[RD] Trans people in sport

[Aiken_Drumn]

Correction. One link. I nearly missed it, because you put it as an asterisk after a quote - https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/trans-people-in-sport.677533/page-21#post-16301728. Which links to a blog from Psychology Today dated ten years ago (2012).

So, at a push, an article? Singular? That's a decade old? On the plus side I got to revisit all the argumentation from the first half of the thread, so that was fun.

So you're glossing over it again? Or moving the goal posts? Is it only valid if I provide multiple links, published this year?

Why not actually respond to the quote?

I thought it an interesting that the article covered both sides of the coin, not just about relative strength, but other variables in male and female health.

 

[Gorbles]

So you're glossing over it again? Or moving the goal posts? Is it only valid if I provide multiple links, published this year?

Why not actually respond to the quote?

Because your claim was that you'd provided multiple articles? Which is what I was responding to? Are you now glossing over that or something?

I can't really respond to "glossed over" because there was mod action on the following page and I have no idea what else went down at the time. Don't want to discuss that for obvious reasons.

The age of the article is important, much like the date of the Springer article MrCynical raised is important. The more recent, the better. For example, here's a study from 2017 which comes to the conclusion that there is "no direct or consistent research" suggesting trans women are at an advantage. However, the Springer article is newer, and while that doesn't mean it's automatically correct, it should still be taken as potentially superceding the 2017 study. The same goes in the reverse. It is incredibly unlikely that something from 2012 magically negates the 2017 study.

EDIT

But for the sake of argument, I've just gone through your linked piece from Psychology Today. It has no external references. Every single link is a reference back to another page on the same site. It also even concludes that "at least in biological terms, it would seem that there is no clear winner between men and women". What do you think this article you think people are glossing over is actually saying? Where are the medical studies you were talking about? If these are in potentially-vanished posts, then fair enough. I don't want to trap you in a comment like that. But if that's the case there's no point to you complaining that people glossed over your posts, because PDMA. Neither of us can prove anything, basically. Does that seem fair?

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

It also even concludes that " at least in biological terms, it would seem that there is no clear winner between men and women". So who is glossing over it, exactly? What do you think this article you think people are glossing over is actually saying?

No clear winner, but very apparent differences.

 

[Gorbles]

No clear winner, but very apparent differences.

Yes, and? What relevance does it have to trans folk in sport? Where are the studies you claimed existed? Saying "cis men and cis women have differences" is as self-explanatory as saying the Earth orbits the Sun.

Do you understand my confusion here?

 

[MrCynical]

Your claim was that people are claiming there is no difference. "inconclusive" is not "no difference". Hence, yes, it is a strawman. You are attributing a position to me (nevermind others) that I am quite literally not holding. I have not once said there is "no difference", and I mean that literally.

The problem with this is that you have been consistently acting as if the null hypothesis in that "inconclusive" is that there is no difference - since you have been demanding evidence that there is. That's pretty difficult to justify scientifically. The question comes down to "Does testosterone suppression remove the phenotypic advantage relative to cis women." Scientifically the null hypothesis to that is "No". This isn't a controversial point. When we test any drug for efficacy the null hypothesis is always that it doesn't work. This is no exception - the burden of proof is on demonstrating that testosterone suppression does in fact remove the difference.

Sure, so what about Harper's? Is that not valid criticism in of itself, which is why I provided it in the first place?

She suggests taking it with a grain of salt, citing untrained vs trained as a query point, but she still goes on to say:

"Pretty much any way you slice it, trans women are going to have strength advantages even after hormone therapy. I just don't see that as anything else but factual," said Joanna Harper, a medical physicist at Britain's Loughborough University.

I wouldn't really consider it a rebuttal of the point Lundberg makes. In her own studies it looks like she was seeing similar results. The closest metric to being equalised between transwomen and cis was hemoglobin levels, but like muscle volume as a metric it's arguable how descriptive of performance that is.

While there may be areas the evidence is not as comprehensive as we'd like, what there is is consistent that testosterone therapy is not removing all the advantage.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

Yes, and? What relevance does it have to trans folk in sport? Where are the studies you claimed existed? Saying "cis men and cis women have differences" is as self-explanatory as saying the Earth orbits the Sun.

Do you understand my confusion here?

Glad we have established a baseline.

Next step.

With mere self identification, these differences will remain between trans women and cis women.

