[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

Its irrelevant that plenty or even most trans competitors wouldn't have an advantage, the case by case scenario you're proposing is a logistical impossibility and the clear examples where trans women do have biological advantage - even if you're correct and those are fringe examples - would mean that the top tier of those sports would be dominated by trans women.

The fact that there are already multiple clear real-world examples of this across multiple sports, whilst in your own words, "there are so few trans people and such little participation from trans people in professional sport", is actually proof of what you're denying. If participation is low then the number of examples of trans competitors in upper tiers must be disproportionate to scale, and thus is evidence of biological advantage for some trans individuals, even if "most trans people" don't have that advantage. That's how professional competition works.

But there aren’t an abundance of trans women dominating women’s sports.

I mean, there has been one trans Olympic gold medalist, Quinn, who was born female.

———-

Transgender women performed worse than cisgender women in tests measuring lower-body strength

Transgender women performed worse than cisgender women in tests measuring lung function

Transgender women had a higher percentage of fat mass, lower fat-free mass, and weaker handgrip strength compared to cisgender men

Transgender women’s bone density was found to be equivalent to that of cisgender women, which is linked to muscle strength

There were no meaningful differences found between the two groups’ hemoglobin profiles (a key factor in athletic performance)

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by BBXX

But there aren’t an abundance of trans women dominating women’s sports.

I mean, there has been one trans Olympic gold medalist, Quinn, who was born female.

———-

Transgender women performed worse than cisgender women in tests measuring lower-body strength

Transgender women performed worse than cisgender women in tests measuring lung function

Transgender women had a higher percentage of fat mass, lower fat-free mass, and weaker handgrip strength compared to cisgender men

Transgender women’s bone density was found to be equivalent to that of cisgender women, which is linked to muscle strength

There were no meaningful differences found between the two groups’ hemoglobin profiles (a key factor in athletic performance)

Trans women are ruining all levels of women’s sport..that’s why all the parents are fired up as they are seeing all the years of devotion to the sport being undermined as these lads just come from nowhere taking trophies AND all kinds of college / world records.

As things stand some records will never be broken unless they get wiped off ( as they should)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Zizu

Trans women are ruining all levels of women’s sport..that’s why all the parents are fired up as they are seeing all the years of devotion to the sport being undermined as these lads just come from nowhere taking trophies AND all kinds of college / world records.

As things stand some records will never be broken unless they get wiped off ( as they should)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nowhere am I advocating that that is okay, or letting anyone who identifies as a woman to take part in women's sport.

I am talking about those who have undergone hormonal treatment which brings their biological ability in line with that of the gender they identify as.

How you can quote what I said above and think I'm talking about anything else shows you're not actually reading what I'm saying.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by BBXX

But there aren’t an abundance of trans women dominating women’s sports.

I mean, there has been one trans Olympic gold medalist, Quinn, who was born female.

———-

Transgender women performed worse than cisgender women in tests measuring lower-body strength

Transgender women performed worse than cisgender women in tests measuring lung function

Transgender women had a higher percentage of fat mass, lower fat-free mass, and weaker handgrip strength compared to cisgender men

Transgender women’s bone density was found to be equivalent to that of cisgender women, which is linked to muscle strength

There were no meaningful differences found between the two groups’ hemoglobin profiles (a key factor in athletic performance)

There are a few key examples across various sports (swimming, etc) and the question would be, if there's disproportionate representation at the top levels vs the overall levels of participation - which you yourself have said is low - then should it not be considered that this effect is likely to become more pronounced over time, if we also accept the assertion that inclusion/acceptance is likely to mean that more trans-identifying individuals choose to fully transition (which I can by deduction only assume is an implied outcome of trans acceptance and inclusion; it's repeatedly claimed that many trans individuals are "closeted" due to lack of acceptance).

Again, the second half of your post isn't relevant; all of those can be true for the median examples of trans people who have undergone hormonal transition, whilst it still being true that fringe examples retain increased muscle density/bone mass/athletic performance advantages and that's all that matters... because the upper tiers of professional sport, by their very nature, are going to highlight fringe performance examples and not "the norm"/"the median". It makes the "usually when someone hormonally transitions..." argument meaningless. "Usually" is meaningless. 99.9% is meaningless if 0.1% have a biological advantage, that 0.1% will naturally filter upwards in competitive events?

Second consideration: how would you disprove the advantage. Yes, it may be the case that 99.9% of those entering have no advantage and thus are never "highlighted", but the point of entering at all would be to succeed... to get onto the best teams, to win medals... and so when a trans person DOES win, then they ARE at the top of that game, and how do you then in any meaningful way demonstrate that this was not because of some biological advantage? It's neither provable nor disprovable.

However. It is a fact that some people who undergo full transition retain some clear advantages of male puberty - be that leg length, speed, height, even finger length. Meaning that the only solution would be your own solution; testing and consideration on an individual basis, which is neither practical nor feasible at scale, so becomes entirely moot.

