Trans athletes make great gains, yet resentment still flares (1 Viewer)

Mr. Sparkle

Disrespectful to dirt
Joined
Mar 5, 2002
Messages
12,446
Reaction score
11,364
Offline
Sticky Post
Across the U.S. and in many places abroad, transgender athletes are breaking barriers in high school, college and pro sports and being embraced by teammates and fans. But resentments can still flare when transgender women start winning and dominating their sport.

Exhibit A is a recent public exchange involving tennis great Martina Navratilova, who came out as a lesbian in 1981 and is a longtime gay-rights activist. She now stands accused of being “transphobic” after asserting that many transgender women — even if they’ve undergone hormone treatment — have an unfair advantage over other female competitors.

“A man can decide to be female, take hormones if required by whatever sporting organization is concerned, win everything in sight and perhaps earn a small fortune, and then reverse his decision and go back to making babies if he so desires,” Navratilova wrote in a Feb. 17 op-ed for The Sunday Times of London. “It’s insane and it’s cheating.”


I find the headline and overall tone of the story to be a classic example of media bias but its an interesting phenomenon.

If my teenage daughter was competing against a teenage boy undergoing hormone therapy I'm not sure I'd consider that a fair competition. I consider that a good faith question that has to do with biology, not "transphobic resentment."

112352
 

DaveXA

I love the Lord!
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Sep 6, 2001
Messages
36,322
Reaction score
24,526
Age
50
Location
Vienna, VA via Lafayette
Offline
Just for fun...for the following sports, if you eliminated gender related sports and allowed all genders to compete for one competitive league, what percentage of those with an XX chromosome of inheritance would make up the following sports:

- Professional football
- Professional basketball
- Professional baseball
- Professional tennis
- Professional golf
- Professional hock
- Professional volleyball
- Professional swimming
- Professional gymnastics
- Professional boxing
- Professional MMA

I'll let someone else list their predictions before I post my own.

- Professional football - 0
- Professional basketball - 0
- Professional baseball - 0.01%
- Professional tennis - 0.5%
- Professional golf - 1.0%
- Professional hock - 0.5%
- Professional volleyball - 1.0%
- Professional swimming - 1.0%
- Professional gymnastics - 5%
- Professional boxing - 0
- Professional MMA - 0

That's probably where we're at currently. In 5-10 years, those percentages could possibly increase. The only reason gymnastics is a bit higher is because women probably would hold their own in the balance beam. But the others requiring far more strength than the balance beam the men would dominate.

I think a lot of people would say a high percentage would be able to compete in tennis, but I don't think the best female would crack the top 30 on the men's side. They're just that much stronger and faster.
 

SystemShock

uh yu ka t'ann
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
13,116
Reaction score
18,557
Location
Xibalba
Online
Higher than you think at least with pitchers. You ever try to throw a softball underhanded with speed and accuracy? It's very much so a skill that most boys will not have. I coached girls softball with a guy who pitched for an SEC baseball team. He tried to throw a softball underhanded with speed and accuracy and he couldn't do it as well as the girls on the team.

Did he try once? A couple of times?

Come on, man.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2004
Messages
4,512
Reaction score
4,600
Location
Ocean Springs, Ms
Offline
i'll just assume that some of y'all were on the playground competing against other robust boys during logical fallacies class
You're comparing male athletes from the 50's to female athletes of today and claim my logic is flawed? Why not compare women from the 50's to men from the 50's & women of today to men of today?
 

St. Widge

Socially Distant
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Messages
38,040
Reaction score
22,257
Age
49
Location
4th Ward Soldier
Offline
Did he tried it once? A couple of times?

Come on, man.

Why the hostility and condescending attitude all the time?

And yes, he tried it many times. He wanted to teach his daughter how to pitch underhanded but at least during that season he never could.
 

SystemShock

uh yu ka t'ann
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
13,116
Reaction score
18,557
Location
Xibalba
Online
Why the hostility and condescending attitude all the time?

And yes, he tried it many times. He wanted to teach his daughter how to pitch underhanded but at least during that season he never could.

There is no hostility, or condescension, but you saying underhanded pitching is a female skill, it is a huge stretch.

It's very much so a skill that most boys will not have.
 

St. Widge

Socially Distant
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Messages
38,040
Reaction score
22,257
Age
49
Location
4th Ward Soldier
Offline
There is no hostility, or condescension, but you saying underhanded pitching is a female skill, it is a huge stretch.

