For me one of the most telling aspects of this discussion is that there has never, ever, not once, been a trans man fighting to be placed in the men's category. Every single conversation we have around this, including Ivy, is about trans women competing again cis women.
Mack Beggs came into prominence as an American high school wrestler from Euless, Texas. Beggs is a trans man. State athletic rules only allowed him to compete in the league for the sex he was assigned at birth. In 2017, he de...
For me one of the most telling aspects of this discussion is that there has never, ever, not once, been a trans man fighting to be placed in the men's category. Every single conversation we have around this, including Ivy, is about trans women competing again cis women. If someone born male really has no physical advantage over someone born female, why wouldn't there be a proportionate amount of trans men competing in mens fields? Why is it only trans women that feel the need to compete against their cisgendered counterparts? I would earnestly like to ask Ivy this to see if it is something I am missing
If it’s about just one example ever, she might just point to cases like this one:
Mack Beggs came into prominence as an American high school wrestler from Euless, Texas. Beggs is a trans man. State athletic rules only allowed him to compete in the league for the sex he was assigned at birth. In 2017, he de...
Ivy’s answer to the different but related question by Noah on why transwomen shouldn’t compete with men if there isn’t a competitive advantage is “but they are women, and they are female”. 🤨
Btw, your premise in bold is not something she’s explicitly claiming. She’s claims that for trans women in particular, “if there’s an advantage, and I’m not saying there is, then it’s not an unfair advantage” over women because of the already wide diversity of physiological attributes within women inching all the way into some elite men.
The argument that most annoys me is the argument she makes that since there hasn't been a trans-woman who won a medal at the Olympics, then there is no advantage. The sample size is too small to claim this. Clearly most elite female athletes are better at their sport than average men would be in the same event. The performance distribution curves for men and women overlap, but the best men are always better than the best women. The question is what happens if an elite or sub-elite man transitions? To my knowledge this hasn't occurred and the closest we have seen Lia in swimming. The very fact that fairly average men have transitioned to women and been able to compete in the Olympics belies her point. I take no stand however on whether we has a society should accept that the human right for transwomen to compete with women trumps the potential unfair advantage.
Her argument is that natural T disparity shouldn’t be used as an argument to exclude transwomen because that doesn’t provide competitive advantage. To her credit, natural T is overemphasized by media and WA and other athletic bodies as a difference between men and women, to the extent that they have set limits for what is permitted in the women’s category.
If I were Ivy and you told me that natural T is hardly the only factor and there’s a whole host of other physiological features that T and other factors help develop in boys at puberty, here’s what I’d presumably force you to do:
1) Either identify every one of those factors or at least the dozen or so most significant ones, and place exclusion limits on them. This would be a losing proposition and you’d end up excluding some women from women sports and allowing some men into women sports (if they so chose).
2) Accept that we don’t know really understand what all matters for performance and therefore err on the side of inclusion.
(Just the messenger and playing devil’s advocate here.)
I agree that there's been an overemphasis on natural T as the main or sole explanation for the physical differences between men and women that matter so much in sports.
But the reason WA and other athletic bodies, and the media in their wake, ended up focusing so heavily on natural T in sports - and in women's sports specifically - is because in response to complaints and legal challenges from XY DSD athletes who wanted to compete in women's sports, the IAAF/ WA and IOC decided in the 1990s to stop requiring athletes seeking eligibility for women's competition to undergo mandatory genetic testing to establish that they were XX and/or lacked the male-determining SRY gene that's normally on the Y chromosome in males.
When the IAAF/WA stopped basing eligibility for women's competition on athletes being genetically female, the IAAF/WA and IOC came up with cockamamie new criteria that was all about testosterone levels. The new criteria were designed to serve the interests of XY DSD athletes who wanted in on women's sports - not to protect fairness and safety for female athletes with only X chromosomes who thought and think women's sports should be for female athletes only.
Making eligibility for women's sports all about testosterone levels has always struck me as totally nuts. (Yes that little joke was intentional, hardy har har.) Because whilst testosterone is the predominant natural sex hormone in males, and it's the sex hormone that drives male development and many aspects of male physiology and behavior (such as male libido), testosterone is a hormone that females make in very small amounts most of the time. Moreover, the natural, endogenous T that female humans make in relatively tiny amounts seems to have no or very little bearing on female development and female sports performance.
As for the claim that the IAAF/WA and other sports governing organizations "have set limits for what is permitted [in terms of natural testosterone levels] in the women’s category" - sorry, this is not true.
