News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I know I'm gonna catch heat for this, but sex-segregated physical competitions is one of the very few places where trans women shouldn't be treated the same. Women's sports competitions aren't segregated by gender, they're segregated by sex. Trans women are women in gender, but their body isn't a biologically female body. That's the exact definition of transgender - when your body's biological sex doesn't match your sense of gender. So by definition, trans women don't have a biologically female body.
The whole point of sex-segregated sports is for people with female bodies to be able to have a fair competition, instead of them not even getting a chance to compete at all because if they had to compete against biological males then almost 100% of females wouldn't even make the team. This is the whole reason why sports competitions are segregated by sex.
TLDR trans women should always be treated as women - except for sex-segregated physical competitions
Kind of a contradiction in that trans women aren't female bit lol. Very much depends on how you define that and how you measure it.
The categories are also not called female categories, they're called women's categories, which is effectively the same thing in this conversation. Female is a loose category encompassing people with many typed of bodies and many hormonal levels and many degrees of feminization and masculinization. This is effectively excluding one group of women specifically and ignoring all other groups that have advantages.
this is not correct, on average trans women don't perform any better at competitive sports than cis women
check the results section of this review paper for more info: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10641525/
Dude, hormone blockers exist. They don't have any advantages if they're on hormones/ hormone blockers.
Edit: I'll die on this hill. Enjoy being evil the future.
My understanding is that's true for muscle mass. However, if they transition after puberty like Lia Thomas did, height and wingspan will remain; both of which confer huge advantages in swimming. Apparently that's a major reason why Michael Phelps did so well, his arm span is ridiculous.
Are there no cis women with large wing spans or abnormal height, though? Are they still allowed to compete? Why would trans women specifically be excluded for that?
While outliers exist, this has to do with averages. On average men are taller than women, and this difference usually manifests between the ages of 12-15. This confers an advantage. However, for trans athletes who transition before puberty it's far less cut and dry and there's a good case to be made for inclusion.
So again why are cisgender women who are above average allowed to compete but transgender women are CATEGORICALLY not allowed to compete even if we're within the average for all women?
Because athletic associations decided long ago to segregate athletics by sex to account for this average difference, even though some women are taller and stronger than men.
So it's just a ban on trans women from sports, just because with no actual logic or ethical rationale behind it. Even though it is literally not fair, and the justification provided for it is "fairness". Gotcha.
It's literally the most logical and ethical rationale that could be achieved. The ethical and logical rationale is that sexual dimorphism exists, and we understand it quite succinctly.
They are separated by sex, because people are separated by sex characteristics.
Since Gender no longer refers to sex, it only refers to perceived place in society, it has no place being used as a metric for sports.
Intersex people exist and the variation of people assigned one sex or the other is damn near infinite so no, the assertion that sex is binary is really only ever used to exclude transgender people and intersex people from rights and to assert that there is a biological basis for assigned gender roles. Sex is dimorphic because we choose to describe it that way, we could just as easily have more sexes just by creating more categories based on aspects of human physiology.
And I'm female, so the only ethical rationale would be that I would compete with other people that we consider female.
If I'm born crippled, I can't compete in the Olympics. It happens. We can only produce the closest thing to fair that we all agree on. It's not to exclude transgender people, it's simply that the exclusion just happens to exist based on how we determine eligibility.
So yeah it isn't fair, so we can stop saying that excluding trans women is about fairness then.
Literally the only reason we have a separate category of women's sports is because, on average, women are physically weaker than men. If both sexes could compete against each other, women would barely exist in elite sports. If that wasn't the case, there'd be no justification for excluding cis men from women's sports. After all, being male is "just another advantage" like being tall, right?
On average, cis women are physically weaker than trans women also, and so the same logic applies.
The only equitable solution I can see is a third category of trans sports, where trans people compete against each other
So any woman stronger than the average for women ought to also be excluded then? Again, why is it specific that trans women be excluded?
