The Trans Women Athlete Dispute

[stickygirl]

Just watched a BBC1 documentary with Martina Navratilova, exploring a range of angles on trans women in sport. Trans men in sport were notably absent. With a tv crew, she did the rounds of commentators and athletes, plucking facts and showing misleading graphs in an attempt to make amends for her anti-trans 'cheating' tweet and claiming she just wanted fairness and had been misunderstood.

There were some early interviews in the documentary that made me question the program makers impartiality: a sports expert who listed all the usual falsehoods of bone density, lever-length and even lung capacity and haemoglobin - it was clear where his opinions lay, or maybe it was intentionally edited that way?

Finally we got to Loughborough University ( an important sports centre ), where some proper scientific research has been initiated. Over a number of years they will be gathering physiological data from trans people before, during and after whatever physical transitions they undertake. It was refreshing to hear from objective researchers who, when asked about differences in trans women in sport, replied honestly that "we don't know". Their conclusions exposed the previous examples as being conjecture and bullshit.

It was difficult to feel much empathy for MN - she's not a people person. All the same, I was grateful to the producers for giving air-time to a topic that has become a flash-point for so much transphobia. We need the science and the facts to guide sports governing bodies, but it will be a few years before conclusions can be drawn from the on-going research. In the mean time we'll have to muddle through.

If you missed the program and can receive BBC iPlayer you'll be able to catch up on today's show - BBC1 26th June

ETA link to article

 

[OneFineYoungCannibal]

I sincerely believe that transgenderism is a form of mental illness. Before you start I am not homophobic, being attracted to someone of the same sex is fine, and I also do not have a problem with people wishing to dress, live and act as the opposite sex, but if a man truly believes that he is a woman then he mentally ill.

 

[stickygirl]

I sincerely believe that transgenderism is a form of mental illness. Before you start I am not homophobic, being attracted to someone of the same sex is fine, and I also do not have a problem with people wishing to dress, live and act as the opposite sex, but if a man truly believes that he is a woman then he mentally ill.

That's fine - there's no need for you to comment on or follow this thread, because it's not for you

 

[QuasiSemiDemiEsqueIsh]

I sincerely believe that transgenderism is a form of mental illness. Before you start I am not homophobic, being attracted to someone of the same sex is fine, and I also do not have a problem with people wishing to dress, live and act as the opposite sex, but if a man truly believes that he is a woman then he mentally ill.

I had two distinct thoughts after reading this.

1. Personally, I have no intention of “starting” anything about homophobia. Primarily because homophobia is not a requisite for transphobia and is therefore irrelevant to this specific conversation.

2. I would be interested in learning your qualifications for deciding what is and isn’t a mental illness—are you in the medical or mental health fields, for example?—and how much research into transgender neurology and psychology you’ve done before making the decision to believe as you do.

 

[OneFineYoungCannibal]

That's fine - there's no need for you to comment on or follow this thread, because it's not for you

You want your thread to be a safe space where only one view is allowed?? It doesn't work like that, its an open discussion forum.

 

[OneFineYoungCannibal]

I had two distinct thoughts after reading this.

1. Personally, I have no intention of “starting” anything about homophobia. Primarily because homophobia is not a requisite for transphobia and is therefore irrelevant to this specific conversation.

2. I would be interested in learning your qualifications for deciding what is and isn’t a mental illness—are you in the medical or mental health fields, for example?—and how much research into transgender you’ve done before making the decision to believe as you do.

Do you question the neurology and psychology qualifications of supporters of transgender people? no I didn't think so!

 

[QuasiSemiDemiEsqueIsh]

Do you question the neurology and psychology qualifications of supporters of transgender people? no I didn't think so!

Of course not, because I have no reason to do so. I also don’t question the research capabilities or qualifications of people who believe in gender equality or those of people who treat evolution as fact, because I have no reason to do so.

In fairness, I do ask sometimes about research if someone seems to support trans people but doesn’t seem to understand what being transgender entails, so actually... sometimes, I suppose.

 

[clistenovena]

It was difficult to feel much empathy for MN - she's not a people person. All the same, I was grateful to the producers for giving air-time to a topic that has become a flash-point for so much transphobia. We need the science and the facts to guide sports governing bodies, but it will be a few years before conclusions can be drawn from the on-going research. In the mean time we'll have to muddle through.