There are only limits on the natural T of male athletes with DSDs and male athletes claiming trans identities in the women's category. There is no upper limit set for the amount of natural T of female athletes in women's sports. Athletes with female genetics born with ovaries whose natural testosterone is above the normal female range (0.2-1.68 nmol/L) for any reason - CAH, PCOS, pregnancy, endocrine tumors - are subject to no restrictions or special rules in women's sports. A female athlete cannot be disqualified from women's sports for having "naturally high testosterone " or "unusually high levels of natural T" - only male athletes can.
The 5 nmol/L upper limit that the WA has set for middle-distance women's events applies exclusively to XY DSD and male trans-identified athletes in women's competition.
The 2.5 nmol/L upper limit that FINA and UCI have recently announced they are putting in place also apply solely to male athletes with DSDs and male athletes with trans identities who seek eligibility in girls' and women's competition - not to any female athletes.
Yes, that’s correct, the limit doesn’t apply for any woman, only those with one of a list of conditions.
Her framing of the debate is also to move away from T levels and instead frame it as: either identify the underlying performance factors or it’s your definition of “woman” against mine.
I would only be able to take this as a quasi-religious belief that I could pretend to believe, but ultimately I'd just be pretending. The most I can do is believe that they believe it, like any religion. I certainly can't realistically expect to debate anyone with that mindset. Imagine the furore if Noah had said to Ivy: "No, I don't believe you're a biological female" even though that would be 100% factual.
The bigger picture being that the category is there to protect 'females' not 'people who feel feminine'.
I hear you, though I wouldn’t quite equate it to a religious belief simply because I do think there’s more medical heft to their belief than to a religious one, even before but especially after transitioning. I do wish Noah had in his usual diplomatic style asked something like “but there are people who would say ‘biological’ means born with a woman’s organs at birth and that that makes a nontrivial difference. What is your response to that?”.
I believe it is her strategy to frame this debate as one where both sides can call the other’s belief faith-based. You may disagree but that framing is not an easy one to counter, and if history is any indication, the human rights argument for the historically oppressed usually wins over time.
both sides can call the other’s belief faith-based. You may disagree but that framing is not an easy one to counter
If we accept the dictionary's definition of 'woman' as being 'adult female human being' and we accept the scientific principle of females (of every mammal) being the group that produce large gametes, then there really is absolutely no argument about which position is faith-based. However, Ivy would not accept those well established scientific definitions, or would employ 'trivial objections' (e.g. 'what about a woman who has had a hysterectomy?') and so can claim whatever hollow victory such obvious obfuscation might achieve.
For example, if you say 'cats are mammals' and I say 'I reject that definition and I feel that cats are actually a type of fish'. It doesn't mean that both definitions are faith-based, I would just be wrong. And we can't just compromise and say cats must be amphibious.
If we accept the dictionary's definition of 'woman' as being 'adult female human being' and we accept the scientific principle of females (of every mammal) being the group that produce large gametes, then there really is absolutely no argument about which position is faith-based. However, Ivy would not accept those well established scientific definitions, or would employ 'trivial objections' (e.g. 'what about a woman who has had a hysterectomy?') and so can claim whatever hollow victory such obvious obfuscation might achieve.
For example, if you say 'cats are mammals' and I say 'I reject that definition and I feel that cats are actually a type of fish'. It doesn't mean that both definitions are faith-based, I would just be wrong. And we can't just compromise and say cats must be amphibious.
It is not a disagreement over fact as you present. She is saying that your definition of woman *for the purposes of inclusivity in women’s sport* is faith-based, so dictionary or popular or common sense definitions are not necessarily relevant here. She has a different definition based on what people like her intrinsically, biologically, physiologically feel.
The only place where the disagreement matters is fairness in women’s sport, so her argument is that if you can’t show what all physiological traits scientifically contribute to a performance advantage and systematically exclude outliers for the sake of fairness, then we both just have our respective adopted definitions. (We already agreed that scientifically determining what all combinations of traits matter for performance is not a problem we are going to solve to everyone’s satisfaction any time soon.)
. She is saying that your definition of woman *for the purposes of inclusivity in women’s sport* is faith-based, so dictionary or popular or common sense definitions are not necessarily relevant here. She has a different definition based on what people like her intrinsically, biologically, physiologically feel.
