The San Fran Chronicle has an article under the Science banner on the two trans women at the state meet. It has the following title and sub-title.
Attacks on trans athletes have little basis in science Experts say a paucity of research on transgender athletes makes it difficult to determine if trans women actually are faster or stronger. The science is even murkier for young athletes.
Here is the opening paragraph:
Two female runners competing in a state high school championship this weekend have come under attack because people believe they are transgender and therefore may have an unfair advantage. But the science is far from clear as to whether trans athletes are actually faster or stronger than their cisgender peers, experts say.
Far from clear?
Paucity of research?
Why do we need research? The biological male world records in every sport of consequence are significantly better than the biologcial female world records. Or how about this? If the two trans athletes, ran the same same when they were on the boys teams (which they competed on in the past). they wouldn't have made the state meet. In every single event, it's WAY harder to make states for biological males than biological females whether they are gay or straight.
Game over.
Repeat after me. A trans woman is a trans woman. They aren't biological females and shouldn't be in female sport.
And they should be ashamed for the title. Calling criticism of a biological male qualifying for state as an attack is disgraceful.
I read the article and the author is stating that it’s not clear how much of an advantage a transgender women’s had after testosterone suppression. She is not saying that men are not better athletes. She seems to define a transgender athlete as someone who is taking hormone treatments which is why she says the success of California runners might be misleading. All in all, it’s a pointless article.
Not being a sheep, I have zero interest in repeating anything you say.
That isn't what the author is saying.
"Attacks on trans athletes have little basis in science," the Chronicle claimed in a piece published Friday in the Science section. "The science is far from clear as to whether trans athletes are actually faster or stronger than their cisgender peers, experts say.(quote)
There is no reference to whether that perceived advantage is after testosterone suppression. The article then says the evidence is "murkier" for teens undergoing transition through treatments. So testosterone suppression is not a given as her starting point. That is your assumption.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
If they hadn't undergone any hormonal or surgical treatment, then you don't need any additional research to know that men on average are physically stronger and faster than women. If they had, then you'd have to go through the research, and some of it shows no advantage. The problem is to focus on the range of testosterone permitted in the study. Those like the champion 800m runners of a few years back had five to ten times the testosterone of typical women, while those with fewer apparent advantages may have brought their testosterone down much closer to the average woman. But obviously, untreated men have a 10+% advantage just in wr's in track.
I read the article and the author is stating that it’s not clear how much of an advantage a transgender women’s had after testosterone suppression. She is not saying that men are not better athletes. She seems to define a transgender athlete as someone who is taking hormone treatments which is why she says the success of California runners might be misleading. All in all, it’s a pointless article.
Not being a sheep, I have zero interest in repeating anything you say.
That isn't what the author is saying.
"Attacks on trans athletes have little basis in science," the Chronicle claimed in a piece published Friday in the Science section. "The science is far from clear as to whether trans athletes are actually faster or stronger than their cisgender peers, experts say.(quote)
There is no reference to whether that perceived advantage is after testosterone suppression. The article then says the evidence is "murkier" for teens undergoing transition through treatments. So testosterone suppression is not a given as her starting point. That is your assumption.
Why does she refer to studies comparing athletes before and after testosterone? I don’t see how someone can believe she she is making a case that men aren’t superior athletes and it’s not clear as to why she wrote the article in the first place.
Ultimately, it's the outliers who matter, not the scrubs, because only those men competing as women who are making the finals and the podium are making the news and depriving others of opportunities. And there can always be enough outliers among this group to dominate every women's sport, because for every top female athlete there are hundreds, if not thousands, of men who are much better and could dominate the female sport even with significant testosterone reduction. So, the issue isn't that there are men who run 5:20 or 7:00 miles or 20-25 minute 5k's who would be uncompetitive on the women's side even without surgery or testosterone reduction, but that there are plenty of men who could break 4 or 14, etc.
"Attacks on trans athletes have little basis in science," the Chronicle claimed in a piece published Friday in the Science section. "The science is far from clear as to whether trans athletes are actually faster or stronger than their cisgender peers, experts say.(quote)
There is no reference to whether that perceived advantage is after testosterone suppression. The article then says the evidence is "murkier" for teens undergoing transition through treatments. So testosterone suppression is not a given as her starting point. That is your assumption.
