Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jipehog]

For other sports any advantage is even less detectable.  There are, in fact, physical advantages to being a woman. 

Yes, that is why I said that "further research to figure out what fields are comparable or come up with different classifications that would be fair for everyone".

Otherwise you should be mindful about the balance between faith and railguns when claiming facts, especially in new field with a lot of political interest in it. Science tend to be shaped by systematic research not headlines.

[Rolan7]

There... has been research, it found insignificant advantage in nearly every metrics
I cited a story about it?
That's not the same as "they didn't find that men are superior yet, but we're still looking".  That would be a highly unscientific conclusion to draw from the actual data.

Anyway in the meantime we're going ahead with institutional anti-trans rules because the data never actually mattered.  Is was naive to think decision-makers were asking for it in good faith.  People feel women can't compete (I wonder why) and must be "protected" from equality.  Like they were protected from having jobs, or voting, or bodily autonomy.  It's paternalism, still misogyny but extra-insidious.

[EuchreJack]

For other sports any advantage is even less detectable.  There are, in fact, physical advantages to being a woman. 

Yes, that is why I said that "further research to figure out what fields are comparable or come up with different classifications that would be fair for everyone".

Otherwise you should be mindful about the balance between faith and railguns when claiming facts, especially in new field with a lot of political interest in it. Science tend to be shaped by systematic research not headlines.

You're burden shifting.
Putting the burden on Trans to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that in no way does them being Trans give them any advantage whatsoever.
You don't see how that is unfair?

Why not reverse it?
Why not "And Trans should be allowed as human beings with equal rights and equal protections, unless and until it is scientifically proven to a reasonable scientific consensus that Trans enjoy an unfair advantage necessitating that their rights to their own identity should be invaded in the interests of fair competition?"

[Maximum Spin]

For purposes of this post I will use "male" and "female" to refer to gonadal sex as a biologist would, to avoid confusion, rather than words like "men" and "women", except in the context of the phrase "womens' teams" because that's what they're currently called.
Extensive research has demonstrated a staggering, huge difference between males and females - that is, male advantage - in most kinds of athletic performance. The strongest difference is in upper body strength, but females have ~20% less lower body strength on average as well. An important factor I also don't often see mentioned is that the female hip structure, in order to accommodate childbirth, is less efficient for walking and running by a surprising margin. However, there does seem to be a difference in liver metabolism, which doesn't look like it's been studied very much, which seems to make the curve flip in ultramarathons where energy storage becomes more important than physical ability. Still, that's not what most people typically think of as an athletic advantage, and it doesn't apply in any of the cases I have ever heard people arguing about. Even amateur sports teams of boys under 18 regularly beat professional women's teams in matches - I hear this is often done in soccer, like this example: https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/a-dallas-fc-under-15-boys-squad-beat-the-u-s-womens-national-team-in-a-scrimmage/

See for example:
https://law.duke.edu/sports/sex-sport/comparative-athletic-performance/
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00235103
https://journals.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/jappl.1991.71.2.644
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17186303/

I've also heard completely unsourced claims that female joints are more flexible, supposedly giving female athletes certain advantages, but this appears to be a complete lie, since joint injuries are far more common in women than men: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/the-gender-gap-in-sports-injuries-201512038708 ; the reason for this seems to be that female joints are indeed less stable, meaning they move more easily, but not more flexible, meaning they can't accommodate this greater range of motion without injury. Joints may also become more flexible during pregnancy, so that the pelvis can expand; but I don't know of any studies testing how this applies to athletics, and I'm unclear on whether it actually means a reduced injury rate either, or just a wider range of motion.

There have been occasional "studies" by "researchers" that claim to find things that literally every middle school gym teacher knows aren't true - that there's no performance advantage between males and females - but this is absolutely not the scientific consensus, and these studies just don't replicate, because they're not real. Parapsychologists keep churning out studies finding evidence for psychic powers, too. It's motivated reasoning.

