more similar in size or their index finger is slightly longer than their ring finger, whereas men's ring finger tends to be longer.[8]

Skeleton and muscular system

Skeleton

The female skeleton is generally less massive, smoother, and more delicate than the male;[9] its rib cage is more rounded and smaller, its lumbar curve greater, and a generally longer and smaller female waist results from the chest being more narrow at the base, and the pelvis generally not as high.[9]

The pelvis is, in general, different between the human female and male skeleton.[9][10] Although variations exist and there may be a degree of overlap between typically male or female traits,[9][10] the pelvis is the most dimorphic bone of the human skeleton and is therefore likely to be accurate when using it to ascertain a person's sex.[10] It differs both in overall shape and structure. The female pelvis, which is adapted for gestation and childbirth, is less high, but proportionately wider and more circular than in the male; its sacrum—the triangular bone at the upper posterior of the pelvic cavity, serving as the base of the spine—is also wider.[9] The female pelvis is tilted anteriorly, often resulting in the more sway-backed appearance.

In females, the acetabula, the concave surfaces to which the balls of the femurs attach via ligaments, are located farther apart,[11][12] which increases the distance between the most outer points of the femurs (their greater trochanters) and thus the width of the hips.[12] Female femurs are therefore more generally angled (laterally, further away from vertical).[12] This greater angle applies a larger portion of the gravitational or vertical load as valgus torque (rotational force against the knee).[12] This, combined with the female's weaker tendons and ligaments and a narrower intercondylar notch, causes increased susceptibility to injury of the ACL in female athletes.[13][14]

The pelvis of the human male is slightly narrower.[9] One hypothesis is that this makes it more optimized for walking and that the wider female pelvis is an evolutionary compromise between efficient walking and the need for successful childbirth.[15] This is termed the obstetrical dilemma.[16][17] Disagreement exists as to the strength of the hypothesis.[16][17]

Males and females do not differ in their number of ribs; both normally have twelve pairs.[18]

The following further generalizations have been made regarding male-female skeletal differences:

Males in general have denser, stronger bones, tendons, and ligaments.[9]
Female skulls and head bones differ in size and shape from the male skull, with the male mandible generally wider, larger, and squarer than the female.[9][19] In addition, males generally have a more prominent brow, an orbital with rounded border, and more greatly projecting mastoid processes.[9]
Males have a more pronounced Adam's apple or thyroid cartilage and deeper voices due to larger vocal cords.[20]
Males have larger teeth than females and a greater proportion of the tooth in males is made up of dentine, whereas females have proportionately more enamel.[21]

Muscle mass and strength

Pubertal changes in males lead to a ten times increase in testosterone. Because of this and because males go through puberty for longer, females typically have lower total muscle mass than males, and also have lower muscle mass in comparison to total body mass.[7] Males convert more of their caloric intake into muscle and expendable circulating energy reserves, while females tend to convert more into fat deposits.[22] As a consequence, men are generally physically stronger than women.[7] Research suggests that, while men have greater total muscle areas than women, the number of muscle fibers in men and women are alike. Instead of muscle fiber composition as the main reason for men's greater absolute strength, the data indicates that it is total muscle area that is responsible for this difference.[23] Men's individual muscle fibers are larger than women's, which results in their more muscular appearance. Their larger muscle fibers appear responsible for their more considerable absolute force production.[23]

The sex difference in muscle mass remains after adjusting for body weight and height.[23] Men are at least one-third stronger than women when adjusting for differences in total body mass, due to the higher male muscle-mass to body-mass ratio.[7] The greater muscle mass is reported to be due to a greater capacity for muscular hypertrophy as a result of higher levels of circulating testosterone in males.[24]

Gross measures of body strength suggest that women are approximately 50-60% as strong as men in the upper body, and 60-70% as strong in the lower body.[25] One study of muscle strength in the elbows and knees—in 45 and older males and females—found the strength of females to range from 42 to 63% of male strength.[26] Men have greater hand grip strength than women.[27][28] Differences in width of arm, thighs and calves appear during puberty.

How does sexual dimorphism explain this over-reaction?

If there is scientific research suggesting sexual dimorphism exists on average, it's not strange for many to be concerned that it may carry over to high performance athletics.

This idea of success is a result of media bias and observer bias. Is there scientific evidence of disproportionate wins?

After all, we have had a large thread about someone getting on the Olympic team, but hardly anyone discussed it when she lost. This is a clear indication that we only focus on the very few success stories.