Why does she refer to studies comparing athletes before and after testosterone? I don’t see how someone can believe she she is making a case that men aren’t superior athletes and it’s not clear as to why she wrote the article in the first place.
I think she's trying to make the case that trans women aren't superior athletes despite their being male. It is a poor case for a whole bunch of the usual reasons.
And that's exactly why the decision should be left up to the individual sporting bodies. Rugby should have a stricter requirement than fencing. I'd rather not have governments deciding sporting issues. There is already a preponderance (compared to population) of MTF at the top of women's sport in USA cycling. There eventually will be a critical mass where enough women have been pushed out that they begin to speak up, and I have a feeling once that dam breaks the rule changes will quickly follow.
What the traditional sport side needs is a bad guy. To this point most every MTF competitor has been lauded as 'brave' and a 'hero'. There have been bad guys but no one has been able to capitalize on them. An MTF olympic gold medalist from China/Russia in a sport America cares about would move the needle. Imagine the US Women's Soccer Team losing in the World Cup final to a Russian team of men with suppressed testosterone.
Journalism is dead because one local paper on the other side of the country ran one story that said trans women on hormones might not have a competitive advantage?
Like, okay, I disagree too, but who cares? How you people have the energy to sustain this level of outrage day after day, month after month, is beyond me.
Ultimately, it's the outliers who matter, not the scrubs, because only those men competing as women who are making the finals and the podium are making the news and depriving others of opportunities. And there can always be enough outliers among this group to dominate every women's sport, because for every top female athlete there are hundreds, if not thousands, of men who are much better and could dominate the female sport even with significant testosterone reduction. So, the issue isn't that there are men who run 5:20 or 7:00 miles or 20-25 minute 5k's who would be uncompetitive on the women's side even without surgery or testosterone reduction, but that there are plenty of men who could break 4 or 14, etc.
I disagree. They're all depriving women of opportunities, even if that's merely the opportunity to come 43rd instead of 44th, or make the first team instead of the second team.
The scrubs make up the majority of people enjoying the sport. An unathletic transwoman will still take the position / place of their biological female equivalent.
Girls' and women's sports were established for the 51% of the human race who are female. Not for males who take T blockers or males who have low T for other reasons.
The fact that some males might be at a disadvantage in sports competition against others of their own sex due to low T or any other reason doesn't entitle them to participate in female sports.
The fact that some males are so poor at sports for various reasons that some girls and women can beat them doesn't entitle those males to female sports.
Girls and women aren't males minus the T. The whole notion that physically we are essentially the same as boys and men - just a bit smaller, with lower T and a few different parts - is insulting malarkey that reeks of misogyny.
Again, few people agree with your last paragraph. If people did, why are transgender athletes required to obtain hormone treatments and why are so many states banning transgender athletes at the HS and college levels? The California 1600m runners and especially Lia Thomas, received almost no support. The new FINA and WA policies will prevent there ever being a transgender at the professional levels for those sports. Why do you see some horrible conspiracy against female athletes?
No states or sports governing bodies are "banning transgender athletes" at any level of sport. Some are barring males from the female category.
No trans-identified persons of either sex are being excluded from sports of any kind or at any level. Males of all gender identities - and no gender identies - who are excluded from female sports can participate and compete in the male or open category. They also can do mixed-sex sports.
In some sports, males who claim to have special gender identities now have the option of competing, and dominating in, the new "non-binary" category too. This new category means that in certain sports events, biological males today get twice the chance to win and bring home prize money.
Seems to me that today and in recent years, the sports world has bent over backwards to accommodate males who claim special gender identities. Yet you and others keep falsely claiming that males with special gender identitie are being "banned" from sports altogether.
Historically, the only group of humans who've routinely been subject to wholesale exclusion from school sports - and to exclusion from sports outside the school context too - have been female ones. And we were excluded because of our sex, not because of our "gender identity" or "gender expression."