Why not "And Trans should be allowed as human beings with equal rights and equal protections, unless and until it is scientifically proven to a reasonable scientific consensus that Trans enjoy an unfair advantage necessitating that their rights to their own identity should be invaded in the interests of fair competition?"

Well, it has been. Also, what is a "right to one's own identity"? That's a silly concept. Would you be okay with keeping the same structure, but renaming it to "genetically male" and "genetically female"?

[Maximum Spin]

Oops, hit quote instead of modify (probably mafia game instinct). Meant to add:
ETA: By the way, it's been proven that at least the majority of these differences exist before puberty and are unrelated to testosterone and other hormones.

[Starver]

I'm anti cycling races, such a dumb sport they all stay in peloton until the last straight, and for that everybody needs to be bothered with roads closed off? Sit them on stationary bikes, measure their times and tape their mouths shut! At least there will be some variation in the ranking that way.

Not all cycle events are like that. I can point you at almost 300 competitors who will be riding in nine different events across thebcountry, tomorrow, at distances from 10 to 50 miles (and more on Sunday, including at least one of 100 miles) where there'll be no group riding. In fact, that's against the rules[1]. And no need for closed roads. And there'll be more participations than that sample, but I'd need to dig about a bit for what else is on. Then there's Audax/Randoneurs and general leisure cycling which I suspect motorists will notice far more (and complain about the MAMILs, probably, causing more perceived obstruction by not racing).


But this is a secondary issue. (And a "rogue promoter" might be in difficulty. It's possible to run things not under the respective umbrella organisation's rules... and likely some do ...but they might be in trouble if (e.g.) their insurance liability needs to be tested after not running officially/properly sanctioned events. In the case of "peloton" events, they also need explicit police permission, who may or may not require the involvement of BC.)


The 'technicalities' of the change in approach insofar as LGBT+ are already being discussed, I see. But, having sparked the diversion into a totally different discriminatory territory, I can at least try to remove common misconceptions regarding cycle racing on the road. (In Britain, at least... There are both more and less cycle-friendly countries, where the balance and type of competition will differ greatly).

But also you (@dragdeler) have sort of landed on the a very real sport, excepting the part about effectively suffocating the riders. Not so common, at present, but I think I know of a village hall back room with such a four-roller 'clock' kit in it, that might need no more than a good oil (maybe also replace some perished rubber belts, though).


[1] Except for certain events, which none of those are. Or perhaps in the case the eight riders who will be riding the four tandems, where it would be mechanically impossible not to ride together.

[alway]

And here we see examples of why transphobia and misogyny are the Spiderman pointing meme. Anyway, it's no surprise why bills taking away trans folks' bodily autonomy go hand in hand with bills taking away women's bodily autonomy, and are passed by the same fascists. There's no real interest in "protecting women" any more than there is interest in "protecting women" from having jobs or from black people or from immigrants or from engaging in politics. It's all about reinforcing supremacist notions and status quo hierarchies. Apply transphobia to that, and well, you get this! Trans people being repeatedly misgendered by proxy. Trans women being vilified (if you assume men are strictly superior, anyone who willingly is a woman must have ulterior motives and is suspect). Trans men are ignored and patronized as victims (oh those poor inferior women who have been misled into thinking they can be something better than they are; what an admirable notion, but ultimately confused). And nonbinary folks either lumped into one of these categories or otherwise denied to exist. Our autonomy is taken away simply because cis people find us inconvenient, that our existence might somehow impinge upon them pretending we aren't people deserving to exist in public like anyone else and engage in activities like anyone else. If you can't bother to afford us basic human dignity, why the fuck are yall cis people even in this thread?