It's not surprising, though. Winners generally get far more attention than losers.

And I say this as the person who mentioned Hubbard was disqualified.

Do we know that? because it seems like an assumption based on popular ideas about sexual dimorphism rather than science.

You seem to be taking one or two cases and generalising from these few cases.

We actually do. For instance, the women's 400m outdoor world record is held by Marita Koch at 47.6 seconds. This wouldn't pass the first round for males in the last Olympics. Same holds for other competitions from 100m up to and including 1500m.

Note that the female world records would only include MtF athletes who comply with whatever testosterone and other requirements were set by WA.

While I have a reputation for wanting to see bigotry everywhere, this explanation also seems odd. This is because we do not see the same media attention and scrutiny against trans men. It seems targeted at trans women.

So, while I agree that transphobia is a part of it, it seems that there is another factor too.

Indeed, transphobia is a minor factor here. But it's worth mentioning, because some people will insist on kicking trans people out, regardless of the evidence.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, but we do know how it affects people on average. Or we don't?

Does sexual dimorphism affect things like muscle mass, strength, height and endurance on average?

You seem to think that we do know. Is that correct? Is that what you believe? I ask because you brought up this line if questioning and I assume you are approaching a point here.

So scientific findings such as the ones cited below are fake? :?:

No.

The claim that these differences are important in all sports and at all levels of sport in terms of trans women and therefore justify restrictions on female competitors is what we have no scientific basis for.

As I said, we know sexual dimorphism exists. What we need to understand is how this impacts the topic.

If there is scientific research suggesting sexual dimorphism exists on average, it's not strange for many to be concerned that it may carry over to high performance athletics.

That explains the need for research and seeing if this problem exists.

It does not explain blanket bans, politicians refusing to accept winners, states passing laws banning students from school athletics and the amount of cultural space this debate takes up.

It's not surprising, though. Winners generally get far more attention than losers.

And I say this as the person who mentioned Hubbard was disqualified.

So you agree that this is a case of observer bias.

We actually do. For instance, the women's 400m outdoor world record is held by Marita Koch at 47.6 seconds. This wouldn't pass the first round for males in the last Olympics. Same holds for other competitions from 100m up to and including 1500m.

Note that the female world records would only include MtF athletes who comply with whatever testosterone and other requirements were set by WA.

Please note that this is a generalization based off a single case, which is exactly the type of argument that I said you were making.

This represents a single data point and we would need far more statistics to see a real trend.

Indeed, transphobia is a minor factor here. But it's worth mentioning, because some people will insist on kicking trans people out, regardless of the evidence.

Thus the case with the recent swimmer, who has satisfied all required hormone protocols and whatnot, and is still being accused of an unfair advantage.

[wat0n]

You seem to think that we do know. Is that correct? Is that what you believe? I ask because you brought up this line if questioning and I assume you are approaching a point here.

We do know these differences exist on average on aspects that would relate directly to sports performance...

No.

The claim that these differences are important in all sports and at all levels of sport in terms of trans women and therefore justify restrictions on female competitors is what we have no scientific basis for.

As I said, we know sexual dimorphism exists. What we need to understand is how this impacts the topic.

...And the only remaining thing right now is to learn if such difference exists for those in the right tail of the performance distribution (which would include professional athletes). It also depends on how you define "right tail" given the results I posted earlier comparing where would female world records rank in recent Olympic athletics events. If you really took it far, it seems there would be no females (biological or trans who comply with WA's requirements) in the right tail.

That explains the need for research and seeing if this problem exists.

It does not explain blanket bans, politicians refusing to accept winners, states passing laws banning students from school athletics and the amount of cultural space this debate takes up.

There are no blanket bans at the professional international level, though. There are testosterone requirements in some cases, and other analogous requirements in others, but that's different. This is regardless of what politicians do, since there are jurisdictions (e.g. several Autonomous Communities in Spain) where no restrictions are placed on trans athletes but self-identification.

So you agree that this is a case of observer bias.

Only to some extent. Quite evidently, who wins is a key outcome to look at in sports and therefore it's not surprising that's what many will be looking at.

Please note that this is a generalization based off a single case, which is exactly the type of argument that I said you were making.

This represents a single data point and we would need far more statistics to see a real trend.

Why? Isn't rank a relevant outcome? This holds across several athletics disciplines, I didn't bother checking beyond 1500m when I posted that, but it also holds for 5000m, 3000m steeplechase, 400m hurdles, 4x100m relay, 4x400m relay, high jump, pole vault, triple jump and javelin throw. For 10000m there is a single round (so it is the final) and here the female world record would have ended third to last, same holds for marathons, where the female WR would end around the 15th place.