I didn't say it was a female skill. My point was that sometimes hard work and skill mean more than physical advantages. I never said it was a skill she had because she is a girl.
 

guidomerkinsrules

W H A T E V I R
VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
63,506
Reaction score
105,892
Location
by the cemeteries
Online
You're comparing male athletes from the 50's to female athletes of today and claim my logic is flawed? Why not compare women from the 50's to men from the 50's & women of today to men of today?
i was adding information that had already been discussed
and that's why i added the 'both sides' thing since there is clearly nothing definitive to conclude
but it does seem to indicate that something is going on aside from 'just' biology (i doubt we have changed that much biologically in 70 years)
 

SystemShock

uh yu ka t'ann
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
13,116
Reaction score
18,557
Location
Xibalba
Online
I didn't say it was a female skill. My point was that sometimes hard work and skill mean more than physical advantages. I never said it was a skill she had because she is a girl.
The way you framed your anecdote, it didn't sound skilled vs unskilled, but XX vs XY: "it's very much so a skill that most boys will not have".

And the argument is not skilled vs unskilled, but skilled vs skilled.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2004
Messages
4,512
Reaction score
4,600
Location
Ocean Springs, Ms
Offline
I think you missed my point or I didn't make it well enough. My point was that why is it that we are okay with that girl being that good and we don't think of that as unfair, but we would think of it as unfair if that girl happened to have been born a boy. .

Because

...sports naturally take advantage of the physical characteristics and superiority that men have.

I also think you overestimate the physical differences between boys and girls at ages 10 - 12. By high school sure, there are huge differences but not so much when they are younger. And, I think there are some positions and sports where men's brute force and size advantages don't mean as much and can be made up for by women's greater ability to multitask and withstand pain.
I've never said anything about lower level, elementary or middle-school aged competition, so I'm not sure why you think I'm overestimating it. There are plenty of girls that play coed at that level, but as you say, at the high school level when boys begin to hit puberty, the differences change very drastically. It's also the reason sports like football, basketball & baseball have JV teams. Not necessarily because those kids don't have the potential the others have, but because a lot of times they have not developed enough physically in order to compete. A small example: I have what looks like permanent scars across my back. They're actually stretch marks from where I grew so much over one summer that my skin couldn't keep up. I agree with your last point & if you look at my response to Sammyknight I think it reflects that, but there are more inherent advantages to being male than just size and brute strength. Some of that can be overcome as well. We don't totally disagree on everything here. I just don't agree with sacrificing someone who would otherwise be able to compete for the sake of someone who has the inherent advantages of being born a male.

Regardless, I think the main point being missed here is that with trans girls, we aren't just talking about letting a boy play against girls. We are talking about people who are in transition and both limiting the amount of testosterone they produce and taking female hormones. At a certain point, discussed in the articles posted by Optimus Prime, that gets rid of the advantage that testosterone gives men. And, in the long run might leave a trans girl with a larger frame and heavier bones, but without the testosterone necessary to put enough muscle on that frame to be competitive without actually working harder than the women who were born women. So, it's unclear that in reality there is any competitive advantage for trans women if we make sure it is actually a trans woman competing and not someone who has much higher testosterone levels.
Yes, but at what point? We thought we knew, but now it appears we were wrong. How long before we get it right or do we ever? Is it really possible to totally get rid of the advantages? Do we know for a fact that trans women would have to work harder to build muscle? What happens to the muscle and frame they've already built while still having those advantages? What about the bone structure itself, reflexes, hand-eye coordination, lung capacity?

Look at it from the perspective of the white privilege argument and lets just call it male privilege. A trans girl doesn't just lose all male privilege when she transitions because she was born a boy with inherent genetic & physical attributes of a boy & developed as a boy up until the point of full transition. And even then, there are a good portion of those attributes & genetics that can't just be given back.

And, again, it's not like there is some huge number of trans women wanting to play womens' sports. It's a small number and it's not the straw man argument of a bunch of dudes just deciding to call themselves women and play womens' sports. And, even if that did happen, it would be pretty easy to weed them out the same way that we do drug testing for performance enhancing substances.
No, it's not a big number, but it's certainly a growing number and with the increasing percentage of young kids coming out as trans those numbers will continue to grow.
And, by the way, the idea that boys can be trained to throw underhand softball but aren't kind of brings of the question of how much of the current physical differences between men and women is based on the lack of training women receive in sports and the type of training they are given as opposed to men. Also, I suspect that some of it has to do with natural selection in that the strongest, biggest, and best female athletes weren't always the most likely to pass on their genes until more recent times.
I think you know the answer to the first question. It's not much different than guido trying to make an even comparison of men from the 50's to women of today. You said yourself that men are physically superior (in general) to women and even though there are certainly outliers, when faced on a level playing field men are indeed superior as athletes. I agree with your last point that some of it has to do with natural selection, but then we're talking about thousands of years of selection & development. That's not just something that we can change overnight and/or ignore.
 