[Maximum Spin]

And here we see examples of why transphobia and misogyny are the Spiderman pointing meme. Anyway, it's no surprise why bills taking away trans folks' bodily autonomy go hand in hand with bills taking away women's bodily autonomy, and are passed by the same fascists. There's no real interest in "protecting women" any more than there is interest in "protecting women" from having jobs or from black people or from immigrants or from engaging in politics. It's all about reinforcing supremacist notions and status quo hierarchies. Apply transphobia to that, and well, you get this! Trans people being repeatedly misgendered by proxy. Trans women being vilified (if you assume men are strictly superior, anyone who willingly is a woman must have ulterior motives and is suspect). Trans men are ignored and patronized as victims (oh those poor inferior women who have been misled into thinking they can be something better than they are; what an admirable notion, but ultimately confused). And nonbinary folks either lumped into one of these categories or otherwise denied to exist. Our autonomy is taken away simply because cis people find us inconvenient, that our existence might somehow impinge upon them pretending we aren't people deserving to exist in public like anyone else and engage in activities like anyone else. If you can't bother to afford us basic human dignity, why the fuck are yall cis people even in this thread?

I am deeply concerned if you think athletic performance is evidence of absolute "superiority". That's an incredibly sexist, racist, and generally offensive notion, even if you only hold it to make accusations at other people.

[Vector]

I am unbelievably pissed that once again, the LGBTQ+ thread is being used as a "but is it even possible to integrate them into normal society???" thread. Fuck all y'all.

[Maximum Spin]

I am unbelievably pissed that once again, the LGBTQ+ thread is being used as a "but is it even possible to integrate them into normal society???" thread. Fuck all y'all.

I can't speak for everyone, but I don't think anyone here thinks that's impossible or even hard.

[Starver]

Sorry for sparking that. It was intended as thread-relevent news, knowing that the full gamut of reasons/implications have already been gone over becore now in this very thread (or one very like it?). Which is why I didn't feel bad to take my next post completely away from that aspect, in dealing instead with the anti-cycling issue (in jest? ...not sure, but I treated it as serious or misguided).


Anyway, it's "elite" competition. Which generally features the best of whatever category. But women are under-represented (as with many sports) and trans individuals are even rarer so more likely to see outliers/underliers that either persuade you that the elite-level trans individual (who was decent as a male, and dedicated enough to continue even while transitioning) has an apparent advantage or (when an amateur, not outstanding beforehand and it's not the competing but the taking part that drives their attempted continued participation) is clearly not as good as their adopted class's 'mainstream' participants.

My main worry is that it puts people off. Yes, possibly some AFAB women might get put off by a trans opponent[1]. But how to balance that against the trans opponent having to directly compete with AMAB men, which must be much more offputting, on aggregate. And some people just are in a league of their own, and may just happen to also be trans to confound the issue or suggest false advantages.

Squaring that circle is gonna be a delicate process. I think the UCI were wrong in their handling, and if that made BC switch to being wrong then I've got to hope that it doesn't create further ham-fistedness beyond them. (And we can look to the athletics and swimming worlds for other zipping/unzipping of considerations that might not be right.)


...but that's just retreading already covered territory. Only restating my own mostly ambivalent position to make this not a puff-piece for either extreme opinion.


[1] For both trans-directions, technically.

[Strongpoint]

Ah, but the cycling rule that allowed trans athletes did in fact have testing and rules regarding hormone levels.
That is being Abandoned in favor of a "No Trans Allowed" rule.

Frankly speaking, it is absolutely within the rights of the sports association. I personally don't mind if transwomen with low hormone levels will be allowed because, while they undoubtedly have an advantage, this advantage doesn't prevent meaningful competition. But what I don't mind is actually unimportant, what athletes and audiences of a particular sport want is what matters. Note: athletes and audiences, - not a small minority.


The right to compete in a particular league or competition IS NOT a basic human right, sorry. It just isn't. Minorities should be guaranteed basic rights and proportional political power, not getting every wish fulfilled.

[Starver]

But what I don't mind is actually unimportant, what athletes and audiences of a particular sport want is what matters. Note: athletes and audiences, - not a small minority.