Indeed, policies, laws and practices denying girls and women any chance to do school sports - and barring us from equal access to club, community and professional sports as well as from many recreational sports done "just for fun" - were in place long before sexologists came up with the concept and coined the term "gender identity" in the 1960s.
I had an amazing conversation with Chatgpt about it. While I couldn't get it to admit that trans had an advantage over females, I could get it to admit that if there was an ingredient in food that caused illness or death as often as trans win races or break records, that ingredient could be considered a dangerous ingredient. Absolutely 100% true story...
Your natural intelligence is slowly learning its way up to the level of a language model, good job!
And that's exactly why the decision should be left up to the individual sporting bodies. Rugby should have a stricter requirement than fencing. I'd rather not have governments deciding sporting issues. There is already a preponderance (compared to population) of MTF at the top of women's sport in USA cycling. There eventually will be a critical mass where enough women have been pushed out that they begin to speak up, and I have a feeling once that dam breaks the rule changes will quickly follow.
What the traditional sport side needs is a bad guy. To this point most every MTF competitor has been lauded as 'brave' and a 'hero'. There have been bad guys but no one has been able to capitalize on them. An MTF olympic gold medalist from China/Russia in a sport America cares about would move the needle. Imagine the US Women's Soccer Team losing in the World Cup final to a Russian team of men with suppressed testosterone.
UCI is revisiting their policy this summer. If enough trans cyclists win awards before that, they may change the policy then.
About your second point, it depends on which media you look at. If your ecosystem consists of Fox News, NY Post and other rightwing media, MTF athletes are the biggest villains of the world.
I’m tired of having to constantly state my pronouns and do other woke BS at my company. This is the perfect way to help expose the flaws - even the most devout wokes think it’s unfair, but why would they think that’s the case if it’s just women competing against women?
The frustrating thing is that it's a tiny minority of people pushing this nonsense. Everyone else goes along with it to keep them happy, either out of fear, out of empathy, to get the social kudos, or merely because it makes their lives easier than complaining about it. Which, ironically, is a strong refutation of the central premise of the movement regarding power structures:if that world truly existed, then people wouldn't be conforming to it.
Ha ha ha, it’s funny that so many folks on here think a “tiny minority” of people are holding the significant majority hostage in democracy that prides itself on being the shining beacon of democracy for the world.
The last bolded claim above doesn’t even make any sense.
The San Fran Chronicle has an article under the Science banner on the two trans women at the state meet. It has the following title and sub-title.
Attacks on trans athletes have little basis in science Experts say a paucity of research on transgender athletes makes it difficult to determine if trans women actually are faster or stronger. The science is even murkier for young athletes.
Here is the opening paragraph:
Two female runners competing in a state high school championship this weekend have come under attack because people believe they are transgender and therefore may have an unfair advantage. But the science is far from clear as to whether trans athletes are actually faster or stronger than their cisgender peers, experts say.
Far from clear?
Paucity of research?
Why do we need research? The biological male world records in every sport of consequence are significantly better than the biologcial female world records. Or how about this? If the two trans athletes, ran the same same when they were on the boys teams (which they competed on in the past). they wouldn't have made the state meet. In every single event, it's WAY harder to make states for biological males than biological females whether they are gay or straight.
Game over.
Repeat after me. A trans woman is a trans woman. They aren't biological females and shouldn't be in female sport.
And they should be ashamed for the title. Calling criticism of a biological male qualifying for state as an attack is disgraceful.
I am a lifelong liberal and I cannot fathom a reality in which I would ever vote for a republican.
I am just dumbfounded that we find ourselves in a situation where democrats (again) have been dragged into some stupid culture war that impacts ~1% or less of the population. How the hell we engage on stuff like this is beyond me, but here we are. The salient question is this: “why do we have “women’s” sports at all? We do for painfully obvious reasons. Men are, on average: bigger, stronger, faster, etc. There are obviously outliers. Also, Chase Ealey can kick my ass in every strength competition.
