[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.