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.
It's due to fear. You'll get fired for not kowtowing to every demand
Well males and "transgender" females (aka men who claim to be women) are the same thing, so it really is the same question.
That is just your opinion, one not shared by scientists or most lay people today.
Care to find me a single citation where the author claims a "transgender woman" is not a biological man. Wouldn't that make the "transgender" qualifier redundant? Just one is all I ask.
but how do you know that any of these high school trans athletes are on hormone therapy? i'd wager that the ones in CA, NH, WV and CT that made news in recent years were most certainly not and there is no rule that says they have to be to compete in their chosen gender
The one in WV? She is definitely on hormone therapy. Why else would she look like this?
Solid journalism, in my opinion. More research is needed.
Of course men are faster and stronger than women. However, they are talking about trans women, not men, competing against cisgender women. There is a huge difference between the physical capabilities of men versus trans women. (I'm referring to trans women who have been on HRT for at least 1 or 2 years--not trans women who simply "identify" as women--which, imo, is nonsense.) The limited research out there--on middle distance/distance running, at least, seems to indicate that if you were a B+ male runner, then you'll be a B+ trans women runner.
The science is unabiguous and the research is not limited, especially for how small of a population there is to sample. Anytime a study has been performed it has shown a retained advantage for males on HRT for any length of time, and the only viable way to exclude that advantage is pre-pubescent HRT.
You're kind of arguing a 'God-of-the-gaps' thing here.
Like sure, MTF has a retained advantage in strength, but what about running?
Ok, MTF are faster runners, but what about endurance running specifically?
Ok, they're faster endurace runners, but what about middle distance?
Ok, they're faster middle distance, but what about steeplechase?
Males enjoy physical performance advantages over females within competitive sport. The sex-based segregation into male and female sporting categories does not account for transgender persons who experience incongruence betwee...
There is increasing debate as to whether transwoman athletes should be included in the elite female competition. Most elite sports are divided into male and female divisions because of the greater athletic performance display...
The 15-31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed aft...
but how do you know that any of these high school trans athletes are on hormone therapy? i'd wager that the ones in CA, NH, WV and CT that made news in recent years were most certainly not and there is no rule that says they have to be to compete in their chosen gender
The one in WV? She is definitely on hormone therapy. Why else would she look like this?
Solid journalism, in my opinion. More research is needed.
Of course men are faster and stronger than women. However, they are talking about trans women, not men, competing against cisgender women. There is a huge difference between the physical capabilities of men versus trans women. (I'm referring to trans women who have been on HRT for at least 1 or 2 years--not trans women who simply "identify" as women--which, imo, is nonsense.) The limited research out there--on middle distance/distance running, at least, seems to indicate that if you were a B+ male runner, then you'll be a B+ trans women runner.
The science is unabiguous and the research is not limited, especially for how small of a population there is to sample. Anytime a study has been performed it has shown a retained advantage for males on HRT for any length of time, and the only viable way to exclude that advantage is pre-pubescent HRT.
You're kind of arguing a 'God-of-the-gaps' thing here.
Like sure, MTF has a retained advantage in strength, but what about running?
Ok, MTF are faster runners, but what about endurance running specifically?
Ok, they're faster endurace runners, but what about middle distance?
Ok, they're faster middle distance, but what about steeplechase?
"There is no proof that cisgender men are inherently more capable than cisgender women."
A new puff piece about Yearwood published last week recites the same pandering lines and BS as the one you linked to from 2018.
The new article says that after Yearwood and other teenage male runner, Terry Miller, started dominating in Connecticut girls' HS sprints
...the wider world took notice of the talented [male] girl[s] excelling at the sport.
...The parents of other runners at [Yearwood's school] Cromwell High were upset, claiming, like so many anti-trans talking heads, that Yearwood had an “unfair advantage” at track, despite this having no scientific or realistic basis.
[Yearwood] became national news. Her junior year of high school, a group of parents filed suit against her, the Connecticut School board, and her fellow trans runner Terry Miller. They didn’t just want to take away her right to play [in the female category], they wanted to wipe all her achievements [in girls' track] off the record. So Yearwood fought back, and she’s still fighting.
