HS track coach Vicki Huber (former Olympian) is latest to claim that allowing trans-women to compete as women ruins sports

This is completely the wrong way around. If the last point of solid evidence is that males have a sporting advantage because of the advantages of male puberty then the null hypothesis is that there is an advantage. Only when there is sufficient evidence that ALL of this advantage is removed or mitigated by hormone treatment should the rules allow trans women who have androgenised to compete with females.

In reality the evidence is that even at levels WAY below the current IOC and IAAF guidelines these advantages are not removed. It’s not even close.

Now for some events the advantage is greater than others. But I cannot see how we can possibly argue that somebody should compete in one sport as a woman and another as a man. It’s ridiculous and completely unnecessary.

Gender is completely irrelevant in all of this. It’s sex that provides the advantage not gender, so it is sex that should determine which class somebody participates in. If people support trans women in women’s sport merely because trans women identify as being of female gender then they are effectively arguing that the sport does not need to segregate by sex, ergo that we should remove the separation of women and hen entirely. It is completely inconsistent to say that Male advantage is not relevant if you identify as a woman but is relevant if you identify as a man. What you identify as makes zero difference to what you can do physiologically.

Ultraboy wrote:

Gender is completely irrelevant in all of this. It’s sex that provides the advantage not gender, so it is sex that should determine which class somebody participates in. If people support trans women in women’s sport merely because trans women identify as being of female gender then they are effectively arguing that the sport does not need to segregate by sex, ergo that we should remove the separation of women and hen entirely.

In civilized societies and women should be treated equally today in most professions . Women have been fighting for this several decades. Sports should be no different and there really is no place today for separate male/female categories in a sport like distance running. The argument that someone has certain physiological advantages over someone else and therefore should be placed in a separate category for competition is completely invalid. Every single individual athlete will have certain physiological advantages and disadvantages compared with any other athlete they are competing with. Taking that argument to the extreme would mean that we should all be competing in a separate category from Kipchoge because we do not have the same physiological advantages that he has - this is a complete nonsense in competitive sports. Get rid of gender categories completely and absolutely everyone will finally start to be treated fairly and equally.

No, Ultraboy is right - there is a categorical biological difference between xx and xy that gives athletic advantage to xy. In the vast majority of professions, and in most aspects of life, that athletic advantage is meaningless or trivial, but in athletics, clearly an athletic advantage is not trivial. Also, it seems you are confusing "equal" with "identical."

I have less issue with people who argue fir the removal of sex based categories. I think they are wrong but at least their argument is consistent. Whereas find the argument of those who say trans women should compete against females to be nonsensical.

No you are wrong and you don't understand the invalidity of your argument. There is no real justification for having sex defined competitive categories in a sport like distance running today. You could just as well divide people by weight or height and show that there is a biological advantage to being over or below a certain height or weight in distance running. You could also do this with so many other traits such as age, leg length, etc etc. Dividing competing categories by sex in a sport like distance running is simply far too contrived and inappropriate in a civilized society today and it should be ended.

Dufus wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

She has never coached or ran against a transgender, so even though she was a world class runner she has no unique perspective. It appears she made no effort to learn the proper teminology, focused on the idea that men are better runners and included some unrelated thoughts.

There was nothing mean-spirited about what she wrote, but it was kind of pointless.

Suppose she calmly refuses to be coerced into using the PC terminology? A heck of a lot of people would support her on that alone. Or worse, suppose she just calls these kids girls like some of the press has been doing? She focused on a common sense way to look at it.

Referring to a transgender athlete as a male delaring himself female is unclear, especially since most of what she wrote was making a case for her radical belief that males are better runners.

Instead of asking what if Bruce Jenner had transgendered in his prime and competed in the heptathlon she phrases it as what if Jenner competed in the heptathlon,which is no different than asking what if Mark Spitz competed against women swimmers.

Her discussion of women and men training together is no different than people of different levels doing so. A 17:00 HS boy training with a 16:00 girl is the same thing. I ran 14:50 in college and running with my 14:00 teammate on easy days was probably was a little fast for me.

Her essay just wasn't thought through and wasn't any more persuasive than a Don Jr tweet

The different reproductive capabilities of the two biological sexes mean male and female humans are physically different in thousands of ways. Female humans are built to accomplish amazing feats that male humans cannot achieve - namely conceiving, carrying and giving birth to babies, and feeding those babies with milk from our breasts that is nutritionally sufficient for them to grow and thrive, and which also gives them essential immunological benefits they wouldn't be able to obtain otherwise.

By contrast, male bodies are built to achieve physical feats of strength, agility and speed that are very different from what female bodies are built to do. And since ours is a world in which males have long made the rules, most sports are about comparing and celebrating the amazing feats male bodies are built to achieve, not the physical feats female bodies are uniquely designed for. A male body cannot conceive, gestate or sustain new human beings the way the female body is meant to, but when it comes to most/nearly all physical sports males as a class have unmistakable inherent advantages that make it unfair for females as a class to have to compete with members of the opposite sex.

Please share the evidence for your insistent, repeated claim that there's simply "no justification" for separate categories for the two sexes in sports. Just making assertions and telling those who disagree that we are "wrong" don't convince nearly as well as setting forth evidence-based arguments.

While waiting for your evidence, here's some that supports a position different to yours:

I don't see any reason why women should have different biology (hormones) than men.

This sounds like sexist to me.

You're just responding to the "Why don't we eliminate women's sports" trolls of which there are many on LR. The answer is that many people, including me, enjoy watching them.

Your linked article is irrelvant to the current issue of the effects of hormone treatment on performance and is only more evidence to support what was already understood thousands of years ago, which is that men are faster and stronger.

