Trans athletes make great gains, yet resentment still flares (6 Viewers)

[Arathrael]

I guess you never played any sort of competitive sport in your life.

You guessed wrong.

I did reasonably well in reading comprehension too, which is maybe why I'm able to tell the difference between "a male undergoing hormone therapy" and "a male".

and neither did they.

That'd be wrong too. In at least some of the literature reviewed, the author's interest stems in part from their own competitive athletic experiences.

 

[SystemShock]

You guessed wrong.

Sorry, I can't believe anyone who says what you say actually competed in competitive sports, especially contact sports.

I did reasonably well in reading comprehension too, which is maybe why I'm able to tell the difference between "a male undergoing hormone therapy" and "a male".

Oh, sassy...

That'd be wrong too. In at least some of the literature reviewed, the author's interest stems in part from their own competitive athletic experiences.

I bet.

 

[Arathrael]

Sorry, I can't believe anyone who says what you say actually competed in competitive sports, especially contact sports.

What is it you think I'm saying? Because you seem to think it's "men are the same as women" when it's actually "the best available evidence indicates that transitioning men undergoing hormone therapy experience consistent deterioration in athletic performance such that they do not have an athletic advantage".

And why would you think scientists with experience of competitive sports wouldn't say that? Given that the vast majority of them will have had zero personal experience of competing against transitioning athletes and would consequently have no basis for making assumptions about their performance accordingly, it seems reasonable they'd follow the evidence. What with them being scientists and all.

I bet.

Uh huh. Here's an article about one of the authors whose work was included in that review: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...nsitions-alter-athletic-performance-including.

 

[SystemShock]

What is it you think I'm saying? Because you seem to think it's "men are the same as women" when it's actually "the best available evidence indicates that transitioning men undergoing hormone therapy experience consistent deterioration in athletic performance such that they do not have an athletic advantage".

That is not what I am saying.

And why would you think scientists with experience of competitive sports wouldn't say that? Given that the vast majority of them will have had zero personal experience of competing against transitioning athletes and would consequently have no basis for making assumptions about their performance accordingly, it seems reasonable they'd follow the evidence. What with them being scientists and all.

I appreciate them being scientists, but when the scientists themselves tell you there isn't enough data, and they have only conducted very narrow studies, well...

Uh huh. Here's an article about one of the authors whose work was included in that review: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...nsitions-alter-athletic-performance-including.

Speaking of reading comprehension.

Obviously you are more woke than I am. But there is more, much more to this than just wokeness at play here. There are a lot of legal and financial factors at play, beyond mere competition, way beyond which bathroom and individual wants to use, or how they want people to refer to them. Measurable parameters need to be set, beyond people's feelings or gender identification. We are talking about competitive sports, where it is illegal to even inject your own blood back into you because it could give you an unfair advantage.

 

[Arathrael]

That is not what I am saying.

It might be more productive if you clarified what you are saying then.

Because so far I've said that I suspect - suspect - that "the performance of a teenage boy undergoing hormone therapy" isn't "likely to be outside the range of performance teenage girls can cover", and you've jumped in categorically stating that was wrong, and then in response to some evidence being offered to support that suspicion, you've offered nothing more than general observations about male performance and odd assertions about experience of competitive sports that would seemingly only make sense if you thought I was talking about male performance in general, not the performance of a transitioning male.

I appreciate them being scientists, but when the scientists themselves tell you there isn't enough data, and they have only conducted very narrow studies, well...

We do know transitioning causes a deterioration in athletic performance. We have some evidence to indicate this is significant to the point of eliminating any previous athletic advantage. And we don't have direct or consistent evidence showing otherwise. "More research is needed" does not mean "We know nothing, not even to the degree of suspecting anything". It means we need more data to have a higher degree of certainty and precision.

Speaking of reading comprehension.

Well, you're really not offering a lot to comprehend there. Care to elaborate?

Measurable parameters need to be set, beyond people's feelings or gender identification.

Yes. So are you saying fairness should be set by measurable parameters? So, for example, a teenage girl competing against a teenage girl might not be fair if one girl's measurable parameters are outside defined boundaries, and, conversely, a teenage girl competing against a transitioning teenage boy might be fair if both of their measurable parameters are inside the boundaries?

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

It might be more productive if you clarified what you are saying then.

i second this, i've lost track of what the actual argument is

 

[Mr. Sparkle]

What is it you think I'm saying? Because you seem to think it's "men are the same as women" when it's actually "the best available evidence indicates that transitioning men undergoing hormone therapy experience consistent deterioration in athletic performance such that they do not have an athletic advantage".

I wouldn't say the science supports the statement that there is no athletic advantage - even the subject of the article you linked says so.

Less settled, however, is the debate about the appropriate upper limit of women's testosterone levels in elite athletic competition. The current IOC policy dictates that transgender women must have a testosterone level less than 10 nanomoles per liter, roughly the low end of typical male values. But because more than 99% of women have testosterone levels less than 3 nanomoles per liter, some researchers have suggested that limit is too high. Harper is among them. "If you're competing in the women's division, you should do so with women's hormone levels," she says. "I understand just how much difference they make."