From my understanding, it isn't a grass-roots will. Certainly not the 'audience', which only has a "vote with its feet" influence, but are basically as likely to have any opinion as the general population (TERFs to 'FERT's, and everything between). I've heard a nearly full range from competitors/organisers/their representatives too. Caution, naturally, but also significant support for reasonable inclusion. It was under the air of inclusion that my cycling governing body was given freedom to mirror BC[1]


It seems to be a top-down edict (from UCI, which has cascaded and toppled more dominoes as it has entered BC's top-down structure) where any accomodations that there were have now been snatched back. And one that 'helps' a few occasional cis competitors (who might or might not find that they're competing against a trans one who might or might not even be a competative threat), yet hurts nigh-on 100% of trans competitors.

Add to that any related safeguarding issues (up to and including whoever they race against, are they also put into the matching facilities?) and there's the risk that you're just going to make it not worth the bother, to put it mildly. A more nuanced and inclusive situation (as was, at least in British Cycling) might not be perfect, but it'll be better than battening down the hatches in a regressive manner.

The alternative is further segregation and/or using a ariation of the system used for classifying paracyclists (intended to level the playing field, albeit a very much smaller playing field, but with a distinctly different flavour to the context of being inclusive for those with disabilities).


It's not so much wish-fulfillment as not having unnecessary roadblocks set up (to add to all the other problems that a person might be having where the organisation concerned has no hand in easing the situation or otherwise).


[1] A rule change was voted on, by representatives. On the following advice:

In the light of the recent well publicised decisions of British Cycling and UCI as to the requirements for a transgender cyclist to be permitted to compete and the potential need for a revision and/or a decision on eligibility to be made at short notice [...some lengthy procedural language here...] it may be imperative to act swiftly to implement changes in our policies to bring them into line with those of other National Governing Bodies.

[EuchreJack]

I am unbelievably pissed that once again, the LGBTQ+ thread is being used as a "but is it even possible to integrate them into normal society???" thread. Fuck all y'all.

Sports are always going to be a tough nut to crack.
They're still segregated by gender.

A change in the rules in case anyone here is into cycle-racing in the UK.

(Though BC doesn't control all cycle-sport here, much as they like to make everyone think so. I know that at least one other governing body is in a position to quickly synchonise with BC/UCI rulings if it chooses to, quicker than it originally did to become permissive, but I'm not sure if it will tend to go back to dismissive again so automatically. It certainly ought to wait until the end of the season, though, even if the board thinks it must. And then there's time to go to the membership.)

Going back to this particular example, it might help to explain, in the simplest possible terms, why this is bad.
Emily Bridges identifies as female.
She was unfortunately not born as such.
She has done everything in her power to fix that, to the point that her hormone levels read 'Woman".
Under the old rules, she could participate in the league that matched her gender.
Under the rule change, she must Abandon her gender and fake the gender she was assigned at birth, or not participate.

[Maximum Spin]

They're still segregated by gender.

They're segregated by sex. That isn't the same thing.
Historically, the decision was made to extend extra protection to sporting activities for female persons, who cannot compete at the same level as males in the vast majority of popular sports, and whose separate sports leagues rarely had enough interest to really justify the expense of running them, so that many sporting opportunities at the time were available only to males. If we still wish to guarantee equality of opportunity to female athletes, specifically, and not just as a side effect of their being the majority of 'women athletes', then some kind of accommodation still has to be made. In general, I don't see why anyone would think it would be wrong to support female athletes too. The problem seems to be the use of the dated terminology 'women's sports', which was understood to refer to female athletes.

I would also like to express a second time, just to be clear, that... well, first, "hormone levels read[ing] 'woman'" isn't really a thing. Hormones don't work like that. But second, more importantly, hormone levels are not significant to the difference in athletic performance, which is caused by gross skeletomuscular structural differences that cannot ever be changed.