If you missed the program and can receive BBC iPlayer you'll be able to catch up on today's show - BBC1 26th June

ETA link to article

A group of friends and I were discussing this very topic recently. There was no transphobia about it at all. Rather, it was a question of what's fair as far as males competing against females. It was an interesting, thought-provoking discussion for sure.

As for muddling through until science figures it out, a new lawsuit may speed that up. We shall see.

 

[OneFineYoungCannibal]

Men being allowed to compete as women will affect the integrity of female sport.

 

[stickygirl]

You want your thread to be a safe space where only one view is allowed?? It doesn't work like that, its an open discussion forum.

Quite so - it's an open thread for discussion, but all I read in your post was a pre-packaged transphobia dump. There's discussion and there's ignorant rhetoric, so if you can't discuss move on.

Men being allowed to compete as women will affect the integrity of female sport.

No shit Sherlock

 

[Bramblethorn]

I sincerely believe that transgenderism is a form of mental illness.

There are people in the world who "sincerely believe" that the Smithsonian Museum is hiding evidence of angel-human hybrid children, that stuffing jade eggs in your lady parts is somehow good for you, that vaccines cause autism. If you want to be taken more seriously than those people, you'll need to offer something more than the strength of your belief.

Before you start I am not homophobic, being attracted to someone of the same sex is fine, and I also do not have a problem with people wishing to dress, live and act as the opposite sex, but if a man truly believes that he is a woman then he mentally ill.

The World Health Organisation disagrees with you. So does the American Psychiatric Association.

I'm the first to acknowledge that those organisations don't always get it right. But they've put a lot of thought into this, looked pretty carefully at the issues and considered questions like "what counts as an illness?" and come to the conclusion that it's not a mental illness or disorder. (Homosexuality also used to be classified as mental illness, and also got reclassified a few years earlier, for basically the same reasons.)

Against that, we have... an anonymous commenter on an erotica bulletin board. Is it time to drag out my "not all opinions are equally worthy of attention" rant again? I feel like I only just put it away after last time.

Men being allowed to compete as women will affect the integrity of female sport.

"will affect"?

Many athletic organisations have allowed transgender athletes to compete according to their gender identity for years. For instance, the International Olympic Committee's rules have permitted trans women to compete in female events since 2004.

If trans women really had an unfair advantage over cis women, we would be seeing a flood of transgender medallists by now. So where are they all?

Or could we perhaps accept that changing hormone levels actually does have a significant effect on athletic performance?

 

[Bramblethorn]

A group of friends and I were discussing this very topic recently. There was no transphobia about it at all. Rather, it was a question of what's fair as far as males competing against females. It was an interesting, thought-provoking discussion for sure.

I think discussion about "fairness" re. transgender athletes ought to consider a broader perspective.

Basketball is dominated by tall people, track events by black people, swimming by white people. By way of example, Michael Phelps has unusual body proportions that work perfectly for swimming. Other athletes have mutations that make them unusually tall or better at clearing lactic acid. All those folk work hard too, but to reach the top levels you need hard work and good genes.

The whole business is built on exalting people who have unusual bodies. If Michael Phelps doesn't spark debates about "fairness", why do transgender people and people like Caster Semenya?

 

[OneFineYoungCannibal]

If trans women really had an unfair advantage over cis women, we would be seeing a flood of transgender medallists by now. So where are they all?

"cis women"!! dear god, do you mean...women?

 

[Bramblethorn]

"cis women"!! dear god, do you mean...women?

Nope, I meant cis women. https://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=cis

I notice you haven't actually answered the question you quoted, though - does this mean you don't have an answer?

 

[jaF0]

I sincerely believe that ...

... you're a BB.

 

[jaF0]

I notice you haven't actually answered the question you quoted, though - does this mean you don't have an answer?

BBs only have hate, no answers. Or conscience.

 

[astuffedshirt_perv]

If trans women really had an unfair advantage over cis women, we would be seeing a flood of transgender medallists by now. So where are they all?

A fair enough question, but also the whole 'the athlete formerly competing as a male is now a female' thing is really in it infancy. In some cases, like women's soccer, gate keepers can arbitrarily keep out those they don't approve of, this is why Hope Solo isn't on the USWNT. In general there are only a few case of college athletes forging this path, but the number will likely swell by the 2024 Olympics.

Which it is why it is so fun to argue about it anonymously on porno internet forums!