The only exceptions here would be for shot put and hammer throw, where weights used for male and female competitors are different (7.26 kg for men and 4 kg for women, for both sports) so records aren't comparable. Decathlons use a point system so I don't know if those are comparable between the sex categories. Furthermore, men's javelin weighs 800g and 2.6m-2.7m long and women's javelin weighs 600g and 2.2m-2.3m long yet the WR for the latter would still not make it past the first round.

So, it does seem female world records would not generally pass the first round in several recent Olympic athletic disciplines. You can spend a while checking the Olympic results for men here and world records here.

Thus the case with the recent swimmer, who has satisfied all required hormone protocols and whatnot, and is still being accused of an unfair advantage.

Or people who may be against FtM competing in male categories. Surely you can agree that there is no scientific basis to believe they have an advantage and therefore opposition in this case would be based on being against people voluntarily competing, and being aware of whatever risks this may entail, in categories not matching their biological sex on principle?

[Pants-of-dog]

We do know these differences exist on average on aspects that would relate directly to sports performance...

...And the only remaining thing right now is to learn if such difference exists for those in the right tail of the performance distribution (which would include professional athletes). It also depends on how you define "right tail" given the results I posted earlier comparing where would female world records rank in recent Olympic athletics events. If you really took it far, it seems there would be no females (biological or trans who comply with WA's requirements) in the right tail.

Do you have any scientific evidence showing that sexual dimorphism is a significant factor in this right tail?

As far as I can tell, there is some logical speculation about significant differences but that it still needs to be verified empirically.

There are no blanket bans at the professional international level, though. There are testosterone requirements in some cases, and other analogous requirements in others, but that's different. This is regardless of what politicians do, since there are jurisdictions (e.g. several Autonomous Communities in Spain) where no restrictions are placed on trans athletes but self-identification.

This seems like minutiae that do not relate to my claim about an overreaction.

Can we assume that you agree that there is an overreaction?

Only to some extent. Quite evidently, who wins is a key outcome to look at in sports and therefore it's not surprising that's what many will be looking at.

That does not seem logical.

It would make more sense to look at overall performance and not just wins to see if the overall performance of trans women athletes is better.

If a trans woman wins 3 races, that might seem like a big deal compared to the single win of a cis woman, but it would seem far less significant if it turned out that the trans woman had competed in ten times as many races. Then the seeming advantage would disappear.

Why? Isn't rank a relevant outcome?

I did not say it was not.

Instead, I pointed out that a single win does not tell us anything since it is only a single case and does not provide enough information to show a real difference.

This holds across several athletics disciplines, I didn't bother checking beyond 1500m when I posted that, but it also holds for 5000m, 3000m steeplechase, 400m hurdles, 4x100m relay, 4x400m relay, high jump, pole vault, triple jump and javelin throw. For 10000m there is a single round (so it is the final) and here the female world record would have ended third to last, same holds for marathons, where the female WR would end around the 15th place.

The only exceptions here would be for shot put and hammer throw, where weights used for male and female competitors are different (7.26 kg for men and 4 kg for women, for both sports) so records aren't comparable. Decathlons use a point system so I don't know if those are comparable between the sex categories. Furthermore, men's javelin weighs 800g and 2.6m-2.7m long and women's javelin weighs 600g and 2.2m-2.3m long yet the WR for the latter would still not make it past the first round.

So, it does seem female world records would not generally pass the first round in several recent Olympic athletic disciplines. You can spend a while checking the Olympic results for men here and world records here.

This seems like a good start to a statistical analysis that might provide the evidence needed if you continue.

Or people who may be against FtM competing in male categories. Surely you can agree that there is no scientific basis to believe they have an advantage and therefore opposition in this case would be based on being against people voluntarily competing, and being aware of whatever risks this may entail, in categories not matching their biological sex on principle?

This seems like speculation.

Is there an example of people opposing a trans man participating in sports?

[XogGyux]

So you're not making judgement calls based on ethics? So you would support a 10 year old getting cosmetic breast and boob implants?