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

There are a few key examples across various sports (swimming, etc) and the question would be, if there's disproportionate representation at the top levels vs the overall levels of participation - which you yourself have said is low - then should it not be considered that this effect is likely to become more pronounced over time, if we also accept the assertion that inclusion/acceptance is likely to mean that more trans-identifying individuals choose to fully transition (which I can by deduction only assume is an implied outcome of trans acceptance and inclusion; it's repeatedly claimed that many trans individuals are "closeted" due to lack of acceptance).

Are you referring to Lia Thomas? She is the usual scapegoat used for an example of this.

Is it disproportionate at the top levels vs the overall levels, that's what I am asking? I can't see it is, there aren't swathes of professional athletes taking Gold medals at championships, it literally is just a few.

Again, the second half of your post isn't relevant; all of those can be true for the median examples of trans people who have undergone hormonal transition, whilst it still being true that fringe examples retain increased muscle density/bone mass/athletic performance advantages and that's all that matters... because the upper tiers of professional sport, by their very nature, are going to highlight fringe performance examples and not "the norm"/"the median". It makes the "usually when someone hormonally transitions..." argument meaningless. "Usually" is meaningless. 99.9% is meaningless if 0.1% have a biological advantage, that 0.1% will naturally filter upwards in competitive events?

I wouldn't say t's not relevant - if we accept the vast majority of trans women fall in line with cis women, then we accept that by and large the playing field is relatively level. There might be 01.% (of the 0.002% participating) that will naturally filter upwards, but the same is said for cis women. There will be many cis women who just are biologically in a better position to win than other cis women - but if we accept that these cis women fall within he accepted umbrella of a cis woman's biological make-up, albeit at the top end of it, why can't the same consideration be made for trans women.

Second consideration: how would you disprove the advantage. Yes, it may be the case that 99.9% of those entering have no advantage and thus are never "highlighted", but the point of entering at all would be to succeed... to get onto the best teams, to win medals... and so when a trans person DOES win, then they ARE at the top of that game, and how do you then in any meaningful way demonstrate that this was not because of some biological advantage? It's neither provable nor disprovable.

This is the very tricky bit, I agree. And I agree case-by-case basis is probably not particularly feasible (though I am not expert on the process) but it certain is the fairest for all concerned, which is the POV I'm talking from.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by BBXX

Are you referring to Lia Thomas? She is the usual scapegoat used for an example of this.

Is it disproportionate at the top levels vs the overall levels, that's what I am asking? I can't see it is, there aren't swathes of professional athletes taking Gold medals at championships, it literally is just a few.



I wouldn't say t's not relevant - if we accept the vast majority of trans women fall in line with cis women, then we accept that by and large the playing field is relatively level. There might be 01.% (of the 0.002% participating) that will naturally filter upwards, but the same is said for cis women. There will be many cis women who just are biologically in a better position to win than other cis women - but if we accept that these cis women fall within he accepted umbrella of a cis woman's biological make-up, albeit at the top end of it, why can't the same consideration be made for trans women.



This is the very tricky bit, I agree. And I agree case-by-case basis is probably not particularly feasible (though I am not expert on the process) but it certain is the fairest for all concerned, which is the POV I'm talking from.

The only solutions imo and to protect the integrity of women's sports is to either have a women's category and an open category or to have an extra trans category.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by BBXX

Are you referring to Lia Thomas? She is the usual scapegoat used for an example of this.

Is it disproportionate at the top levels vs the overall levels, that's what I am asking? I can't see it is, there aren't swathes of professional athletes taking Gold medals at championships, it literally is just a few.

I'm not going to keep going on too much with this debate (it's going in circles, which is fine but a clear indication that there's nothing more to be gained from it either way) however I pedantically do have to pick this one up because it's just a baseline misunderstanding of statistics.

If the percentage of sports accolades won out of all women's sports is higher than the percentage of trans women in the general population, then that's statistical evidence of a category advantage. It doesn't matter if it's only a few. If it's a percentage that's disproportionate to the ratio in the whole population, then it's a statistically significant advantage. That's just plain basic scientific method.

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

I'm not going to keep going on too much with this debate (it's going in circles, which is fine but a clear indication that there's nothing more to be gained from it either way) however I pedantically do have to pick this one up because it's just a baseline misunderstanding of statistics.

If the percentage of sports accolades won out of all women's sports is higher than the percentage of trans women in the general population, then that's statistical evidence of a category advantage. It doesn't matter if it's only a few. If it's a percentage that's disproportionate to the ratio in the whole population, then it's a statistically significant advantage. That's just plain basic scientific method.

I understand that, but no stats have yet been provided.

The truth is, trans women, if they were at an insane advantage would DOMINATE their sport. They would win literally everything. That isn't happening. They might win the odd match or a swim or a game, or they might beat a record (records are being beaten all the time) but there is no trans woman continuously dominating their sport time after time after time. They win some and they lose lsome ike every other participant.

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by BBXX

I understand that, but no stats have yet been provided.