There are not and likely will not be anywhere near enough trans people to occupy a single category at a single event. Refusing to allow trans women to compete as women, like every other woman, is a de facto ban on transgender women participating in sporting events. Transgender women are women, just like tall women are women and women with large lung capacity are women. Why should trans women be excluded for being above average but other women who are above average shouldn't be?
Because by nature of their transition, they don't fit in a single cleanly defined category. We should just change the definition to say: Those with XX chromosomal pairs. Because you can't change those. Nice and simple. Anyone with double-X chromosomes, good deal. Anyone with XY - goes into the "open" category - which is by default, the ones usually with mostly men in them.
So would a cisgender man with De la Chapelle syndrome, who has XX chromosomes, be required to compete with cis women? Would a person with XY chromosomes whose body was assigned female at birth due to Swyer syndrome or complete androgen insensitivity be required to compete against cis men?
Or would you just disqualify anyone who has any intersex characteristics, which are about as common as having red hair?
So cis women with CAIS (XY) are out too then.
No, not any woman stronger than the average for women, because by definition the leading woman will always be stronger than other women.
At the same time, plenty of cis men are weaker than the average female athlete, but we don't let them compete.
We exclude all males as a category, including former males, because on average they have an unfair advantage. Attempting to make exceptions based on individual performance isn't feasible.
Effectively, women's sports are like amateur vs pro competition. You don't let an ex pro play in an amateur match, even if they're not as strong as they once were.
So de facto banning some women from any kind of professional sporting competition is acceptable because it's too much work to include them? Why is that acceptable to you? And why is it necessary to couch these concepts in discussions about fairness when you yourself admit they are not fair? Excluding female people from female categories seems counterproductive to any attempts at providing level playing fields for women and girls in professional athletics.
Also there are other groups of women that are on average more physically capable then the average for women as a whole. Should they also be excluded?
I'm not sure where the disconnect is happening. It's been explained to you over and over but you loop back.
The two categories exist to provide women a fair chance to compete in a category of their own. We don't establish categories based on outliers, but on averages. On average male athletes will always outperform female athletes. There is no way around this fact. It's not a matter of too much work to include females. There is no work to be had if we wanted to ensure fair odds. Most of the trans community agrees with this assessment. It's not that hot of a take.
No they don't...
I tried googling for some statistics regarding trans people's opinions on this matter and I didn't find anything, is there a poll either of you has seen that indicates this or is this the general consensus among trans people you know?
No poll. But I'm a trans athlete that has been active in trans communities for nearly a decade.
I have no numbers, but I think it's safe to say I'd be aware if most of my own community was against my participation.
Level playing fields for women and girls aren't served by allowing competition from people who haven't always been female. Its not fair on cis women to have to compete against people who've had advantages from going through puberty while male.
The purpose of women's sport isn't to be inclusive of women, its to be exclusive of men. And its not that it's too much work to include some trans women on the basis of ability, it's that it's just impossible. Do they include only those who aren't likely to win? Maybe some that can win, but not by too much? What about a champion male who's recently transitioned and would shatter the world record, making it unattainable for any cis woman for years to come, maybe ever? There's no way of making those judgements, no matter how much work is done.
Its the same principle as banning performance enhancing drugs. Some clean athletes might beat some drug using athletes, but we don't try to figure that out, we just ban drugs. And puberty as a male is getting a few years if hormone-induced muscle gain that isn't fully lost even post-transition, even on hormone blocking drugs.
Trans women are not male.
The bar for entry is and has always been several years of sustained hormone therapy with normal estrogen and testosterone levels. And even that is far too restrictive.
What about groups of cisgender women who are above the physical average for women as a whole? Why is the proposal to ban transgender women and not other groups/classes of women based on them being on par above average? I mean is it fair for women from South Korea to compete against women from the Netherlands? Should women from the Netherlands be banned from competition? They have an average advantage, so it's unfair to the rest of the women that they're allowed at all.
Your essential argument has to be that transgender women are not women. There is no other argument for excluding trans women that adequately explains why it's necessary for trans women to be excluded and not anyone else.
That site could use a little more proof reading.