 

[stickygirl]

In most cases, we're talking about trans women - and trans men, being able to take part in sport just like any other citizen, so it's more a social issue than a cynical move to gain advantage at national level. That's why the IOC has rules to ensure there is fairness by following the best medical advice and why the ongoing research is going to be so helpful. Believe it or not, trans women don't transition in order to play major league anything, nor do they want to be an object of suspicion either on the pitch or when they step out of their front door.

Trolls need to take a long drink of calm-the-fuck-down and let people, all people, enjoy playing sport and let the governing bodies decide on the rules.

 

[astuffedshirt_perv]

If trans women really had an unfair advantage over cis women, we would be seeing a flood of transgender medallists by now. So where are they all?

Apparently in Connecticut.

From a WSJ write up:

"As a star high-school athlete, Selina Soule (female) doesn’t shrink from the spotlight—but she never planned to gain it in the manner she has. <snip> Since 2017, Connecticut schools have allowed young men to displace Ms. Soule and other girls in sports competitions. <snip>

Last month Alliance Defending Freedom filed a civil-rights complaint with the Education Department on behalf of Ms. Soule and two other Connecticut girls. They argue that allowing boys to compete in the female category denies girls “opportunities for participation, recruitment, and scholarships,” contravening Title IX’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex.
<snip>

The [athletic] results speak for themselves. Since Connecticut’s athletic conference enacted its liberal gender-identity policy, two men have won 15 women’s state championships—titles that were held by 10 different Connecticut girls the previous year."

 

[stickygirl]

^^ I couldn't read the whole article, but from your quotes, it sounds like the school has one of these policies that removes gender barriers from sports altogether, which isn't the current position of the IOC. The quotes reference "young men", which is either using inflammatory language to describe trans women, or describing the outcome of poor policy in sports.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Apparently in Connecticut.

From a WSJ write up:

"As a star high-school athlete, Selina Soule (female) doesn’t shrink from the spotlight—but she never planned to gain it in the manner she has. <snip> Since 2017, Connecticut schools have allowed young men to displace Ms. Soule and other girls in sports competitions. <snip>

I can't access the whole article, just the first paragraph, but this part is confusing. Sex and gender issues aside... why are "young men" competing against "girls" at all? Is this some kind of mixed over/under-18 league? That seems like an obvious problem.

*checks author* oh, I see the issue...

The article is credited to Madeleine Kearns. I can't see whether WSJ mentioned her affiliations, but if they didn't, it might be worth noting that she is not a WSJ staff reporter. Her regular gig is with the National Review, a hard right-wing conservative publication, and from what I can see her focus seems to be advocacy against LGBTQ causes in general and against transgender people in particular. See e.g. her Twitter feed to get an idea of her preoccupation with trans people, not just in sport but in every area of life.

Even within what you've quoted from the article, language choices like "young men" vs. "girls" makes it clear that she's not even trying for even-handed coverage, so I'm unwilling to put a lot of trust in her representation of the issue.

Last month Alliance Defending Freedom filed a civil-rights complaint with the Education Department on behalf of Ms. Soule and two other Connecticut girls. They argue that allowing boys to compete in the female category denies girls “opportunities for participation, recruitment, and scholarships,” contravening Title IX’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex.
<snip>

The [athletic] results speak for themselves. Since Connecticut’s athletic conference enacted its liberal gender-identity policy, two men have won 15 women’s state championships—titles that were held by 10 different Connecticut girls the previous year."

Does the article mention how many women's state championships are held in CT each year? I have no idea whether 15 is "all of them" or "drop in the ocean".

From what I can find elsewhere, it looks as if CT's rules for school athletics don't put any physical requirements on transgender athletes (in particular, no HRT or similar requirements). This is very different to the rules that typically apply to trans people competing in adult elite sport (IOC etc.)

 

[astuffedshirt_perv]

*checks author* oh, I see the issue...

The article is credited to Madeleine Kearns.

Don't blame the messenger, it is not her lawsuit. Anyway, lots more articles are out there, search for Selina Soule. Try this one from the Boston Globe. You should be able to get one free article from them.

"Connecticut is one of at least 19 states that allow athletes to compete according to their gender identity without restriction.

<snip>

One possible solution is the approach adopted by the NCAA, which prohibits transgender females from competing on women’s teams until they have completed one calendar year of testosterone suppression treatment.

But compromise is impossible when those who raise concerns are shouted down as bigots. That is exactly what happened when tennis icon and LGBTQ activist Martina Navratilova, in an article for the London Sunday Times, questioned the unrestricted participation in female sports of transgender women. The backlash against the 18-time Grand Slam champion was immediate and fierce."