If protected categories can be made to be inclusive of those who aren't eligible based on subjective feelings then why stop at women's sport? Why not allow a middleweight who feels they are a featherweight fighting in their preferred weight class? Why not have an able-bodied athlete who feels like they are an amputee compete in the Paralympics? Why not allow a 20 year old who feels 13 compete at high school level? There is a difference between being ineligible and being excluded.
My position (and I suspect the vast majority of female athletes) is that the 'popular' definition of female is perfectly relevant for the purposes of fairness in women's sport. As Gladwell asked, if an alien came to earth and asked why there are two separate events for the 1500m gold medals, what would your answer be?
If we accept the dictionary's definition of 'woman' as being 'adult female human being' and we accept the scientific principle of females (of every mammal) being the group that produce large gametes, then there really is absolutely no argument about which position is faith-based. However, Ivy would not accept those well established scientific definitions, or would employ 'trivial objections' (e.g. 'what about a woman who has had a hysterectomy?') and so can claim whatever hollow victory such obvious obfuscation might achieve.
For example, if you say 'cats are mammals' and I say 'I reject that definition and I feel that cats are actually a type of fish'. It doesn't mean that both definitions are faith-based, I would just be wrong. And we can't just compromise and say cats must be amphibious.
It is not a disagreement over fact as you present. She is saying that your definition of woman *for the purposes of inclusivity in women’s sport* is faith-based, so dictionary or popular or common sense definitions are not necessarily relevant here. She has a different definition based on what people like her intrinsically, biologically, physiologically feel.
The only place where the disagreement matters is fairness in women’s sport, so her argument is that if you can’t show what all physiological traits scientifically contribute to a performance advantage and systematically exclude outliers for the sake of fairness, then we both just have our respective adopted definitions. (We already agreed that scientifically determining what all combinations of traits matter for performance is not a problem we are going to solve to everyone’s satisfaction any time soon.)
We could absolutely list the physiological differences that contribute to a performance advantage.
If protected categories can be made to be inclusive of those who aren't eligible based on subjective feelings then why stop at women's sport? Why not allow a middleweight who feels they are a featherweight fighting in their preferred weight class? Why not have an able-bodied athlete who feels like they are an amputee compete in the Paralympics? Why not allow a 20 year old who feels 13 compete at high school level? There is a difference between being ineligible and being excluded.
The answer to your question of “why not” is simply is that there are no “protected categories” claiming to feel like a different weight or like an amputee when they are not, but there is a protected class of trans people widely recognized by doctors as having been born feeling trapped in the wrong body and by the government for legal purposes as having a legitimate claim to the female status. Now it’s only a question of whether they have an unfair performance advantage over cis women or not.
You should either be able to identify performance advantageous traits for inclusion/exclusion OR accept that you also just have a definition that doesn’t necessarily confer any performance advantage or disadvantage. Do you understand this framing? What part of it do you disagree with?
As Gladwell asked, if an alien came to earth and asked why there are two separate events for the 1500m gold medals, what would your answer be?
That’s easy to answer: for fairness of performance within two groups. As of the 21st century however, we have been unable to agree on which of those two groups trans women belong because we don’t fully understand what all combinations of factors offer a competitive performance advantage. There is one side clamoring for a definition based on natal gamete size and another based on what they have always felt and how much they have transitioned via therapy.
As Gladwell asked, if an alien came to earth and asked why there are two separate events for the 1500m gold medals, what would your answer be?
That’s easy to answer: for fairness of performance within two groups. As of the 21st century however, we have been unable to agree on which of those two groups trans women belong because we don’t fully understand what all combinations of factors offer a competitive performance advantage. There is one side clamoring for a definition based on natal gamete size and another based on what they have always felt and how much they have transitioned via therapy.
This is false. We understand why men are faster. It’s not a mystery. Advocates for inclusion ignore available science.
It is not a disagreement over fact as you present. She is saying that your definition of woman *for the purposes of inclusivity in women’s sport* is faith-based, so dictionary or popular or common sense definitions are not necessarily relevant here. She has a different definition based on what people like her intrinsically, biologically, physiologically feel.
The only place where the disagreement matters is fairness in women’s sport, so her argument is that if you can’t show what all physiological traits scientifically contribute to a performance advantage and systematically exclude outliers for the sake of fairness, then we both just have our respective adopted definitions. (We already agreed that scientifically determining what all combinations of traits matter for performance is not a problem we are going to solve to everyone’s satisfaction any time soon.)