It is patently unfair that people born “male” (x/y) ever compete in a protected category. The category is protected for a reason. Please don’t try to argue otherwise, you sound stupid and obnoxious and you’re ruining it for everyone. I’m of the belief that all of these culture war fights are started by republicans so we can get more drunken Catholics (oh, and Clarence Thomas’s) on the Supreme Court to poison the environment, enrich dickheads, and take away the rights of …everyone but white males.
To address the “what about Michael Phelps, Usain Bolt, etc” idiots: yes, within categories there are outliers, but outliers are what make sport interesting, so long as they fall within the framework of the categories (heretofore know as “men and women” but, perhaps should be renamed “XY” and “XX” to protect the feelings of the unbelievably vocal 1%). If you want to settle the debate, ask yourself how fair (or fun or interesting) it would be to have Nikola Jokic in the WNBA, or Mbappe on the French women’s World Cup team (he would score at will. Possibly every time he got the ball). Mike Tyson, today, would mop the floor with every female boxer, possibly all at once. Thanks to you idiots, more republicans are going to get elected. When in, power, they are going to take your rights away. Well done! Enjoy your poisoned environment, your Brett Kavanaughs, your book burnings, your lack of healthcare…your President Desantis.
Well as a racist (liberals are racist against whites and asians in education)we are used to your bad takes. How are republicans responsible for you guys abolishing the female category and thinking males can get pragnant. Increasingly funny
The point is, there are very few studies on the relative performance decline of taking T blockers because there are so few athletes taking T blockers.
It's not about if they have an advantage, it's about how can we accurately quantify the advantage so to make good policy decisions.
Girls' and women's sports were established for the 51% of the human race who are female. Not for males who take T blockers or males who have low T for other reasons.
The fact that some males might be at a disadvantage in sports competition against others of their own sex due to low T or any other reason doesn't entitle them to participate in female sports.
The fact that some males are so poor at sports for various reasons that some girls and women can beat them doesn't entitle those males to female sports.
Girls and women aren't males minus the T. The whole notion that physically we are essentially the same as boys and men - just a bit smaller, with lower T and a few different parts - is insulting malarkey that reeks of misogyny.
Utterly shameless strawmanning. No one including the poster being replied to is making the silly arguments being attacked.
This question could be answered much more simply if just reframed as another: are male athletes faster or stronger than female athletes? I wonder what the science would have to say on that one...
Again, few people agree with your last paragraph. If people did, why are transgender athletes required to obtain hormone treatments and why are so many states banning transgender athletes at the HS and college levels? The California 1600m runners and especially Lia Thomas, received almost no support. The new FINA and WA policies will prevent there ever being a transgender at the professional levels for those sports. Why do you see some horrible conspiracy against female athletes?
No states or sports governing bodies are "banning transgender athletes" at any level of sport. Some are barring males from the female category.
No trans-identified persons of either sex are being excluded from sports of any kind or at any level. Males of all gender identities - and no gender identies - who are excluded from female sports can participate and compete in the male or open category. They also can do mixed-sex sports.
In some sports, males who claim to have special gender identities now have the option of competing, and dominating in, the new "non-binary" category too. This new category means that in certain sports events, biological males today get twice the chance to win and bring home prize money.
Seems to me that today and in recent years, the sports world has bent over backwards to accommodate males who claim special gender identities. Yet you and others keep falsely claiming that males with special gender identitie are being "banned" from sports altogether.
Historically, the only group of humans who've routinely been subject to wholesale exclusion from school sports - and to exclusion from sports outside the school context too - have been female ones. And we were excluded because of our sex, not because of our "gender identity" or "gender expression."
Indeed, policies, laws and practices denying girls and women any chance to do school sports - and barring us from equal access to club, community and professional sports as well as from many recreational sports done "just for fun" - were in place long before sexologists came up with the concept and coined the term "gender identity" in the 1960s.
I applaud SDSU Aztec for maintaining his delusions in all things related to this particular people-suffering-from-gender-dysphoria issue.
This question could be answered much more simply if just reframed as another: are male athletes faster or stronger than female athletes? I wonder what the science would have to say on that one...
That is not the question, so you can go home.
Well males and "transgender" females (aka men who claim to be women) are the same thing, so it really is the same question.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.