 

[stickygirl]

That is exactly what happened when tennis icon and LGBTQ activist Martina Navratilova, in an article for the London Sunday Times, questioned the unrestricted participation in female sports of transgender women. The backlash against the 18-time Grand Slam champion was immediate and fierce."

Which was the reason for this thread.

What MN did, by making a TV doc, was laudable and the directors tried to give everyone a chance of presenting their case.

I wouldn't describe MN as a LGBTQ activist: She's spoken up on issues as a lesbian/bi but as her tweet underlined, she's really quite insensitive to LGBTQ issues and transgender ones in particular.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Don't blame the messenger, it is not her lawsuit.

She's not "the messenger", though. She's an activist who's doing all she can to shape the message.

(And I wouldn't be too sure about "not her lawsuit"; I'm on holiday and not going to go digging right now, but Kearns seems to be pretty tight with the Heritage Foundation, and there's not much daylight between them and the Alliance Defending Freedom, who are funding that particular lawsuit. When I pull up ADF's page on LinkedIn, the first suggestion in "similar pages" is ADF's international arm, and the second is... Heritage Foundation.)

Anyway, lots more articles are out there, search for Selina Soule. Try this one from the Boston Globe. You should be able to get one free article from them.

Cheers, that link works for me.

Noting for context that the Boston Globe article is credited as an opinion piece by Jennifer C. Braceras, "a senior fellow with the Independent Women’s Forum", which is an advocacy group founded to provide "a conservative alternative to feminist tenets". (In a better world, major newspapers like WSJ and the Globe would be getting staff reporters to cover this sort of story themselves, instead of relying on conservative think-tanks to write their copy with all the obvious problems that entails... and while I'm wishing, I'd also like a pony and world piece.)

That said, it's a lot better than what I would have expected given the source, much better than what I saw of the Kearns piece. But it still has some significant issues. Quoting from the article:

The fact is, people who were born male are, on average, physiologically stronger, bigger, and faster than people born female. That is why American antidiscrimination law does not prohibit sex-segregated sports.

Citation needed here. The first of those sentences is definitely true, but the second seems over-simplified, at least.

The differences in average human size between nations are larger than those between men and women (typically about 15 cm height difference between men and women in the same country, vs. about 20 cm between tallest and shortest nations). I'm not going to chase down data on weight or strength, but I think I'm pretty safe in saying the averages there will also show more disparity between nations than between sexes.

Yet we don't usually segregate sport by national origin - quite the opposite, top-level sport does all it can to promote international competition. Physiological differences may well be part of the explanation for why laws are the way they are, but clearly they're not the whole story.

(Also, lawmaking is usually a messy business with a lot of different interests involved, and quite frankly it would be astonishing if a law was based solely on a scientific fact.)

Bruce Jenner was one of the best athletes of all time competing against men. Had Caitlyn Jenner been allowed to compete against women, most women wouldn’t have stood a chance.

This is a meaningless assertion without defining the terms of the hypothetical: which version of Caitlyn Jenner are we talking about here?

The real-life Caitlyn Jenner? Came out as transgender at age 65, no threat to female athletes in their prime.

Hypothetical Caitlyn Jenner who transitioned early in life but without relevant medical intervention? Would never have been allowed to compete in women's Olympic events.

Hypothetical Caitlyn Jenner who transitioned early in life and qualified for women's events under IOC rules via HRT and/or orchidectomy? Not at all clear that she would have won against cis women, or even qualified; testosterone really does make a big difference to athletic performance.

(One thing we can say for sure is that she wouldn't have won an Olympic medal for women's decathlon, because that event doesn't exist, but let's assume we're talking about heptathlon or something like that.)

I'd also note that in the real world, most male athletes didn't stand a chance against Caitlyn at her peak, when she was competing as Bruce. Somebody has to be the best; in the 1980s that was Jenner, and she dominated her event. Had she transitioned early and been able to compete in women's events, it's quite possible that she would've been able to dominate those events even without any advantage from being "born male" - simply by dint of being a very good athlete.

"Connecticut is one of at least 19 states that allow athletes to compete according to their gender identity without restriction.

<snip>

One possible solution is the approach adopted by the NCAA, which prohibits transgender females from competing on women’s teams until they have completed one calendar year of testosterone suppression treatment.

But compromise is impossible when those who raise concerns are shouted down as bigots.

...I mean, clearly compromise IS possible, because the article gives a real-life example of it one sentence before asserting that it's impossible? And IOC is another example here.

