Trans athletes in sport....

[newfhouse]

I am not a sports fan, so, perhaps, my lack of interest means my opinion counts for zero, or, maybe, it just counts for zero... but

Most characteristics (eg ability to jump high, swim fast, run fast etc etc) are (IMHO) an accident of birth, perhaps, enhanced by a bit of coaching and training. Similarly, gender is as an accident of birth (if I understand the science correctly).

In sport, the "winner" is the person with the "best" performance, so, why not just scrap mens/womens categories and have one category for "people"?

Women would never be physically capable of winning in most mainstream sports. Why would they continue? How would girls be inspired to compete or even take part?

 

[icowden]

4 weeks ago Emily Bridges was on the podium with their male team mates getting a silver medal in the Men's category. They seemed happy enough to include Emily.

Similarly you often see reports of female team members being supportive of trans-women in similar circumstances. I do wonder, however, how much this is due to the terror of the backlash for *not* being supportive.

Much is made of Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint not supporting JK Rowling. I suspect that Jo is well aware that they would not publicly support her as it would completely kill their careers. No counter arguments for preserving womens rights are allowed. Discussion must be shut down. Trans women are women etc

 

[AuroraSaab]

I am not a sports fan, so, perhaps, my lack of interest means my opinion counts for zero, or, maybe, it just counts for zero... but

Most characteristics (eg ability to jump high, swim fast, run fast etc etc) are (IMHO) an accident of birth, perhaps, enhanced by a bit of coaching and training. Similarly, gender is as an accident of birth (if I understand the science correctly).

In sport, the "winner" is the person with the "best" performance, so, why not just scrap mens/womens categories and have one category for "people"?

Because the gulf between women's and men's performance means very, very few women would ever win a place in a final, nevermind on a podium.

If US high school boys had competed against the world best women athletes in the 2016 Oylympic Games athletics events, this would be the result (based on HS records and the Women's results):

https://boysvswomen.com/#/

Out of 28 events, women would have won only 6 medals, including a single gold. And that's against under 18 males, not professional adult male athletes.

Emily Bridges Junior record was 2 minutes faster than the current UK women's record. A single category means no Laura Kenny, no Paula Radcliffe, no Kelly Holmes - you would never have heard of these women because they would never make the GB team nevermind the Olympic squad.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I am not a sports fan, so, perhaps, my lack of interest means my opinion counts for zero, or, maybe, it just counts for zero... but

Most characteristics (eg ability to jump high, swim fast, run fast etc etc) are (IMHO) an accident of birth, perhaps, enhanced by a bit of coaching and training. Similarly, gender is as an accident of birth (if I understand the science correctly).

In sport, the "winner" is the person with the "best" performance, so, why not just scrap mens/womens categories and have one category for "people"?

If you believe having more women taking up sport, including competitive sport, is a good aim (and you haven't said if you do or not), then your suggestion is unlikely to encourage 50% of the world's population to do that, and is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Women's sport is different to men's not lesser, and there are sports where the gender is immaterial and which are already open e.g equestrian sports.

 

[PaulB]

Shep to the bridge, please.

John MacNamara, to the cash office please.

 

[icowden]

Out of 28 events, women would have won only 6 medals, including a single gold. And that's against under 18 males, not professional adult male athletes.

Whilst I agree with you, the problem with this correlation is that it doesn't take into account the reduction in Testosterone that trans women have to under go, so it isn't a direct comparison.

That said, it is notable that Rachel McKinnon / Veronica Ivy dominates at world cycling track. I very much doubt that this would be true were she not a trans athlete competing in the womans events.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Reducing testosterone doesn't mitigate the innate advantage of an adult male body though. The performance difference between male and female is as much as 40% in some events. Reduced testosterone doesn't reduce lung capacity, heart pumping capacity, muscle size.

Worth noting though that transwomen athletes who do reduce their testosterone to the required level still have T levels far in excess of that legally allowed in female athletes.

 

[BoldonLad]

Women would never be physically capable of winning in most mainstream sports. Why would they continue? How would girls be inspired to compete or even take part?

Yes, I get that.

Presumably, there will be sport(s) where women are naturally at an advantage (not being a Sports Fan, I don't know which).

But, isn't this the nature of the beast, ie, whichever "solution" is proposed, appears to dis-advantage a group or section of the population.

So, it would appear to me, each sport will "polarise" to be dominated by whichever group has a "natural" advantage.

Again, I repeat, I am not a sports fan, but, isn't (say) being tall and advantage in basketball?, so, people of short stature (regardless of gender) are "dis-advantaged, which is basically similar to what I am suggesting should continue.

 

[Deleted member 28]

Do you have an opinion on the topic, rather than the posters.

I do, Men should compete against Men and Women against, well, Women.

It's unfair to Women born as Women to lose out to those born as Men.