Infoman

You're a Towel!
Joined
Jul 9, 2001
Messages
15,221
Reaction score
14,612
Location
Funky Town
Offline
The argument is:

Do elevated levels of Testosterone and/or inherit similar male biological hormones, and the physical development they spur from the onset of puberty... Give biological males a (far and away large percentage) competitive advantage over biological females in nearly every case from a physical standpoint?

If they don't produce a competitive advantage... Then the same should hold true in the realm of biological male/male and female/female competition... And all forms of Testosterone and hormone-based performance enhancing drugs/substances/treatments should be made legal/available and promoted for use in all cases of competition...

But since we know that's obviously not the case... This discussion is devolving into ideological differences, and not logical deduction or actual biological fact.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2004
Messages
4,512
Reaction score
4,600
Location
Ocean Springs, Ms
Offline
i was adding information that had already been discussed
and that's why i added the 'both sides' thing since there is clearly nothing definitive to conclude
but it does seem to indicate that something is going on aside from 'just' biology (i doubt we have changed that much biologically in 70 years)
It certainly does, like incredible advances in medicine, training practices, diet, training facilities, coaching, attitudes towards athletics as a career and/or scholarship opportunities, equipment, clothing & protective gear, surface conditions, increase in popularity & competition, larger populations & greater pools of talent, better ways of identifying & targeting talent, the list goes on... That's why it's a fallacy to try to compare someone from the 50's to someone of today.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 30, 2011
Messages
13,662
Reaction score
22,536
Online
The argument is:

Do elevated levels of Testosterone and/or inherit similar male biological hormones, and the physical development they spur from the onset of puberty... Give biological males a (far and away large percentage) competitive advantage over biological females in nearly every case from a physical standpoint?

If they don't produce a competitive advantage... Then the same should hold true in the realm of biological male/male and female/female competition... And all forms of Testosterone and hormone-based performance enhancing drugs/substances/treatments should be made legal/available and promoted for use in all cases of competition...

But since we know that's obviously not the case... This discussion is devolving into ideological differences, and not logical deduction or actual biological fact.

Id prefer to have my girls not feel like they would have to use anabolic steroids in order to compete for a college scholarship. Are we really going to encourage potential dangerous exogenous treatments to level the playing fields so that they can compete against transgender athletes? I’m 100% for compassion for everyone...but this just seems irresponsible.
 

Saint_Ward

Don't be a Jerk.
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
47,676
Reaction score
41,773
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
we did a bit of comparison at the beginning of the thread
World Class female athletes today are about where the men were in the 50s
- unsurprisingly, 'both sides' seemed to think that supported their positions
It was an aside. I made my overall position clear in my much longer post. If you want to have a discussion about it, feel free.
 
Joined
May 30, 2011
Messages
13,662
Reaction score
22,536
Online
I find sports performance fascinating and have done some research of the topic. For those interest in a different strategy of bracketing youth sports other than by age, I'd recommend reading the following article: https://www.researchgate.net/public...uth_Sports_Background_Concept_and_Application

Essentially, biobanding is a term that categorizes youth athletes by maturity level instead of age. So, those that are physiologically and anatomically men, play against men...not boys. The challenge is that it is a little bit creepy. You have to inspect the athletes Tanner Stage. Which for those that don't know...you are looking at this genitalia and other more private parts. But their finding are very interest, though I'm not sure if people would be willing to comply. Perhaps there is a way to standardize physical maturation to correct for gender differences. For instance...an individual that is XY with a Tanner Stage of A equals an XX individual with a Tanner Stage of B. I think that it COULD be done. But yes, it would be creepy and invade privacy, and I don't think that many parents/athletes would/could comply.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2004
Messages
4,512
Reaction score
4,600
Location
Ocean Springs, Ms
Offline
Id prefer to have my girls not feel like they would have to use anabolic steroids in order to compete for a college scholarship. Are we really going to encourage potential dangerous exogenous treatments to level the playing fields so that they can compete against transgender athletes? I’m 100% for compassion for everyone...but this just seems irresponsible.
He wasn't advocating for it. He's using sarcasm to make his point. Hence the "but since we know that's not the case..." Basically if you're going to go to the extreme of denying or ignoring inherent advantages of biological males then you should have no problems with allowing everyone the same advantages, as in performance enhancing drugs, as well.

It's dealing in extremes which I try to shy away from, but I get the point.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

 

New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

 

Headlines

Top Bottom