The ACLU got involved, and fought for Yearwood’s right to play.
[Yearwood's] case was one of many attacks we saw—and are still seeing—around trans girls’ right to play on the correct team. Now, Yearwood has graduated high school and continues to talk about her life, her story, and the court case that tried to paint her talent as unfair advantage, and tried to take her greatest joy in life away.
BTW, the outcome of the CT case regarding Yearwood and Miller is still up the air after the US Court of Appeal, Second Circuit decided arguments should be heard and ruled on by all 13 judges on the court, rather than just a panel of three.
Solid journalism, in my opinion. More research is needed.
Of course men are faster and stronger than women. However, they are talking about trans women, not men, competing against cisgender women. There is a huge difference between the physical capabilities of men versus trans women. (I'm referring to trans women who have been on HRT for at least 1 or 2 years--not trans women who simply "identify" as women--which, imo, is nonsense.) The limited research out there--on middle distance/distance running, at least, seems to indicate that if you were a B+ male runner, then you'll be a B+ trans women runner.
The science is unabiguous and the research is not limited, especially for how small of a population there is to sample. Anytime a study has been performed it has shown a retained advantage for males on HRT for any length of time, and the only viable way to exclude that advantage is pre-pubescent HRT.
Should we believe you or the endocrinologist professor of medicine who also consults for USADA and NCAA from the article JAHJ posted? Such tough decisions.
“We have relatively little firm scientific data to determine whether there is a biological advantage for the person who is born with XY chromosomes consistent with being assigned male at birth and exposed to testosterone.“
but how do you know that any of these high school trans athletes are on hormone therapy? i'd wager that the ones in CA, NH, WV and CT that made news in recent years were most certainly not and there is no rule that says they have to be to compete in their chosen gender
The one in WV? She is definitely on hormone therapy. Why else would she look like this?
Let's, for arguments sake, allow transgender kids to play sports in accordance with their stated gender. Does that mean that transgender adults also get to compete by those some rules? If no, then there is going to be a point at which a transgender athlete is told they are no longer allowed to compete (as their stated gender). Where do we draw this line? Professional only? Collegiate? 18? High school? The headlines write themselves. "Transgender HERO kicked off soccer team", "Star athlete told she's no longer welcome with team", "USASport proves it's the real enemy with transgender policy"
"There is no proof that cisgender men are inherently more capable than cisgender women."
A new puff piece about Yearwood published last week recites the same pandering lines and BS as the one you linked to from 2018.
The new article says that after Yearwood and other teenage male runner, Terry Miller, started dominating in Connecticut girls' HS sprints
...the wider world took notice of the talented [male] girl[s] excelling at the sport.
...The parents of other runners at [Yearwood's school] Cromwell High were upset, claiming, like so many anti-trans talking heads, that Yearwood had an “unfair advantage” at track, despite this having no scientific or realistic basis.
[Yearwood] became national news. Her junior year of high school, a group of parents filed suit against her, the Connecticut School board, and her fellow trans runner Terry Miller. They didn’t just want to take away her right to play [in the female category], they wanted to wipe all her achievements [in girls' track] off the record. So Yearwood fought back, and she’s still fighting.
The ACLU got involved, and fought for Yearwood’s right to play.
[Yearwood's] case was one of many attacks we saw—and are still seeing—around trans girls’ right to play on the correct team. Now, Yearwood has graduated high school and continues to talk about her life, her story, and the court case that tried to paint her talent as unfair advantage, and tried to take her greatest joy in life away.
BTW, the outcome of the CT case regarding Yearwood and Miller is still up the air after the US Court of Appeal, Second Circuit decided arguments should be heard and ruled on by all 13 judges on the court, rather than just a panel of three.
Yeah it's absurd. Emotive words/statements like "attacks we saw" or "take her greatest joy in life away" are classic tactics right?