If a 3rd category needs to be created for those who decide they are neither then so be it.

Before you ask, no I couldn't give a f**k about 'inclusion' either, as in my opinion they've given up the right to be 'included ' in that category when they changed 'gender '.

This is with regards to sport before you start steaming at the ears.

 

[theclaud]

Yes, I get that.

Presumably, there will be sport(s) where women are naturally at an advantage (not being a Sports Fan, I don't know which).

But, isn't this the nature of the beast, ie, whichever "solution" is proposed, appears to dis-advantage a group or section of the population.

So, it would appear to me, each sport will "polarise" to be dominated by whichever group has a "natural" advantage.

Again, I repeat, I am not a sports fan, but, isn't (say) being tall and advantage in basketball?, so, people of short stature (regardless of gender) are "dis-advantaged, which is basically similar to what I am suggesting should continue.

You're really milking this Not A Sports Fan thing.

 

[AuroraSaab]

The difference is that a 6ft 5" world class female basketball player will never have the power or speed of a 6ft 5" world class male player because male and female bodies are built differently, regardless of being equal height and ability. Michael Phelps has huge feet, but the performance margin between him and the next best male swimmers, with smaller feet, is fractions of a second. The margin between Phelps and the very best female swimmer is huge.

Your argument is really an argument to do away with sports categories altogether. Let the 18st 7ft heavyweights fight the 5ft 5" 8st guys, and let the adult rugby men's team play the under 15's.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Yes, I get that.

Presumably, there will be sport(s) where women are naturally at an advantage (not being a Sports Fan, I don't know which).

But, isn't this the nature of the beast, ie, whichever "solution" is proposed, appears to dis-advantage a group or section of the population.

So, it would appear to me, each sport will "polarise" to be dominated by whichever group has a "natural" advantage.

Again, I repeat, I am not a sports fan, but, isn't (say) being tall and advantage in basketball?, so, people of short stature (regardless of gender) are "dis-advantaged, which is basically similar to what I am suggesting should continue.

I don't know whether you are being serious or not. You don't have to know anything about sport, just human physiology, to understand that certain, if not most, sporting activities favour men over women.
Yes, basketball favours tall people, as weightlifting favours strong people, high-jumping favours those with long legs, and archery favours people with good eyesight but difference in abilities are the essence in any sport when striving for success.

To equate these performance differentiating factors within the same sex with differences between sexes is just plain daft or attempting reductio ad absurdum.

Shorter people can, for instance, have dozens of alternative sports they can and do try other than basketball, but if women have a level of sporting ability, or not, and want to compete with any chance of success they are extremely limited on what they can take up.

It is not about creating a situation where no individual feels disadvantaged in participating in a sport, but one where roughly half the population will be disadvantaged.

It will lead to a huge drop off of women taking up sport whereas differing abilities in the same sex provides little or no barrier to participation.

I watched the Wales/Scotland women's rugby international yesterday and enjoyed the skill and tension, even though both sides would have been slaughtered by a men's team, and I guarantee none of those women would have taken up that sport and enjoyed its benefits in adulthood if it was mixed.

 

[PaulB]

I do, Men should compete against Men and Women against, well, Women.

It's unfair to Women born as Women to lose out to those born as Men.

If a 3rd category needs to be created for those who decide they are neither then so be it.

Before you ask, no I couldn't give a f**k about 'inclusion' either, as in my opinion they've given up the right to be 'included ' in that category when they changed 'gender '.

This is with regards to sport before you start steaming at the ears.

A stopped clock is right twice a day and this is one of those instances.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I do, Men should compete against Men and Women against, well, Women.

It's unfair to Women born as Women to lose out to those born as Men.

If a 3rd category needs to be created for those who decide they are neither then so be it.

Before you ask, no I couldn't give a f**k about 'inclusion' either, as in my opinion they've given up the right to be 'included ' in that category when they changed 'gender '.

This is with regards to sport before you start steaming at the ears.

It will no doubt surprise and disappoint you that I am not steaming at the ears, or even mildly put out, at your views. I understand it is a very tricky personal situation for many, but I also have strong reservations about trans women competing in sports where they have an inbuilt advantage.

 

[BoldonLad]

The difference is that a 6ft 5" world class female basketball player will never have the power or speed of a 6ft 5" world class male player because male and female bodies are built differently, regardless of being equal height and ability. Michael Phelps has huge feet, but the performance margin between him and the next best male swimmers, with smaller feet, is fractions of a second. The margin between Phelps and the very best female swimmer is huge.

Your argument is really an argument to do away with sports categories altogether. Let the 18st 7ft heavyweights fight the 5ft 5" 8st guys, and let the adult rugby men's team play the under 15's.

Not quite. I didn’t say scrap age or weight sections, I said, scrap gender sections.