So the current Olympic rules allow for someone (no pronouns here) to have about 3 times the testosterone of average women based on what is essentially bio-engineering, but there is no athletic advantage?

That also assumes that testosterone is the only real measure of athletic measurement, as opposed to body size, reach, etc.

Anthony Davis on hormone therapy is still going to be 6'10" tall and a total mismatch for anyone in the WNBA to an absurd degree.

 

[Kegger]

Maybe they need to rename "Men's" and "Women's" sporting events to "XY" or "XX" depending on their genes?

 

[Flipx99]

It might be more productive if you clarified what you are saying then.

Because so far I've said that I suspect - suspect - that "the performance of a teenage boy undergoing hormone therapy" isn't "likely to be outside the range of performance teenage girls can cover", and you've jumped in categorically stating that was wrong, and then in response to some evidence being offered to support that suspicion, you've offered nothing more than general observations about male performance and odd assertions about experience of competitive sports that would seemingly only make sense if you thought I was talking about male performance in general, not the performance of a transitioning male.


We do know transitioning causes a deterioration in athletic performance. We have some evidence to indicate this is significant to the point of eliminating any previous athletic advantage. And we don't have direct or consistent evidence showing otherwise. "More research is needed" does not mean "We know nothing, not even to the degree of suspecting anything". It means we need more data to have a higher degree of certainty and precision.


Well, you're really not offering a lot to comprehend there. Care to elaborate?


Yes. So are you saying fairness should be set by measurable parameters? So, for example, a teenage girl competing against a teenage girl might not be fair if one girl's measurable parameters are outside defined boundaries, and, conversely, a teenage girl competing against a transitioning teenage boy might be fair if both of their measurable parameters are inside the boundaries?

Care to guess which two athletes competing in this girls' track meet are actually biological males?

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

i am curious, when athletes from the african nation or diaspora started competing, was there a similar "unfair" concern

 

[Flipx99]

It might be more productive if you clarified what you are saying then.

Because so far I've said that I suspect - suspect - that "the performance of a teenage boy undergoing hormone therapy" isn't "likely to be outside the range of performance teenage girls can cover", and you've jumped in categorically stating that was wrong, and then in response to some evidence being offered to support that suspicion, you've offered nothing more than general observations about male performance and odd assertions about experience of competitive sports that would seemingly only make sense if you thought I was talking about male performance in general, not the performance of a transitioning male.


We do know transitioning causes a deterioration in athletic performance. We have some evidence to indicate this is significant to the point of eliminating any previous athletic advantage. And we don't have direct or consistent evidence showing otherwise. "More research is needed" does not mean "We know nothing, not even to the degree of suspecting anything". It means we need more data to have a higher degree of certainty and precision.


Well, you're really not offering a lot to comprehend there. Care to elaborate?


Yes. So are you saying fairness should be set by measurable parameters? So, for example, a teenage girl competing against a teenage girl might not be fair if one girl's measurable parameters are outside defined boundaries, and, conversely, a teenage girl competing against a transitioning teenage boy might be fair if both of their measurable parameters are inside the boundaries?

Is it any wonder that this athlete, a biological female who has been taking hormones to transition to become a "male," won the Texas high school female wrestling championship two years in a row?

 

[SaintsFan11]

i am curious, when athletes from the african nation or diaspora started competing, was there a similar "unfair" concern

i'm not sure there was a similar "unfair" concern, but even if there was it wouldn't be an argument for allowing "trans" athletes to compete in sex-specific sports contests for athletes of the other biological sex. the physical differences between men and women are orders of magnitude greater than differences between men of different races (and women of different races).

(of course, some women are bigger, faster and/or stronger than some men, but the biggest, fastest and strongest women aren't going to be able to compete against the biggest, fastest and strongest men.)

maybe we should just get rid of sex-segregated athletics, but, realistically speaking, wouldn't that lead to the end of women in high level sports?

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Is it any wonder that this athlete, a biological female who has been taking hormones to transition to become a "male," won the Texas high school female wrestling championship two years in a row?

huh?
what's your theory?
wrestling is not like brute force sports
more than likely the reason this person won is bc they're a very good wrestler

our 126lber won state 4 x
one of the scariest people i ever met
he became a hair dresser

 

[Flipx99]

is that the wrestler that wants to wrestle boys but the state won't allow him to? Because he said himself, "I'm a guy" and that he should be wrestling guys?

Yep, same one.

 

[Flipx99]

huh?
what's your theory?
wrestling is not like brute force sports
more than likely the reason this person won is bc they're a very good wrestler

our 126lber won state 4 x
one of the scariest people i ever met
he became a hair dresser

What the hell does the fact he became a hair dresser have to do with anything? Hell, the guy could have even later went on to be a dancer, that's not anywhere close to what we are talking about.