For the woman who is bumpedfrom the podium, it does not really matter whether the trans athlete used to be#1 or #100 in the men's competition. She is still bumped either way. So you can make an argument that both situations are equally unfair.
But if you look at this from the other side, someone who used to be #1 in men's competition might be more deserving of the podium than someone who used to be #100. The former person is foregoing the opportunity to win a national title in one division in exchange for an opportunity to win a national title in another division. The latter person is exchanging an opportunity to be on the second team all-conference in one division for an opportunity to win a national title in another division. It seems rather undeserving to me.
Another perspective is the implication for the big picture. If only top level male athletes can possibly transition to become top level female athletes, then there simply won't be enough of them to "take over" women's sports. It is not likely to happen anyway, but at least there is somewhat greater chance of it happening if a mediocre male athlete could become an outstanding female athlete.
I know there is disagreement on whether one situation is more unfair than the other. But most of the disagreement seems to be whether it is less unfair if a top level male athlete transitions to become a top level female athlete. There seems to be pretty strong agreement that a mediocre male becoming a top level female is unfair regardless. (I didn't write "consensus" because there is disagreement on that as well.)
I also did not write "fairness" in my previous post, because it is hard to determine what is fair. Any solution to this problem is probably "unfair" to someone to a certain extent.
Thanks for the explanation. I hear you but can’t at all relate to the two concerns that seem to be where your philosophical buck stops, i.e., self-evidently good without the need for a higher-level root fairness or moral principle from which they derive (apologies if I’m misparaphrasing you):
1) A male athlete likely making a sacrifice or taking a risk is more good compared to one who seems likely to benefit. 2) Fewer male athletes transitioning to women is good.
For me, either of the above two concerns is irrelevant to the issue at hand and smacks of suspicion as opposed to a trust-but-verify default. What is relevant is that a trans person didn’t choose to be how they were born and how their body wants them to identify, so we as a society must try to ensure dignity and equal opportunity to them like every other person (my buck stopping place).
To preserve fairness in and integrity of the women’s category as well as equity for trans, the necessary and sufficient condition is to institute eligibility policies that ensure that the fraction of trans women winning medals as a fraction of all trans women is comparable to the fraction of cis women winning medals as a fraction of all cis women. Finding such policies needs continued research and (unfortunately) some real-world experimentation, but WA and FINA have ensured that the fraction is practically 0 for trans women today.
"To preserve fairness in and integrity of the women’s category as well as equity for trans, the necessary and sufficient condition is to institute eligibility policies that ensure that the fraction of trans women winning medals as a fraction of all trans women is comparable to the fraction of cis women winning medals as a fraction of all cis women. Finding such policies needs continued research and (unfortunately) some real-world experimentation, but WA and FINA have ensured that the fraction is practically 0 for trans women today."(quote)
That is a false argument. "Fairness" isn't shown by how well trans women do against other trans women but against women. It also isn't necessary to conduct studies of how well trans women perform in sports to know they have a biological advantage. Take away their "identifying" as female and we are left with the fact they are males competing against females. That isn't accepted because it is unarguably an unfair advantage. It isn't changed because some individual trans athletes may be much better (or, conversely, weaker) than others. We don't let inferior male athletes compete against better women, either.
If combining these data sets is not a good way to determine advantage then what is? We're combining thousands of variables into a future performance outcome, it's not going to be distilled into one thing (re: testosterone).
I stand by the female category being an exclusive group, excluding those who are not biologically female. The burden of proof is on MTF advocates to prove the advantage that they had as a biological males is now removed.
In response to the above points:
We have to bracket the group somehow. Otherwise we're making case-by-case determinations. A first pass easy bracket is "MTF athletes".
The best way to determine over/under representation is to look at the average ranking of MTF athletes. So is the average MTF athlete in the 50th percentile of NCAA rankings? Or are they faster/slower than average? This is additionally obfuscated by a sample size of 40-50, many of which are on team sports that don't offer individual rankings.
I don't find individual cases (Thomas, Teller) to be helpful. Too much bias on both sides once you put a face to the issue. Easier to make an impartial judgement when looking at group data.
The biomarkers, as I've said before, is a very hard issue. Firstly because there is variability within groups, but also because there is biomarkers are not directly indicative of performance.
If I know a good way to determine advantage, I would probably be proposing that to NCAA instead of writing on this forum.
Comparing the average MTF athlete to the 50th percentile of all women would not work, because the overall number is very small to begin with, and they are spread across multiple sports in three different divisions. The number of MTF athlete in any single sport is probably a low single digit. The "average" of 3-5 people is not a meaningful data point.