The truth is, trans women, if they were at an insane advantage would DOMINATE their sport. They would win literally everything. That isn't happening. They might win the odd match or a swim or a game, or they might beat a record (records are being beaten all the time) but there is no trans woman continuously dominating their sport time after time after time. They win some and they lose lsome ike every other participant.

Have you not seen what’s happening on tje states ?

Loads of protests at sporting events across the country and its only gonna get worse now ..

The other ‘young ladies’ are refusing to even share the podium with them


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[user104658]

Originally Posted by BBXX

I understand that, but no stats have yet been provided.

The truth is, trans women, if they were at an insane advantage would DOMINATE their sport. They would win literally everything. That isn't happening. They might win the odd match or a swim or a game, or they might beat a record (records are being beaten all the time) but there is no trans woman continuously dominating their sport time after time after time. They win some and they lose lsome ike every other participant.

Maybe we have different opinions here; I don't think it has to be "an insane advantage" to be unacceptable and (frankly) misogynistic "collateral damage"... Any statistical advantage should rule out professional competition. Steroids and other performance enhancing drugs don't necessarily confer an "insane" advantage and "winning literally everything", but they're not considered to be acceptable in professional sports for a reason; the advantages that they do give result in unfair victories, and not harmless victories, others who had no such advantage are pushed off of podiums and down the rankings.

The fact that there's a lack of good data is another part of the issue itself, separate but utterly nefarious; several groups and organisations (both officially organised and layperson online campaign groups who would consider themselves trans allies) have threatened, harassed, doxxed and bullied academics for attempting to gather this data and statistics, and done the same to sociologists and psychologists attempting to study the roots and potential social effects of issues surrounding transgenderism, declaring it "hateful", "offensive" and "unacceptable" whilst similtaneously funding and publishing dubious research and bogus biological "science" that's agenda-driven and nowhere near to being unbiased or borne of simple academic curiosity. So the lack of statistics is for a reason, and the data that is available is highly suspect. This was allowed to go on for the better part of a decade but has ended up being a shot in the foot. It's backfired spectacularly, and now even the pursuit of that knowledge (let alone any reliable data) is going to be out of reach for a generation. That's the legacy of stonewall. Utter disaster, ten steps backwards, and a backlash that plays right into the hands of right wing politics in general.

It makes me despair, honestly.

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by BBXX

I understand that, but no stats have yet been provided.

The truth is, trans women, if they were at an insane advantage would DOMINATE their sport. They would win literally everything. That isn't happening. They might win the odd match or a swim or a game, or they might beat a record (records are being beaten all the time) but there is no trans woman continuously dominating their sport time after time after time. They win some and they lose lsome ike every other participant.

The reason for the loses are probably due to them facing another trans competitor.

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Beso

The reason for the loses are probably due to them facing another trans competitor.

What if I told you they weren't tho?

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by BBXX

Transgender women performed worse than cisgender women in tests measuring lower-body strength

Transgender women performed worse than cisgender women in tests measuring lung function

Transgender women had a higher percentage of fat mass, lower fat-free mass, and weaker handgrip strength compared to cisgender men

Transgender women’s bone density was found to be equivalent to that of cisgender women, which is linked to muscle strength

There were no meaningful differences found between the two groups’ hemoglobin profiles (a key factor in athletic performance)

You are quoting one rather disputed (to say the least ) study from the, ahem, University of Brighton

I will direct you to a popular comment regarding that "study " when the Telegraph reported on it:

"This is a study that is not worth the paper it's written on. Just look at the
numbers who participated. 19 transgender women, 20 cisgender women, 19
cisgender men and 11 transgender men. Such low numbers, even for an
experimental or preliminary study, is laughable and can hardly be taken
seriously. It also appears to be trying to push the narrative that being trans
(especially a man who identifies as a woman) is a disadvantage even though
results when it comes to sports involving speed, strength power and contact
have been irrefutably proven to show the opposite. This is a junk study to
satisfy the trans cult lobbyists trying to infiltrate womens sports and should
be thrown in the bin. The IOC should hang its head in shame for promoting
this garbage."

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

You are quoting one rather disputed (to say the least ) study from the, ahem, University of Brighton

I will direct you to a popular comment regarding that "study " when the Telegraph reported on it:

"This is a study that is not worth the paper it's written on. Just look at the
numbers who participated. 19 transgender women, 20 cisgender women, 19
cisgender men and 11 transgender men. Such low numbers, even for an
experimental or preliminary study, is laughable and can hardly be taken
seriously. It also appears to be trying to push the narrative that being trans
(especially a man who identifies as a woman) is a disadvantage even though
results when it comes to sports involving speed, strength power and contact
have been irrefutably proven to show the opposite. This is a junk study to
satisfy the trans cult lobbyists trying to infiltrate womens sports and should
be thrown in the bin. The IOC should hang its head in shame for promoting
this garbage."

So my source is questionable because it's the University of Brighton but yours, the Telegraph, is fine? If you're suggesting mine is biased...erm, so is yours.

The truth of the matter is there are so few examples of research to use that we can only go off what we have and as I mentioned before, it's such a small infrequent issue that there will probably never be any widespread research because it's not the worth the time or money.