It’s not binary. There are absolutely physical differences between men and women. To deny this is to deny reality. You can go ahead and make the argument that if T levels are suppressed or kept even, that those advantages go away. But to claim that the separation of men and women, in quotes, is binary (which I don’t really know what you mean when you say that), is foolish. There ARE differences. Just because the most athletic of women are more athletic than middle of the road men, doesn’t mean there aren’t differences. The ranges of the two have much different floors and ceilings. There is simply an overlap between those ranges.
What about cis women who are taller than average cis women? Do they not have a biological advantage in, say, sprinting?
Is there some reason that that biological advantage isn’t important, but any biological advantage a trans woman has is? Is there some reason that categorically banning trans women makes any sense it all, with no consideration to actually measure any advantages an individual trans athlete has?
Some consistency would be nice. How are we going to define what a cisgender woman is in specific biological terms? Are you no longer a cisgender woman if your lung capacity is too large? What about if your wingspan is too wide? Are you still a cis woman, if you have a mutation that gives you significantly wider wingspan than an average cis woman? Why are those advantages a-ok on cis women but immediately a problem on trans women?
If we’re going to control for “biological advantages” then it’d be nice if we actually did that at all. Instead we’re just talking about categorically banning trans women. Gee, I wonder why that could be? Couldn’t have anything to do with the global conservative movement pushing transphobic narratives and attempting to have trans women ejected from all women’s spaces and legally forced to live around and as men, could it?
Firstly, certain groups have over politicized this topic in order to punch down on a minority group they dislike. Those people are ass holes, and I’m not defending that behavior. However, unfortunately, their base argument does actually have some marret, even if they are complete ass holes about it.
There is consistency, to use your terminology cis gender women can compete with cis gender women & cis gender men compete against cis gender men. Transgender folk are somewhere around 1% (or less) of the over all population, they are the extreme outliers that don’t fit this consistent & highly effective (in terms of athletics) categorization of men’s & women’s sports. Another group, roughly the same size with an unknown advantage/disadvantage that are excluded from this classification are amputees/augmented humans.
We currently have separate competition for amputees from non amputees, the Paralympics exist & is lauded as a good thing. Outside of the political oppression issues, this model makes far more sense for trans athletes then simply allowing them to compete with the gender they identify with.
Splitting competition into male/female makes sense, because sexual dimorphism is a reality for our species. In nearly every sport, women are highly disadvantaged against men. Statistically the physical divergence between the sexes is vastly larger then the divergence within the sexes. This is consistent, despite your argument to the contrary.
I’m all for trans people being treated with respect, but respect goes both ways & part of that respect is the admission that a trans woman is not the same as a woman, and a trans man is not the same as a man. These are 4 different & distinct categories of people (hence the desire to relabel two of those groups with the ‘cis’ moniker), and ignoring that reality causes more problems then it will ever fix. It is not transphobic to prefer dating cis gender people, nor is it transphobic to believe that men & women’s sports should be for men & women respectively. Both of these CAN be transphobic if your being a hateful dick about it, but it’s not inherently so in holding those opinions.
Even in this comment there’s a distinct lack of recognition of the extent that hormones, and testosterone specifically, are responsible for dimorphism. People commonly think that the list of secondary sex traits is much shorter than it is and underestimate the effects of hormone therapy.
The Olympics have allowed trans athletes to compete as their gender identity since 2004 and yet trans women have not done well. One trans person has ever medaled. It was in a team sport by somebody who didn’t have male puberty. There has been one trans woman competing in weight lifting, she didn’t complete her lifts.
It’s not transphobic. You’re overusing that word, and you’re hurting OUR cause.
It is not transphobic to recognize an actual difference. It is not transphobic to want to find solutions that work well for everybody. And it is not transphobic to recognize that people born a male, who go through puberty a male, develop a body different than that of a female. And those differences absolutely can make a difference in sports. This is 100% a fact. Hormone suppression aside, men are taller, on average. Men weigh more, on average. Men are stronger, on average. These are facts, indisputable. Stating as much is not transphobic.
The reason you’ve probably only had 1 transgender person when an olympic medal is because there aren’t a lot of transgender people, and winning an olympic medal is fucking hard.
Can you point to data that supports your point or is this just a gut feeling you have that you assume to be factual? I know for myself that my strength and endurance are nothing like what they were before estrogen. Science overall seems to agree. You are just dead set on your opinion and refuse to change your mind.
Can I point to data that men are taller than women? Stronger than women? Yes… yes I can. Or you can just google it. It’s a pretty easily verifiable fact.
We’re open to productive conversation and discussion here on beehaw (as long as it’s in line with our rule - be(e) nice), but this has not been that. People in this community have been incredibly generous in sharing here, and you haven’t shown any openness or willingness to learn or listen, so it’s time to disengage.
So in this you’ve explicitly acknowledged that the accepted terminology is that trans men and cis men are both men, but have ignored that and created a dichotomy between “men” and trans men anyway by ignoring the word cisgender. Why is that?