On HRT, trans women have similar muscle mass to cis women. They do not have an advantage.
Is it all about muscle mass? What about bone structure? Lung capacity? Heart size/volume? Stuff like that?
I'm not a doctor.
I mean, it's testable. On average, how do trans women compare to cis women in some particular sport? From my knowledge, when actually competing, trans women on hrt do not, in fact, do significantly better than cis women.
Trans women have been allowed in the Olympics for 20 years now. There have been zero trans medalists. If this advantage actually exists, why aren't they winning?
If i had to guess I'd say it's simply numbers. Compared to the rest of the population, trans people are extremely rare, and so there likely just haven't been enough trans people to have been there yet.
Of it was simply numbers, there would have been a trans gold medalist by now. Trans people make up 1-3% of the population. Over the span of 20 years and hundreds of competitions each year, surely a group that supposedly physically dominates the gender group they are in would at least have gotten one gold medal.
The thing that really sucks is that tran women are gonna get absolutely dominated by cis men. HRT for long enough really does so so much to the body (hence why most sports allow trans people who have transitioned to compete). Tho trans men also would have insane advantage overs cis women if they competed together
Maybe there isn't any good solution. But what you are saying leads to a conclusion that there is no place in sports for trans people. Then again, these conversations always fall apart when we talk about cis people with abnormal hormone profiles.
End of the day, a lot of competitive sports come down to genetics. There isn't much room for someone with disadvantagious genetics to become the best in the world. For me, I don't see much difference in a trans woman who's transitioned being world class in swimming and a tall ass cis woman dominating in basketball. Especially when we don't see trans people sweeping in competitions as a wider trend
The problem is that fundamentally there are differences within the genders that favour one competitor over another.
Take Michael Phelps -- "Michael Phelps’s height, wingspan, and large hands and feet give him an advantage in swimming. His body also produces less lactic acid than his rivals, which shortens his recovery time." According to that he should have been disqualified from competing as his body was fundamentally different from his competitors.Yet he was glorified for his achievements even though he had an edge nobody else had.
Herein lies the biggest issue ... trans people are disqualified for the simple reason nobody in power wants to deal with them, so the anti-trans movement wins again.
Stop labeling people anti-trans just because they disagree with you about the mechanics of a zero-sum competition situation. The majority of people here are PRO-TRANS, and ALSO pro-women. We all just want the system that provides the most fairness in a situation where there's no way for it to be completely fair to everyone.
If there are 10 seats on a team, every spot taken by a person means that a different person doesn't get that spot. So we as a caring society have to decide who CAN get that seat, and also who CAN'T get that seat. It all comes down to whether or not women born with biologically male bodies have a physical advantage over women born with biologically female bodies. At the very minimum, people who went through male puberty have a physical advantage over people who didn't go through male puberty.
Can you define male puberty though? Like qualitatively in specific terms and with specific language?
Being pro trans is being pro women. Excluding some women from women's sports would be discriminatory to those women. In this case those women are transgender, and they are being excluded because they are transgender. Which would be opposed to their right to participate, a right we recognize for all other women and girls. That would be anti trans, in this specific context. It doesn't mean you oppose all of trans rights, but you're actively supporting the exclusion of trans people from professional athletics.
Where did the person you are replying to say that they couldn't compete in male professional athletics?
Preventing trans women from competing in women's sports is a ban on trans women in sports. Trans women do not have testosterone levels anywhere near cis male levels. And none of us are going to degrade ourselves by being categorized as men.
If you would make trans women compete against men then you're saying trans women aren't women. It's as simple as that.
Where do trans men compete?
You are saying it would be degrading to have a trans woman compete against men, but a trans man is not allowed to compete against anyone because they are taking a banned substance to transition. Which is more degrading?
True! Yes trans men should be allowed to compete in men's categories. I think they are strictly speaking so long as their T levels aren't abnormally high (same as all men).
There is a place for trans people in sport. Male, female, trans. Done.
I really don't think there are enough trans people competing at the highest levels to sustain that though.