 

[Gorbles]

The problem with this is that you have been consistently acting as if the null hypothesis in that "inconclusive" is that there is no difference - since you have been demanding evidence that there is. That's pretty difficult to justify scientifically. The question comes down to "Does testosterone suppression remove the phenotypic advantage relative to cis women." Scientifically the null hypothesis to that is "No". This isn't a controversial point. When we test any drug for efficacy the null hypothesis is always that it doesn't work. This is no exception - the burden of proof is on demonstrating that testosterone suppression does in fact remove the difference.

I mean it's inconclusive with regards to supporting further restrictions on trans women competing in sports. The focus on testosterone alone is just one aspect of it. You yourself have already said that you're open to the consideration that said advantages are within an acceptable range. So it's not about testosterone suppression, it's about establishing that range. Hence the need for evidence on trans women outcompeting cis women, generally.

This is why it has to be conclusive, because we're discussing excluding people from something. "no" is obviously not good enough. "inconclusive" is also not good enough. It has to be "yes". It has to be definitively conclusive. Which is why actual transphobes rely on fearmongering and the like to get their point across, typically by getting their rhetoric published in the media to boot (who can forget the time the US Guardian called out the UK Guardian). So, in order to discuss it with a scientific, evidenced basis, I don't think it's uncontroversial to say the evidence needs to be conclusive.

I wouldn't really consider it a rebuttal of the point Lundberg makes. In her own studies it looks like she was seeing similar results. The closest metric to being equalised between transwomen and cis was hemoglobin levels, but like muscle volume as a metric it's arguable how descriptive of performance that is.

She also goes onto say this:

But Harper, whose research focused on trans runners like herself, rejects the idea that trans women competing in sport would have an "unfair" advantage, noting that there are many other factors that go into shaping how an athlete performs — including hand-eye coordination and technique, which are necessary for excelling in sports like golf.

Which is the crux of the entire discussion, right?

With mere self identification, these differences will remain between trans women and cis women.

Yes, and? Who is suggesting that athletes who self-ID as a different gender to the one assigned as birth, and don't seek any medical transition, should be able to compete in women's sports?

 

[schlaufuchs]

For what feels like the 600th time now, the question is not whether a difference exists between cis men and cis women the questions are twofold:

Is there ever a scenario where a divergence in performance between biological females is so severe that prohibition or restriction of the one from competition is warranted?

If no, then why should the same standard not apply to trans women?

 

[Yeekim]

Yes, and? Who is suggesting that athletes who self-ID as a different gender to the one assigned as birth, and don't seek any medical transition, should be able to compete in women's sports?

As recently as yesterday, you did.

So a certain level of exclusion is acceptable? What would it be based on then?

I never said it was acceptable.

 

[Gorbles]

As recently as yesterday, you did.

There's a difference between what I personally find acceptable with regards to excluding trans folk from sports, and what I think is a realistic scenario with regards to trans folk participating in sports. In short, I think the hypothetical is a complete fabrication and not supported by what actually happens in reality.

And, just to be clear: exceptions will always exist. In that event, they should be actioned on a case by case basis, instead of trying to gotcha the general participation of trans folk in (competitive) sports based on the hypothetical of someone competing on the grounds of self-ID alone.

Would you be happy with me suggesting that all men should be banned from sports forever, because a minor percentage of men have tried to break the rules in the past? I'd like to think the answer is "of course not", which should in turn inform you and anyone else why people after 64 pages are kinda rolling their eyes at "but what if this completely unrealistic thing happened".

 

[Samson]

So you're glossing over it again? Or moving the goal posts? Is it only valid if I provide multiple links, published this year?

Why not actually respond to the quote?

I think that article is not intended to be real science but somewhere between filler and talking point. What struck me was the claim that "Men also have denser, stronger ... tendons, and ligaments". I quick google gave me The mechanical properties of the human patellar tendon are correlated to its mass density and are independent of sex, and as already pointed out they do not provide sources.

 

[MrCynical]

This is why it has to be conclusive, because we're discussing excluding people from something. "no" is obviously not good enough. "inconclusive" is also not good enough. It has to be "yes". It has to be definitively conclusive.

I will point to my scientist's labcoat again and say from bitter experience that you will never, ever get something considered as "definitively conclusive" in any area with the remotest degree of controversy. And taking "inconclusive" as rejecting the null hypothesis is never going to be a scientifically valid stance, especially when pretty much all the evidence that there is supports it. That may be ideologically inconvenient, but that is what the scientific stance on this is.

