Given that racists and slavers used the “natural physical strength” of black people to justify putting them on hard labor and some medics still think that blacks has higher resistance to pain, I wonder if when black athletes started to join mixed race sport teams, some racist would have used the same “biological advantage” argument that now transphobes use against trans athletes to claim it was “unfair” for black to compete against whites to justify segregation.
Possibly, though the difference in strength and endurance between a male and female is much, much larger than between two different races. Male high school athletes outperform Olympic medal winning female athletes in almost every category. The difference is stark.
Yes, that is true until you are 2+ years on estrogen and testosterone blockers, then your advantages go away.
Your still have a bone, ligament and muscle structure that developed under testosterone, I don’t think that just “goes away” once you remove the hormones that brought it on in the first place.
Thank the tiny gods, or I would be spherical with no muscles at this point. Muscle and the resilience of connecting tissue takes a very long time to atrophy.
And you can tell by the way they don’t win competitions.
Exactly.
I mean, none of the trans people I’ve met are people I would describe as natural athletes. I’m sure they exist but there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of overlap in the two categories which likely skews any sort of analysis of the subject.
The issue is that exceptional people win. And you can’t allow people to compete, but then tell them it’s not okay if they win.
I’m cool with anyone competing in men’s competitions, but sports set aside for women at birth should keep that standard. The same logic applies to Oscar Pistorius, who shouldn’t have been allowed to compete in the Olympics. If you win a competition with artificial legs, it’s hard to argue that the artificial legs aren’t an advantage.
If it’s ok for anyone to compete in men’s events, it should also be ok for anyone to compete in women’s events.
That makes no sense when you look at the reasons of why it was established this way. It would be just blind and dumb egalitarianism. People need to use intelligence in judging these things, not just emotions.
I guess it depends on whether you want things to be equal or equitable
I agree. It also depends on being able to understand how those terms work and what they represent in real life, which is, unfortunately, often rather difficult for people to grasp.
It’s such a hilarious non-issue. There aer so many other things we should be worried about.
Exactly. It’s harmful to both women and the LGBT+ movement.
We should all just get on board with allowing discrimination based on sex at birth in women’s sport competitions.
And then we can really focus on discrimination where it matters. Drag competitions aren’t hurting anyone.
No, we need the exact opposite of this but for the same reason.
We should ignore it as an issue because it’s literally not an issue. The minuscule number of people it will affect don’t warrant national discussion nor legislation. But we should also not cede ground to transphobic bigots that want to use this as precedent “that assigned sex at birth” is relevant in some venues. Next stop is bathrooms and gyms.
More over, scientifically this isn’t even a metric that makes sense. What about intersex folk? Their assigned sex at birth inherently doesn’t fit in to a binary. It also ignores the numerous cis women who naturally have higher testosterone levels. I get why its an easy solution as transphobia is rampant and dangerous in other areas of life, but thats not a good reason to make inherently flawed laws.
It’s not a winning issue in sports. Anywhere else you’ll get more support.
from Gallup polls
You are missing the point, the polls don’t matter. I know it’s a wedge issue that republicans slam on, but just because a thing is popular doesn’t make it wise.
Scientifically (HRT equalizes everything after 2+ years)
Philosophically (trans women are women, trans men are men)
Politically (sets a precedent of gatekeeping certain areas)
Practically (intersex, cis athletes with unique biology)
From every angle you look at it, we can’t enshrine ASAB as the end all determination. It’s not a compromise that will make transphobic people chill, it will be a victory for them to push more.
Are you really going to tell me that a trans girl who was on puberty blockers as a child and HRT when she is old enough, who never went through “male puberty” at any point physically has some edge and should not be able to be on a girls soccer team? Because that flies in the face of all reason. Setting a law because of popularity instead looking at the facts will cause more problems down the road.
Women’s cycling races in Chicago area would tell a different story…along with women’s swimming (Lia Thomas)…and other cases.
Genuinely curious on this, so don’t take offense when I ask for a source. I’m gonna Google it, too, but it would be helpful for others if it’s posted up.
Even if that were true, I don’t think 100% of sporting organizations require 2+ years of hormone treatment before they allow trans athletes to compete.
If it were true, though, it would be a good way to solve the problem of competition.