If we need to "bracket" MTF athletes, the first step is to divide them between those who started their transition at or before the start of puberty, and those who started after the start of puberty. It is not perfect, but that's what World Athletics and World Aquatics are using at the moment.
But here is something interesting I learned recently. Before the state government passed the total ban, there were four MTF athletes in Utah. The minimum requirement was at least one year of hormone replacement therapy. Two of them started their transition before puberty. The other two started it later. The latter two were approved based on their actual performance level.
When the total number is this small, it is possible to evaluate one case at a time. And that might be the right approach at K-12 level.
Maybe, but I'm not convinced "trans girls will be allowed to compete against girls, as long as they're not too good" is an approach that can really work, even with the luxury of doing this on a case-by-case basis.
You said that two MTF athletes in Utah were approved "based on their actual performance level" -- what did this involve? Were others turned down based on their performance level?
Journalism used to be about integrity and even then there were instances with zero journalistic integrity or sheer stupidity, one sided stories. But now integrity is sacrificed, all out the window, in order for clicks and revenue. Media whores/personalities are generally insufferable with no accountability for attacking/using others to make money. Time to start holding these journalists accountable with fines and revoking journalism/media privileges all together. It's not fair they can be comfortable with attacking other individuals and groups on a daily basis for profit with no repercussions. Those making a salary over 100k should have to pay out the people/groups whose name they use for profit.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
If I know a good way to determine advantage, I would probably be proposing that to NCAA instead of writing on this forum.
Comparing the average MTF athlete to the 50th percentile of all women would not work, because the overall number is very small to begin with, and they are spread across multiple sports in three different divisions. The number of MTF athlete in any single sport is probably a low single digit. The "average" of 3-5 people is not a meaningful data point.
If we need to "bracket" MTF athletes, the first step is to divide them between those who started their transition at or before the start of puberty, and those who started after the start of puberty. It is not perfect, but that's what World Athletics and World Aquatics are using at the moment.
But here is something interesting I learned recently. Before the state government passed the total ban, there were four MTF athletes in Utah. The minimum requirement was at least one year of hormone replacement therapy. Two of them started their transition before puberty. The other two started it later. The latter two were approved based on their actual performance level.
When the total number is this small, it is possible to evaluate one case at a time. And that might be the right approach at K-12 level.
Maybe, but I'm not convinced "trans girls will be allowed to compete against girls, as long as they're not too good" is an approach that can really work, even with the luxury of doing this on a case-by-case basis.
You said that two MTF athletes in Utah were approved "based on their actual performance level" -- what did this involve? Were others turned down based on their performance level?
Yeah nobody cares if someone is finishing 200th in the XC invite. But as soon as they score, the complaining would start. And if they won....
For HS I would argue one year of hormone suppression is good enough. But do you really want to be encouraging that? I would hate for athletics to factor into that choice.
If I know a good way to determine advantage, I would probably be proposing that to NCAA instead of writing on this forum.
Comparing the average MTF athlete to the 50th percentile of all women would not work, because the overall number is very small to begin with, and they are spread across multiple sports in three different divisions. The number of MTF athlete in any single sport is probably a low single digit. The "average" of 3-5 people is not a meaningful data point.
If we need to "bracket" MTF athletes, the first step is to divide them between those who started their transition at or before the start of puberty, and those who started after the start of puberty. It is not perfect, but that's what World Athletics and World Aquatics are using at the moment.
But here is something interesting I learned recently. Before the state government passed the total ban, there were four MTF athletes in Utah. The minimum requirement was at least one year of hormone replacement therapy. Two of them started their transition before puberty. The other two started it later. The latter two were approved based on their actual performance level.
When the total number is this small, it is possible to evaluate one case at a time. And that might be the right approach at K-12 level.
Maybe, but I'm not convinced "trans girls will be allowed to compete against girls, as long as they're not too good" is an approach that can really work, even with the luxury of doing this on a case-by-case basis.
You said that two MTF athletes in Utah were approved "based on their actual performance level" -- what did this involve? Were others turned down based on their performance level?
It is mentioned on p.22874 here.
That court explained that “[m]any transgender girls—including two of the plaintiffs in this case—medically transition at the onset of puberty, thereby never gaining any potential advantages that the increased production of testosterone during male puberty may create.” The court also noted that other transgender girls “may simply have no discernible advantage in any case, depending on the student's age, level of ability, and the sport in which they wish to participate.”
I don't know how many applicants were rejected on what ground in Utah. There are other states that released the number of athletes who were turned down. (Arizona was one of them.)
You have to be joking. Having the "Y" chromosome causes them to produce far more testosterone since birth, so biological males will always have an advantage.