The only way I see to make progress on this is, as Schlaufuchs has suggested to accept that the difference exists, isn't something that can be changed by available drugs, and to move on to the question as to whether it's actually enough of an issue to cause problems.

 

[Gorbles]

The only way I see to make progress on this is, as Schlaufuchs has suggested to accept that the difference exists, and to get onto the question as to whether it's actually enough of an issue to cause problems.

But isn't that the same thing that we were discussing? With your Springer link, and me providing additional context from Harper, et al, is that there's a difference (heh, unintentional) between "is there technically a difference with regards to physiology" and "does this actually manifest as a material gain". So maybe we've just been talking past each other the entire time.

With regards to "is it enough of an issue to cause problems", when discussing the exclusion of people from something like competitive sports, "conclusive" is still the goal. I'm not asking for 100% here. But conclusive should be able to be defined in some fashion. From the efficacy of vaccines to the causes of mortality by demographic, these are things that require large datasets built and updated over time. We need that time. We need those datasets. Otherwise, how can you defend the exclusion of trans women? If you can't demonstrate that it is enough of an issue to cause a problem? Or can you?

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

Who is suggesting that athletes who self-ID as a different gender to the one assigned as birth, and don't seek any medical transition, should be able to compete in women's sports?

I thought most posters who (are pro trans women in cis women sports) were?

If that is not the case, what level of medical transition is appropriate for you?

 

[Gorbles]

I thought most posters who (are pro trans women in cis women sports) were?

If that is not the case, what level of medical transition is appropriate for you?

As a cis guy, I'm not the right person to ask. Which is why I've been focused on outcome in the sports currently (of which there are astoundingly few, if any, examples of trans women dominating sports that would necessitate a change to the rules).

As I understand it, transitioning is a personal journey. The circumstances will differ based on the individual and what they end up going through. There's also a near-criminal lack of support in the UK alone, and waiting lists are horrendously long, so judging a "level" of medical transition is kind of putting the cart before the horse. Which takes us back to the outcome itself.

 

[MrCynical]

As I understand it, transitioning is a personal journey. The circumstances will differ based on the individual and what they end up going through. There's also a near-criminal lack of support in the UK alone, and waiting lists are horrendously long, so judging a "level" of medical transition is kind of putting the cart before the horse. Which takes us back to the outcome itself.

I will also butt in here and say that sporting body regulations should not be incentivizing a particular "level" of medical transition in order for someone to qualify for a sport, whether that's hormones, surgical or whatever. No one should be placed in a position where medical decisions are made to tick a box on a sport qualification form - it's one of the reasons I've been so firmly against T-suppression as a metric, particularly given it doesn't really do what it's supposed to in this context.

Hence it's better to go with accepting the physical advantage, if the other competitors can agree on it. Not making ineffectual attempts to eliminate it with medical procedures they might not otherwise decide to have.

 

[Yeekim]

There's a difference between what I personally find acceptable with regards to excluding trans folk from sports, and what I think is a realistic scenario with regards to trans folk participating in sports. In short, I think the hypothetical is a complete fabrication and not supported by what actually happens in reality.

And, just to be clear: exceptions will always exist. In that event, they should be actioned on a case by case basis, instead of trying to gotcha the general participation of trans folk in (competitive) sports based on the hypothetical of someone competing on the grounds of self-ID alone.

Would you be happy with me suggesting that all men should be banned from sports forever, because a minor percentage of men have tried to break the rules in the past? I'd like to think the answer is "of course not", which should in turn inform you and anyone else why people after 64 pages are kinda rolling their eyes at "but what if this completely unrealistic thing happened".

More obfuscation.

Look, as was pointed out in that article you reacted to so painfully for some reason, there are currently about 10,000 males, whose personal 100m sprint time is better than the current female Olympic gold medalist.

Considering existing incentives and the fact that professional athletes have been known to cheat in any way imaginable, including by risking their health and committing actual felonies to improve their results/placement (just ask WADA) I would bet my left testicle that several from among those 10,000 would compete as women in a heartbeat, if there were no rules in place from stopping that from happening.

Now may be a good time to remind you that I have not once in this thread taken a position as to whether we need those rules - i.e. whether a hypothetical situation where cis-women can be eliminated from top positions in sport is a problem.