It’s not binary. There are absolutely physical differences between men and women. To deny this is to deny reality. You can go ahead and make the argument that if T levels are suppressed or kept even, that those advantages go away. But to claim that the separation of men and women, in quotes, is binary (which I don’t really know what you mean when you say that), is foolish. There ARE differences. Just because the most athletic of women are more athletic than middle of the road men, doesn’t mean there aren’t differences. The ranges of the two have much different floors and ceilings. There is simply an overlap between those ranges.
What about cis women who are taller than average cis women? Do they not have a biological advantage in, say, sprinting?
Is there some reason that that biological advantage isn’t important, but any biological advantage a trans woman has is? Is there some reason that categorically banning trans women makes any sense it all, with no consideration to actually measure any advantages an individual trans athlete has?
Some consistency would be nice. How are we going to define what a cisgender woman is in specific biological terms? Are you no longer a cisgender woman if your lung capacity is too large? What about if your wingspan is too wide? Are you still a cis woman, if you have a mutation that gives you significantly wider wingspan than an average cis woman? Why are those advantages a-ok on cis women but immediately a problem on trans women?
If we’re going to control for “biological advantages” then it’d be nice if we actually did that at all. Instead we’re just talking about categorically banning trans women. Gee, I wonder why that could be? Couldn’t have anything to do with the global conservative movement pushing transphobic narratives and attempting to have trans women ejected from all women’s spaces and legally forced to live around and as men, could it?
Firstly, certain groups have over politicized this topic in order to punch down on a minority group they dislike. Those people are ass holes, and I’m not defending that behavior. However, unfortunately, their base argument does actually have some marret, even if they are complete ass holes about it.
There is consistency, to use your terminology cis gender women can compete with cis gender women & cis gender men compete against cis gender men. Transgender folk are somewhere around 1% (or less) of the over all population, they are the extreme outliers that don’t fit this consistent & highly effective (in terms of athletics) categorization of men’s & women’s sports. Another group, roughly the same size with an unknown advantage/disadvantage that are excluded from this classification are amputees/augmented humans.
We currently have separate competition for amputees from non amputees, the Paralympics exist & is lauded as a good thing. Outside of the political oppression issues, this model makes far more sense for trans athletes then simply allowing them to compete with the gender they identify with.
Splitting competition into male/female makes sense, because sexual dimorphism is a reality for our species. In nearly every sport, women are highly disadvantaged against men. Statistically the physical divergence between the sexes is vastly larger then the divergence within the sexes. This is consistent, despite your argument to the contrary.
I’m all for trans people being treated with respect, but respect goes both ways & part of that respect is the admission that a trans woman is not the same as a woman, and a trans man is not the same as a man. These are 4 different & distinct categories of people (hence the desire to relabel two of those groups with the ‘cis’ moniker), and ignoring that reality causes more problems then it will ever fix. It is not transphobic to prefer dating cis gender people, nor is it transphobic to believe that men & women’s sports should be for men & women respectively. Both of these CAN be transphobic if your being a hateful dick about it, but it’s not inherently so in holding those opinions.
Even in this comment there’s a distinct lack of recognition of the extent that hormones, and testosterone specifically, are responsible for dimorphism. People commonly think that the list of secondary sex traits is much shorter than it is and underestimate the effects of hormone therapy.
The Olympics have allowed trans athletes to compete as their gender identity since 2004 and yet trans women have not done well. One trans person has ever medaled. It was in a team sport by somebody who didn’t have male puberty. There has been one trans woman competing in weight lifting, she didn’t complete her lifts.
As far as I’m aware, the only sport where we have specifically studied athletic performance is distance running (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307766116_Race_Times_for_Transgender_Athletes), where no advantage was found.
It’s not transphobic. You’re overusing that word, and you’re hurting OUR cause.
It is not transphobic to recognize an actual difference. It is not transphobic to want to find solutions that work well for everybody. And it is not transphobic to recognize that people born a male, who go through puberty a male, develop a body different than that of a female. And those differences absolutely can make a difference in sports. This is 100% a fact. Hormone suppression aside, men are taller, on average. Men weigh more, on average. Men are stronger, on average. These are facts, indisputable. Stating as much is not transphobic.
The reason you’ve probably only had 1 transgender person when an olympic medal is because there aren’t a lot of transgender people, and winning an olympic medal is fucking hard.
Can you point to data that supports your point or is this just a gut feeling you have that you assume to be factual? I know for myself that my strength and endurance are nothing like what they were before estrogen. Science overall seems to agree. You are just dead set on your opinion and refuse to change your mind.
Can I point to data that men are taller than women? Stronger than women? Yes… yes I can. Or you can just google it. It’s a pretty easily verifiable fact.
We’re open to productive conversation and discussion here on beehaw (as long as it’s in line with our rule - be(e) nice), but this has not been that. People in this community have been incredibly generous in sharing here, and you haven’t shown any openness or willingness to learn or listen, so it’s time to disengage.
And there it is. You don’t actually see trans women as women and that’s why you’re being shouted down for being transphobic.
I just don’t understand why bigots feel the need to butt into our communities to spread their hate
So in this you’ve explicitly acknowledged that the accepted terminology is that trans men and cis men are both men, but have ignored that and created a dichotomy between “men” and trans men anyway by ignoring the word cisgender. Why is that?
Removed by mod