We could absolutely list the physiological differences that contribute to a performance advantage.
Try to do that and you’d have fallen into the philosophical trap Ivy seemingly has set. You would need to come up not just with a list of traits known to confer a performance advantage or disadvantage but also set limits on them for who can be included in women’s sport. This would be a losing proposition for you because for any combination of trait criteria you can come up with (including but not just endogenous T) it would exclude some cis women from women’s sport and/or allow some cis men in women’s sport if they so choose.
The only trait for which that is not true is natal gamete size and natal gamete size alone, so that criteria is simply inclusion/exclusion by definition. Just like Ivy’s.
Now it’s only a question of whether they have an unfair performance advantage over cis women or not.
Like I said, there are already 11 studies that prove trans women retain an unfair advantage over biological females even after hormone suppression. Aerobic capacity, heart size, bone density, q-angle, lung capacity, muscle mass to name a few. As previously mentioned, no studies exist that disprove this advantage, indeed, for elite sports this advantage is hypothesised to be retained to a much *higher* degree, given all we know about elite performance. I feel we're slightly going in circles here, so I shall end my contribution to this discussion here.
That’s easy to answer: for fairness of performance within two groups. As of the 21st century however, we have been unable to agree on which of those two groups trans women belong because we don’t fully understand what all combinations of factors offer a competitive performance advantage. There is one side clamoring for a definition based on natal gamete size and another based on what they have always felt and how much they have transitioned via therapy.
This is false. We understand why men are faster. It’s not a mystery. Advocates for inclusion ignore available science.
If you fully understand it, I suggest reading and providing a few scientific references. Scientists don’t claim as much confidence as you are. I’m happy to provide references to support that claim. You can also get those from Ivy’s twitter feed.
Like I said, there are already 11 studies that prove trans women retain an unfair advantage over biological females even after hormone suppression. Aerobic capacity, heart size, bone density, q-angle, lung capacity, muscle mass to name a few. As previously mentioned, no studies exist that disprove this advantage, indeed, for elite sports this advantage is hypothesised to be retained to a much *higher* degree, given all we know about elite performance. I feel we're slightly going in circles here, so I shall end my contribution to this discussion here.
Ivy would simply ask you what limits on those traits you listed above should we set for inclusion in women’s sport to maintain fairness. Your answer however would be natal gamete size alone.
Like I said, there are already 11 studies that prove trans women retain an unfair advantage over biological females even after hormone suppression. Aerobic capacity, heart size, bone density, q-angle, lung capacity, muscle mass to name a few. As previously mentioned, no studies exist that disprove this advantage, indeed, for elite sports this advantage is hypothesised to be retained to a much *higher* degree, given all we know about elite performance. I feel we're slightly going in circles here, so I shall end my contribution to this discussion here.
Ivy would simply ask you what limits on those traits you listed above should we set for inclusion in women’s sport to maintain fairness. Your answer however would be natal gamete size alone.
Like I said, there are already 11 studies that prove trans women retain an unfair advantage over biological females even after hormone suppression. Aerobic capacity, heart size, bone density, q-angle, lung capacity, muscle mass to name a few. As previously mentioned, no studies exist that disprove this advantage, indeed, for elite sports this advantage is hypothesised to be retained to a much *higher* degree, given all we know about elite performance. I feel we're slightly going in circles here, so I shall end my contribution to this discussion here.
Ivy would simply ask you what limits on those traits you listed above should we set for inclusion in women’s sport to maintain fairness. Your answer however would be natal gamete size alone.
The exact list of traits is irrelevant. Women's sports are for women, and transwomen are not women; if they were, we wouldn't need the modifier, we could just call them women.
We could absolutely list the physiological differences that contribute to a performance advantage.
Try to do that and you’d have fallen into the philosophical trap Ivy seemingly has set. You would need to come up not just with a list of traits known to confer a performance advantage or disadvantage but also set limits on them for who can be included in women’s sport. This would be a losing proposition for you because for any combination of trait criteria you can come up with (including but not just endogenous T) it would exclude some cis women from women’s sport and/or allow some cis men in women’s sport if they so choose.
The only trait for which that is not true is natal gamete size and natal gamete size alone, so that criteria is simply inclusion/exclusion by definition. Just like Ivy’s.
Why do I need to set limits on them? Why can’t my conclusion be that the traits of males (before and after transition) give them an overwhelming advantage regardless and thus cannot be included?