I don't know why this confusion.
Not supporting something, does not mean that you are in favor of banning it.
Let me give you an example. I despise alcohol, I don't drink it myself, I don't like other people drinking it either. That does not mean I would support a ban for alcohol. I despise recreational drugs, I don't use them myself, I don't like other people using them, I don't support drugs being banned either (quite controversial when i shared my thoughts a few years back).
So I don't have to support a 10 year old getting "cosmetic breast and boob implants" in order to be against banning it altogether.
Furthermore, I am not making a judgment call based on ethics. I am in fact, advocating for these rare cases to be evaluated on a case-by-case rather than just blanket banning shit. "Prohibition era" was not a more ethical time. Banning something is just a shortcut that avoids to have a real actual evaluation/debate.

What's your evidence for this "belief"?

My belief is that there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. And the evidence to support that I have not been shown any evidence for this belief is that I have not been shown any evidence.
You can play around with words all you want. You cannot prove a negative.
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences ... g%20proven.
In science, the "null" hypothesis is that there is no difference, you have to set up the conditions to find the differences.
This is basic stuff.

You again refuse to answer the question. I'm going to assume then that you refuse to answer the question because your answer will be inconvenient towards your arguments and shows the inconsistencies in your arguments. I will assume that you would not support trans women not on hormones to compete against cis women.

Well, I already told you my views on this. I have no particular desire to segregate any sports. If organizers/organizations feel the need to make some adjustments to qualifications/requirements this does not bother me much in the general sense.

There's nothing complex about healthy people taking performance enhancing drugs to gain an edge in competition. It should either be allowed, or not.

If only it was so simple. Where do you draw the line? Food is a substance that enhances performance? Are we going to regulate what kind of food the athlete is allowed to take? B-blockers are medications that are often used to threat arrhythmias, tremors, palpitations or anxiety, yet it is considered a performance enhancing substance in some sports. Are you going to ban athletes from training in "high altitude" places? What about tylenol? if you have less pain you will likely perform better? What about a massage (same explanation). If you think the world is a black/white place, you are in for a rude awakening, it is not.

If it can be proven through evidence/stats that trans women on hormones compete on a biologically equal competitive playing field as cis women then they should be allowed to compete with cis women. If not, they shouldn't be allowed.

Interesting, and you will obtain this data by preventing the participation of trans women... Seems like the same scenario of "not having evidence for marijuana beneficial effects" while at the same time banning its use and research.

You know I hate the term but I have to use it. There is altogether too much woke bullshit going on here.

Someone used the term "real woman". A male to female trans is NOT a "real woman". It is someone who psychologically wants to be treated as a woman, dress like a woman and live as a woman. But this Trans person is accomplishing "her" desires through largely cosmetic procedures. It is an act.

What makes a woman "real".?

Maleness IS a performance enhancing drug.

This is sexism at its best.

No one knows how sexual dimorphism affects sports, yet everyone is making laws about it and trying to ban people despite not knowing.

Exactly right. This is very complex and almost impossible to tease out. Larger muscle mass and stature also come at the expense of higher weight, higher drag, higher forces on joints. Both female and males olympics records have steadily come down? we blaming that on hormones as well? Is it possible that males encouraged from early age to practice masculine tasks (such as sports) gain this advantage due to purely cultural forces rather than small biological differences?

I hate this term "whatever-phobia". It is usually bullshit in the first place. People are not afraid of Trans people. Public opinion of them ranges from those who feel joy for them in their happier post transition lives (my position) , to those who think the entire process is sinful/unnatural to the majority who just don't care much about this at all. I have never met someone who fears a transsexual.

While the suffix phobia does denote fear. Its use has not actually meant fear for a very long time. Homophobia is not "fear of homo". A hydrophobic surface cannot possibly be fearful, a surface cannot feel fear. This is merely how the word is used, and that is what matter, the word definition and/or colloquial use, rather than the literally meaning of their root components.

[wat0n]

Do you have any scientific evidence showing that sexual dimorphism is a significant factor in this right tail?

As far as I can tell, there is some logical speculation about significant differences but that it still needs to be verified empirically.

Again, that depends on how you define the right tail too. It would seem there's a point where it would only consist of males for several disciplines, and since those are ranked that would mean there is a point of performance that no one competing as a female has ever reached but that several male professional athletes do.

This seems like minutiae that do not relate to my claim about an overreaction.

Can we assume that you agree that there is an overreaction?

There's an overreaction on both sides. The Spaniard laws even forbid testing or anything that is not based on the athlete's self-identification. There is also no distinction between the different competitions.

That does not seem logical.

It would make more sense to look at overall performance and not just wins to see if the overall performance of trans women athletes is better.