The irony of course being, nobody - not one person, is trying to take away this persons "greatest joy in life" away. Not a soul in Connecticut, the Eastern seaboard or the entire United States would abject to Yearwood fulfilling her greatest joy in life vs human beings of her born biological gender. If it's this "existential" human journey of joy and fulfillment through sport - in this case running, why does it matter if they run against boys? If their greatest joy in life is crossing the line first in a competitive environment then tough f-ing luck. Tell me which athlete doesn't find the greatest joy in winning a race? - yet there is only ever one winner.
I always think of this issue being completely down to lack of relevant education. The same reason I don't get involved in the ins and outs of tax law - I know nothing about it. Now we have this weird interjection of people commenting and making absurd statements like "there is no difference between men and women/boys and girls athletically so why does it matter" and it's because they legitimately have no clue that for example, if humankind just had one "open" category for track and field at the Olympics, there would not be a single woman in attendance competing. Not one.
Don't think it's ever going to change though and for many of us it's an argument that under the current social climate we will never ever win.
The science is unabiguous and the research is not limited, especially for how small of a population there is to sample. Anytime a study has been performed it has shown a retained advantage for males on HRT for any length of time, and the only viable way to exclude that advantage is pre-pubescent HRT.
Should we believe you or the endocrinologist professor of medicine who also consults for USADA and NCAA from the article JAHJ posted? Such tough decisions.
“We have relatively little firm scientific data to determine whether there is a biological advantage for the person who is born with XY chromosomes consistent with being assigned male at birth and exposed to testosterone.“
You shouldn't believe me, or him, or any individual. You should research a subject (not by watching cat videos on youtube) by reading from a spectrum of sources and use the information that you find to develop an informed viewpoint. Even articles like the OP can illuminate parts of the debate. Sometimes that viewpoint can be 'there's not enough evidence to decide'. Sometimes you can find things that challenge your viewpoint. Sometimes you can find things that solidify it.
In this case the evidence supporting that statement may be found somewhere, but I have not seen a preponderance of evidence to suggest that the combination of XY chromosomes, male assignment at birth, and testosterone exposure does NOT cause a sporting advantage. (of course I added the word sporting, the speaker could mean 'advantage' in a different way).
Notice also that the speaker does NOT say 'We have firm scientific evidence that [males] do NOT have an advantage over [females]', only that there is 'little firm scientific data' to prove that they do. That's a nice little trick.
Should we believe you or the endocrinologist professor of medicine who also consults for USADA and NCAA from the article JAHJ posted? Such tough decisions.
“We have relatively little firm scientific data to determine whether there is a biological advantage for the person who is born with XY chromosomes consistent with being assigned male at birth and exposed to testosterone.“
You shouldn't believe me, or him, or any individual. You should research a subject (not by watching cat videos on youtube) by reading from a spectrum of sources and use the information that you find to develop an informed viewpoint. Even articles like the OP can illuminate parts of the debate. Sometimes that viewpoint can be 'there's not enough evidence to decide'. Sometimes you can find things that challenge your viewpoint. Sometimes you can find things that solidify it.
In this case the evidence supporting that statement may be found somewhere, but I have not seen a preponderance of evidence to suggest that the combination of XY chromosomes, male assignment at birth, and testosterone exposure does NOT cause a sporting advantage. (of course I added the word sporting, the speaker could mean 'advantage' in a different way).
Notice also that the speaker does NOT say 'We have firm scientific evidence that [males] do NOT have an advantage over [females]', only that there is 'little firm scientific data' to prove that they do. That's a nice little trick.
There’s no trick. Scientists generally speak carefully with integrity, not to intentionally mislead. What he said is little different from what the reporter said. The rest is personal bias.
You shouldn't believe me, or him, or any individual. You should research a subject (not by watching cat videos on youtube) by reading from a spectrum of sources and use the information that you find to develop an informed viewpoint. Even articles like the OP can illuminate parts of the debate. Sometimes that viewpoint can be 'there's not enough evidence to decide'. Sometimes you can find things that challenge your viewpoint. Sometimes you can find things that solidify it.