That is exactly what happened when tennis icon and LGBTQ activist Martina Navratilova, in an article for the London Sunday Times, questioned the unrestricted participation in female sports of transgender women. The backlash against the 18-time Grand Slam champion was immediate and fierce.

Seconding Jane's comment here that it's inaccurate to describe Navratilova as a "LGBTQ activist"; there's no "T" in her activism that I'm aware of.

It's also misleading in describing the situation that led to backlash against Navratilova. As Navratilova herself says in the Sunday Times article, things had kicked off several months before that article, when she tweeted:

"You can’t just proclaim yourself a female and be able to compete against women. There must be some standards, and having a penis and competing as a woman would not fit that standard."

She subsequently deleted that tweet, and in the ST article she acknowledged that "Perhaps I could have phrased it more delicately and less dogmatically"... right below the headline "The rules on trans athletes reward cheats and punish the innocent".

In other words, no, she didn't just "question the unrestricted participation in female sports of transgender women". She implied that trans athletes are just faking it in order to gain some sort of undeserved advantage, people pointed out that this was problematic, and then she doubled down by calling them "cheats".

This is an allegation that gets thrown around a lot, whether in the context of sport or locker rooms or whatever. It's bullshit - no trophy is worth dealing with the crap that trans women and girls have to deal with - and it's extremely harmful to a group who already get vilified more than enough. No wonder there was a backlash. I'd be pretty pissed off if somebody called me a "cheat" without evidence; who wouldn't?

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Bramblethorn - I just want to raise this point and although it stems directly from your immediate prior post, it is something I wanted to canvas for people's thoughts for a while:

'B.,' you said 'a group who already get vilified.'

No doubt people do get vilified, I'm not objecting there.

But, even to those other posters here, including the person who believes 'a man who thinks he's a woman is suffering from a mental illness' (I know I only loosely quoted) - what is 'this group?'

Do any of you realize that someone with a restricted Sella Turcica may have suppressed testosterone as well as other endocrine processes and flows from birth, and that again, there are those with variation forms of genitals from birth INTERNALLY whilst seemingly 'typical' externally, and then there are those with variation formed OUTWARD genitalia and yet 'typical' INTERNAL organs, and then there are those with differentiated Cingulate Gyrus formation and no discernible outer or inner variances, and then there are those with variation inward AND outward formations from birth but some facial tangential characteristics away from what is under their clothes.

And then there are also those with ZERO neurological and physiological strong variances from the typical expected, but who exhibit thinking that can fall into officially-documented definitions for 'deep pathology' (are fucking damn nuts); and there are also those who DON'T exhibit patterns of thinking which would fall into an authoritative description of 'totally nuts.'

For me, seeing that not even one single inorganic chemist understands how even simple carbohydrate molecules link together and also transfer cellular information (they can describe the processes but not the dynamic mechanisms) - personally I would not entrust my body and my mind to 'scientists' and medicos to fuck around with and fiddle around with things just as they are using their present level of 'knowledge' (which is absolutely fuck all frankly, compared with what they prolly need to know to be able to screw around safely with bodies and minds like this)...

...But at the same time, there is no one single 'group' either who want to be transgender or who are transgender once you drill down into it, because not only do you have to get their pants/panties off to drill down into things, but the drilling then has to be deeper than skin deep or orifice hole deep. Most legitimate subjects are quite a bit 'claiming' of their own personal case individual characteristics and resent being lumped in with those whose situations are meaningfully different to theirs even though the end objective appears to be the same thing.

So which is 'this group' that is being vilified? Or, what is this 'this group' at all?? Because there is a HUGE difference between the neurological endocrine factors (in the brain area) determining someones 'gender' EXPERIENCE VIA BLOOD-CHEMISTRY AND HORMONES compared with lower down there physical ORGAN appearances and functionality (low capability, small, or large breasts, other organic appearances) - and so there really is no such a thing as ALL TRANSGENDERS ARE VILIFIED, because some people have real damn obvious PHYSIOLOGICAL REASONS to attempt the objective of 'transgender' and people who 'vilify' them - are also nuts.

This is a very VERY VERY COMPLEX AREA.

But I also have a lot of problems in logic seeing the Bruce/Caitlyn instance as in any way reflective of 'a typical grouping example' for the transgender case. if THAT is one example of 'vilification' targeting well, we might be talking about other reasons than 'just' people 'hating transgender people.'