The decision from this case is evidently related to the sports thing. I have a article that links them on my home PC and don't want to bother finding it now.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/transgender-woman-supreme-court-case-happy-being-me-n1060241

SDSU - I'd agree that Vicki's article brings nothing new to the table, and could agree that it wasn't even well written. Regardless of that, I am happy she did write the article because given her running credentials she has a louder voice than the rest of us and the silliness needs to be stopped.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

You're just responding to the "Why don't we eliminate women's sports" trolls of which there are many on LR. The answer is that many people, including me, enjoy watching them.

Your linked article is irrelvant to the current issue of the effects of hormone treatment on performance and is only more evidence to support what was already understood thousands of years ago, which is that men are faster and stronger.

SDSU, I get that the basis of your argument to allow trans inclusion in women's sports is based on the premise that hormone treatment works. Forgive me if I missed it in an early post, but do you at all address the pre-existing physiology of the male body prior to identification?

In other words, sure you can suppress testosterone but it's hard to undue the chassis - narrower hips, straight waist, bigger bones/ligaments/tendons, etc., etc.

Do you feel that, maybe for distance running, carrying that extra weight with reduced testosterone levels would be more of a hindrance instead of a benefit? If that's it (I can't think of any other argument that you could possibly use) where is the evidence? Maybe until that is proven you should be on the fence?

My point is a lot of the posts focus on men being better athletes and that transgender females shold be banned. That men are better athletes is obvious and no one disagrees with that, so why post it? Currently transgender females are allowed and like it or not, it's not going to change without evidence that even with hormone treatment it is unfair

Given that there isn't a single Transgender female professional T&F athlete there is zero evidence to date.

Currently the only issue is the effects hormone treatments. Unlike anything in Huber's essay, your point directly addresses the issue and could be especially applicable to any of the field events.

I'm not on the fence; I dont want transgender female to compete, but I believe I have a good grasp of what it takes for a change to occur. There has been considerable outrage during the last year or so, including comments from people with a high profile, including Navratilova, but I'm not aware of any actions being taken. The Connecticut sprinter legal action is at a low level and will probably result in HS transgender females being required to take hormones.

In the meantime, I don't really care if someone like June Eastwood shows up every few years and runs a 16:00 5K.

The good thing is the nobody that's going to do anything about this cares what does or doesn't bother SDSU Person.

Don't care how many trollish looking arguments SDSU Person has as to why laws are immutable , why courts don't have influence in the matter, or SDSU Person blindness to current physiological understandings of transgender advantages derived for being born and living many healthy years as pure male.

Thanks, that helps. I agree that, Semenya, D2 hurdler, and the Connecticut sprinters aside, it is mostly an immaterial thing at the HS/Collegiate level for the moment. But certainly materiality is in the eye of the beholder. I do think that higher profile objections are as important as evidence based arguments to keep kicking the can down the road.

Disclaimer: Inclusionistas will want this argument to be based on a perceived hatred of LGBTQ persons. To an extent, they may be right but I, and many other liberals, only see it as a fairness issue for a protected class in athletics and nothing more.

The null hypothesis is that males have an advantage. Trans athletes were allowed in women’s competition with no evidence that hormone treatment removes this advantage. Until there is evidence that the advantages of androgenisation are removed or wholly mitigated by treatment the rules are just plain wrong.

There is in fact evidence that benefits are retained. Clearly people do not shrink 4-5 inches when they receive hormone treatment, but further than that muscle strength and muscle mass are retained above female levels. The current rule has nothing to support it other than political arguments and fear of being labelled transphobic and as such should be revoked.

Regardless of whether trans women are winning at elite levels the rules are unfair. Fairness and nothing else should be the concern.

Ultraboy wrote:

The null hypothesis is that males have an advantage. Trans athletes were allowed in women’s competition with no evidence that hormone treatment removes this advantage. Until there is evidence that the advantages of androgenisation are removed or wholly mitigated by treatment the rules are just plain wrong.

There is in fact evidence that benefits are retained. Clearly people do not shrink 4-5 inches when they receive hormone treatment, but further than that muscle strength and muscle mass are retained above female levels. The current rule has nothing to support it other than political arguments and fear of being labelled transphobic and as such should be revoked.

Regardless of whether trans women are winning at elite levels the rules are unfair. Fairness and nothing else should be the concern.

Your points are valid. As I wrote before, this is not a domestic issue. The USATF cannot tell a transgender athlete "Yeah, you can compete in the Olympics, but not for the U.S."

Semenya is not transgender, but effectively the issue is very similar. When it was litigated in the Court of Arbitration for Sport, banning her completely wasn't even on the table. The IAAF wanted her to be required to take hormone suppressants and although they won, it was only for the 400 through the 1500.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but a complete banning of transgenders is a huge jump from where the battle line was in the Semenya case. Before and after data, would make for a better argument, but it doesn't really exist. Since they karved out events regarding Semenya, a comprise could be an event by event ruling. For example, TG females could compete in distances, but not in the weight events.

Anyway, it's an extremely complicated issue and it's impossible to predict what would happen in the CAS.

We are, well have been, talking about transgender athletes in US high school and colleges here. You know , Connecticut and Jonathan Eastwood and how this may expand, or be stopped, domestically.

What's the point of shifting it to Caster and the Olympics?

I don't get it. wrote:

We are, well have been, talking about transgender athletes in US high school and colleges here. You know , Connecticut and Jonathan Eastwood and how this may expand, or be stopped, domestically.

What's the point of shifting it to Caster and the Olympics?

Again, the different levels cannot act unilaterally. That's just the way it is.

The situation in Connecticut is completely different. Untreated transgender athletes being allowed to compete is flat out wrong. Allowing them to to do so should be indefensible in court. However, I doubt if a complete banning of TG females will result from the trial.