If a trans woman wins 3 races, that might seem like a big deal compared to the single win of a cis woman, but it would seem far less significant if it turned out that the trans woman had competed in ten times as many races. Then the seeming advantage would disappear.

I did not say it was not.

Instead, I pointed out that a single win does not tell us anything since it is only a single case and does not provide enough information to show a real difference.

You could also consider world records, for instance. I agree that wins may not be the best indicator, because the winner also depends on who competes, but world records provide a different (in many ways, richer) type of information since that's the best registered result in the competition at hand.

Ideally, one would want to have the full registry of results and go from there, since that would allow for a study of more than just who wins or top athletes. For instance, it would be interesting to be able to pool all the results from qualifiers and see what would the sex distribution of Olympians be. It's entirely possible that, if there were no categories different by sex/gender, top competitions like the Olympics would only include males in several disciplines. Surely that would be something to consider, wouldn't it?

This seems like a good start to a statistical analysis that might provide the evidence needed if you continue.

Ideally, I'd like to be able to consider where would the female WR rank in the overall results ever registered in professional sports - but I don't have that information. My comparison is still too rough and biased in favor of the female results, as the comparison is not really fair. That, and seeing what percentage of qualified Olympians would be female (defined as "respecting the IAAF/WA regulations"), by discipline, would be interesting. It would be even more interesting if the results (obviously anonymized) included the available medical information, such as the result of drug and hormone tests, of the athletes when available, but that may be overreaching.

Now that I think about it, the WA should get a team of sports statisticians to write up a report on this, and share their code and data to dispel any doubts.

This seems like speculation.

Is there an example of people opposing a trans man participating in sports?

I don't know of any, but I can imagine a very transphobic person believe that.

[Pants-of-dog]

Again, that depends on how you define the right tail too. It would seem there's a point where it would only consist of males for several disciplines, and since those are ranked that would mean there is a point of performance that no one competing as a female has ever reached but that several male professional athletes do.

When you say "right tail", are you referring to a bell curve?

If so, then you seem to be saying that the bell curve for women (in terms of athletic performance) os to the left of the male bell curve.

It is not clear if you are discussing all sports or a subset thereof.

Does this leftward shift by female athletes justify the ongoing overreaction to trans women athletes.

There's an overreaction on both sides. The Spaniard laws even forbid testing or anything that is not based on the athlete's self-identification. There is also no distinction between the different competitions.

How is this an overreaction? Are athletes being banned? Are they being forced to take invasive medical examinations? Are states passing laws?

For all we know, Spain only has two or three trans female athletes and this lack of reaction makes sense since there is no impact.

You could also consider world records, for instance. I agree that wins may not be the best indicator, because the winner also depends on who competes, but world records provide a different (in many ways, richer) type of information since that's the best registered result in the competition at hand.

Sure. As soon as a trans athlete starts beating world records, you could begin to accumulate data that may eventually justify the ongoing overreaction.

From what I understand, Ms. Thomas did not beat the record attained by the woman who came in second in the now infamous race.

Ideally, one would want to have the full registry of results and go from there, since that would allow for a study of more than just who wins or top athletes. For instance, it would be interesting to be able to pool all the results from qualifiers and see what would the sex distribution of Olympians be. It's entirely possible that, if there were no categories different by sex/gender, top competitions like the Olympics would only include males in several disciplines. Surely that would be something to consider, wouldn't it?

How would this explain the overreaction?

Or are you discussing possible methodologies that could provide the data needed to support the sexual dimorphism claim.

Ideally, I'd like to be able to consider where would the female WR rank in the overall results ever registered in professional sports - but I don't have that information. My comparison is still too rough and biased in favor of the female results, as the comparison is not really fair. That, and seeing what percentage of qualified Olympians would be female (defined as "respecting the IAAF/WA regulations"), by discipline, would be interesting. It would be even more interesting if the results (obviously anonymized) included the available medical information, such as the result of drug and hormone tests, of the athletes when available, but that may be overreaching.

Now that I think about it, the WA should get a team of sports statisticians to write up a report on this, and share their code and data to dispel any doubts.

And I would like some sort of sociological study that examines the underlying cultural causes for the ongoing overreaction to trans women.

Some has been done, showing how Cold War paranoia linked accusations against Eastern European athletes in the post war era.

It would therefore not surprise me to see that racism is one of the reasons why women of colour are targeted now.

I don't know of any, but I can imagine a very transphobic person believe that.

Yeah, I could not find any examples either. This makes me think that the transphobia is being expressed in a different way, one that is more socially acceptable.