This is because I admittedly am on the fence on this issue.
I can understand the argument advanced by @schlaufuchs and others, that it can be seen as comparable to having tall, or rich, or ethnic group X dominate, hence not a problem.
It is also not for me to decide, as I am neither cis- nor trans woman, nor a sport judge.
I also despise professional sports, which for me represents mainly human trafficking, matchfixing, doping, hooliganism, institutionalized corruption, child abuse, wastefulness and vanity projects of dictators, so "fairness in sports" is not highly ranked among my concerns anyway.

On the other hand, I understand why cis-woman athletes would oppose this.
So, on the fence, but leaning towards the solution where at least some sort of actual medical transition would be required to qualify.

 

[Gorbles]

More obfuscation.

Over what? About what?

I would bet my left testicle that several from among those 10,000 would compete as women in a heartbeat, if there were no rules in place from stopping that from happening.

Are you . . . reading my posts? People who try and game the system, whatever system, even systems completely divorced from the context of trans athletes in sport, would need to be judged on a case-by-case basis. I already said this. There will be people that try and abuse any system, regardless of how lax or rigorous the rules are. So what? What relevance does you stating this have, considering you apparently haven't stated whether or not (further) rules are needed. What argument are you trying to make, when you say that cis males will abuse self-ID to participate in women's sports?

People are always going to try and break the rules, and I am simply saying is what we shouldn't do is ban all people of a certain demographic from participating in some misguided attempt to solve that. Which is (partly) what the thread is about, regardless of your personal position on it.

Now may be a good time to remind you that I have not once in this thread taken a position as to whether we need those rules - i.e. whether a hypothetical situation where cis-women can be eliminated from top positions in sport is a problem.

No, you just characterised the last interaction of ours as a conversation where you were called a transphobe

 

[Yeekim]

People who try and game the system, whatever system, even systems completely divorced from the context of trans athletes in sport, would need to be judged on a case-by-case basis. There will be people that try and abuse any system, regardless of how lax or rigorous the rules are. So what? What relevance does you stating this have, considering you apparently haven't stated whether or not (further) rules are needed. What argument are you trying to make, when you say that cis males will abuse self-ID to participate in women's sports?

People are always going to try and break the rules, and I am simply saying is what we shouldn't do is ban all people of a certain demographic from participating in some misguided attempt to solve that. Which is (partly) what the thread is about, regardless of your personal position on it.

Self-identifying as a woman would not be "breaking the rules", and there would be nothing to review "on a case-by-case" basis.
If we accept that self-ID is all that is relevant for being a woman and that being a woman is all that is required to be included, then this behavior is explicitly protected by the rules.
Also, watch out - suggesting that someone's self-identification can be somehow invalid sounds like something a transphobe would do. Someone may try a character assassination on you.

No, you just characterised the last interaction of ours as a conversation where you were called a transphobe

As you recall our interaction started after you said:

You're working from your baseline, not mine. And it seems to - worryingly - be along the same lines actual transphobes use, that people will simply identify as a woman and then compete in high-level sports.

I asked what would prevent this from happening - or whether you simply think it should not matter when/if it happens.
I would have accepted either explanation, but you would not give a clear answer then and now again you seem to be oscillating between
"the hypothetical is a complete fabrication and not supported by what actually happens in reality"
and
"there will be people that try and abuse any system"...

 

[Gorbles]

If we accept that self-ID is all that is relevant for being a woman and that being a woman is all that is required to be included, then this behavior is explicitly protected by the rules.

We already have / had rules in-place. The thread started due to additional rules imposed by sporting bodies that have had an increasingly negative affect on trans athletes and even caught cis athletes in the crossfire.

This isn't to say I think the existing rules are perfect, but it's beyond the scope of the thread and it's certainly not something I'm discussing.

Also, watch out - suggesting that someone's self-identification can be somehow invalid sounds like something a transphobe would do.

Watch out! This seems like a bad faith gotcha by someone who should know better! This is why I explictly said "cis male". If someone is self-IDing as a different gender to the one they were assigned at birth - surprise - they're not cis!

As you recall our interaction started after you said:

So your made-up discussion was based on what I said to a completely different poster? And you didn't think you needed to maybe clarify that at any point? That sure is a . . . choice.

I mean, if you can't parse the difference between "this is an argument transphobes use, be careful about the impact" to "you are a transphobe", that kinda sounds like a you problem. For all the back-and-forths I've had with MrCynical, he seemed to recognise that. Obfuscation, indeed.