In this case the evidence supporting that statement may be found somewhere, but I have not seen a preponderance of evidence to suggest that the combination of XY chromosomes, male assignment at birth, and testosterone exposure does NOT cause a sporting advantage. (of course I added the word sporting, the speaker could mean 'advantage' in a different way).
Notice also that the speaker does NOT say 'We have firm scientific evidence that [males] do NOT have an advantage over [females]', only that there is 'little firm scientific data' to prove that they do. That's a nice little trick.
There’s no trick. Scientists generally speak carefully with integrity, not to intentionally mislead. What he said is little different from what the reporter said. The rest is personal bias.
Ok, sure. So since he said that then it's true? That's a logical fallacy called 'appeal to authority". Do you believe that men have an athletic advantage over women? Because both this and his statement can be true. But clearly the intention of his statement is to mislead.
Ok. I retract her from the list but the point stands that as of now there is no rule that a high schooler needs to be on HRT to compete. That’s how the Connecticut sprinter went from competing with the boys indoors and outdoors started absolutely dominating against girls.
Let's, for arguments sake, allow transgender kids to play sports in accordance with their stated gender. Does that mean that transgender adults also get to compete by those some rules? If no, then there is going to be a point at which a transgender athlete is told they are no longer allowed to compete (as their stated gender). Where do we draw this line? Professional only? Collegiate? 18? High school? The headlines write themselves. "Transgender HERO kicked off soccer team", "Star athlete told she's no longer welcome with team", "USASport proves it's the real enemy with transgender policy"
What is happening right now is the exact opposite of what you are describing here. Someone who would be eligible for NCAA and the Olympics is banned from high school and middle school competitions in at least 20 states, including. WV. So the message is that the scholastic sports should be more exclusionary than the Olympics, because the importance of winning and losing in high school sports is greater than the importance of winning and losing in the Olympics.
If the current situation continues, there will be trans athletes who will exclusively compete in AAU or other club teams and hope to get recruited by college. That is, until the Congress enforces the nationwide ban.
So why should HS and middle exclude student athletes who would be eligible at higher levels?
Should we believe you or the endocrinologist professor of medicine who also consults for USADA and NCAA from the article JAHJ posted? Such tough decisions.
“We have relatively little firm scientific data to determine whether there is a biological advantage for the person who is born with XY chromosomes consistent with being assigned male at birth and exposed to testosterone.“
You shouldn't believe me, or him, or any individual. You should research a subject (not by watching cat videos on youtube) by reading from a spectrum of sources and use the information that you find to develop an informed viewpoint. Even articles like the OP can illuminate parts of the debate. Sometimes that viewpoint can be 'there's not enough evidence to decide'. Sometimes you can find things that challenge your viewpoint. Sometimes you can find things that solidify it.
Right. We should not trust NIH, CDC or FDA on the safety of covid vaccine. We should do our own research to determine its safety. But I didn't have the expertise in epidemiology or the budget to conduct my own research. So I only read the results of other people's research before taking my shots.
It's the same here. I don't have the expertise to conduct my own research. And I don't have resources to do that, either. The only thing I can do is to read other people's research. And when I read them, I pay attention to the author's expertise as well as where it was published.
People need to stop saying there is no scientific evidence that trans woman have an advantage.
(BTW, it's usually people without a scientific background who say that)
Ross Tucker, a sport scientist with a special interest in this topic, says there are at least 13 studies that show that male advantage is retained even after testosteron suppression. Some posters have posted some of those studies.
There are no, I repeat NO studies that show that the male advantage is obliterated by testosteron suppression.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
Ok. I retract her from the list but the point stands that as of now there is no rule that a high schooler needs to be on HRT to compete. That’s how the Connecticut sprinter went from competing with the boys indoors and outdoors started absolutely dominating against girls.
This is different from one state to another. Right now, there are about 20 states that totally ban trans females from sports. There are about 15 states (and DC) that have either "open" policy or no policy. There are about 15 states that require trans athletes to submit their medical records to the state appointed board to be approved. They don't have any uniform testosterone level, but HRT is the key factor in their decision.
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.
