Transgender Athletes

NotThatSoph said:
What do you mean "uh, no?. You said males have a Y chromosome and females have two X chromosomes, and that this is basic biology. However, intermediate (I guess?) biology says that males can have two X chromosomes (Klinefelter) and that females can have a Y chromosome (Swyer).

If you want to go by chromosomes then you want certain males to compete against females, and females against males. Or, you consider people with Klinefelter as females and peope with Swyer as males.
Click to expand...
Bud, genetically if you have a Y chromosome, you have the SRY gene. That means you’re genetically / biologically a male.
 
Carolina Red said:
Bud, genetically if you have a Y chromosome, you have the SRY gene. That means you’re genetically / biologically a male.
Click to expand...

Right, so you consider people with Swyer syndrome males? That's certainly an interesting take. I'm not sure if the medical community will back you on this specific instance of basic biology.
 
Had a shower thought,

I don't think people would care if trans people were competing but weren't winning/dominating, and it would become a non issue and do a lot to normalise trans rights. What do we think about essentially going, "right, trans people can compete wherever they want subject to the standard rules regarding transitioning/doping/test levels etc, and we will look over a 4-8 year cycle what the proportion of trans athletes win rates are reflective of their demographic proportion. I don't think the data we currently have reflects that trans women competing are instantly favourites to win, so this may be a storm in a tea cup where, actually, everyone wins.

However, should it play out that the entire women's division of sporting events become completely dominated by trans individuals, we then have the conversation about how to split divisions without completely invalidating cis women, with the authority that we have used the last 4-8 years as a "trial run" essentially.

Bottom line, I don't think someone fully going through a transition and all the physical and emotional hardship that entails does it on a whim to win some sporting events for a few years. It will play out similar to the south park episode where cartman gets into the special Olympics and still gets dominated. I just don't think there is this Boogieman bloke who randomly goes "im gunna compete against girls for a bit for a laugh" and completely dominates Wimbledon for 15 years. if and when it happens consistently, over a number of competitions, we can rightly question in the context of sports, what's fair.
 
Carolina Red said:
Let me ask my wife, part of the medical community.
Click to expand...

Sure, go ahead, though it seemed to me that you were pretty sure already. And I'm aware of the fact that your wife has been on the front lines regarding Covid-19, and that she (and you?) at one point got infected, I'm sorry if I'm getting this wrong but that's what I gathered from my semi-regular browsing (and that DMX is a dick). If this is correct then she's doing some very important work, and I hope you're all recovered and well, but unless we're talking about some dual specialities then I'm not sure how authorative we're supposed to treat this. For instance, my GP is very good and extremely knowledgeable, which is why he teaches several courses at uni, but he'd be the first to tell you (and me!) that he doesn't know much about running injuries.
 
Always find it interesting when people mention what the total testosterone levels should be, but not mention the free test levels.

Even the total T levels that the IOC requires transwomen to keep are pretty high (nearly 300 ng/dl). That's in the low range of a male and yet still 6 times more than the high range of women which is about 45 ng/dl. A super goddess biologically born woman with top tier T production would be about 70 - 90 ng/dl.


And that's just total T.

We've not begun to start talking about Free Test as in freely circulating androgens that target tissue. The amount of free T in your system is mostly going to be determined by your SHBG (sex hoemone binding globulin) levels

A transwoman born a man biologically will always have an shbg significantly lower than a biologically born female. These are the proteins that bind with the lowest affinity estrogen hormones and the highest affinity androgens.

So not only do you already have a crazy high (for a woman) total T levels, you also have male levels of binding globulin that will put your total T at about 10 times higher than that of a biologically born woman.

Pretty interesting.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Sure, go ahead, though it seemed to me that you were pretty sure already. And I'm aware of the fact that your wife has been on the front lines regarding Covid-19, and that she (and you?) at one point got infected, I'm sorry if I'm getting this wrong but that's what I gathered from my semi-regular browsing (and that DMX is a dick). If this is correct then she's doing some very important work, and I hope you're all recovered and well, but unless we're talking about some dual specialities then I'm not sure how authorative we're supposed to treat this. For instance, my GP is very good and extremely knowledgeable, which is why he teaches several courses at uni, but he'd be the first to tell you (and me!) that he doesn't know much about running injuries.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

Her response was short and to the point. “Appearance doesn’t outweigh genetics”
 
Carolina Red said:
Thank you.

Her response was short and to the point. “Appearance doesn’t outweigh genetics”
Click to expand...

Which means that gonads doesn't matter, hormones (estrogen, testosterone) doesn't matter, sex characteristics doesn't matter, the ability to menstruate doesn't matter, the ability to produce eggs doesn't matter, gametes doesn't matter. Only chromosomes, correct? I'm asking because you said genetics, but obviously, as you know, this is all genetics.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Which means that gonads doesn't matter, hormones (estrogen, testosterone) doesn't matter, sex characteristics doesn't matter, the ability to menstruate doesn't matter, the ability to produce eggs doesn't matter, gametes doesn't matter. Only chromosomes, correct? I'm asking because you said genetics, but obviously, as you know, this is all genetics.
Click to expand...
You realize we are talking about what genetically differentiates male from female, right?

The whole argument right now is about a literal gene that we know exists.
 
Carolina Red said:
You realize we are talking about what genetically differentiates male from female, right?

The whole argument right now is about a literal gene that we know exists.
Click to expand...

Yes. Chromosomes, hormones, sex characteristics, menstuation, egg production, gametes, this is all genetics. I am very aware of this.

I'm not sure what's unclear.
 
Carolina Red said:
That makes two of us.
Click to expand...

The difference seems to be that I'm trying, though. I literally don't understand what you're saying, which is why I'm asking. You're not answering, you're one-linering me. That's fine, you don't have to answer and you don't owe me anything, but I don't get you. If you don't care, what's the point, and if you do care but not about what I'm saying, why bother prolonging this? Just tell me from the start you're not interested so I don't waste both our time.
 
NotThatSoph said:
The difference seems to be that I'm trying, though. I literally don't understand what you're saying, which is why I'm asking. You're not answering, you're one-linering me. That's fine, you don't have to answer and you don't owe me anything, but I don't get you. If you don't care, what's the point, and if you do care but not about what I'm saying, why bother prolonging this? Just tell me from the start you're not interested so I don't waste both our time.
Click to expand...
I just don’t think there’s anything to debate. The Y chromosome exists. It contains the gene it contains. Biologically, it is what it is.

Psychologically, there’s a debate. And I think folks who psychologically identify as the opposite gender have every right to live their life as the gender they identify as.

But that’s different from biology, and biology is what has bearing on athletic competition, which is what this thread is about.
 
Carolina Red said:
I just don’t think there’s anything to debate. The Y chromosome exists. It contains the gene it contains. Biologically, it is what it is.

Psychologically, there’s a debate. And I think folks who psychologically identify as the opposite gender have every right to live their life as the gender they identify as.

But that’s different from biology, and biology is what has bearing on athletic competition, which is what this thread is about.
Click to expand...

So the answer is yes, right? Gametes don't matter, muscle mass doesn't matter, sex characteristics don't matter, gonads don't matter, hormones don't matter. True or false?

No psychology, no feelings, no identification.
 
NotThatSoph said:
The difference seems to be that I'm trying, though. I literally don't understand what you're saying, which is why I'm asking. You're not answering, you're one-linering me. That's fine, you don't have to answer and you don't owe me anything, but I don't get you. If you don't care, what's the point, and if you do care but not about what I'm saying, why bother prolonging this? Just tell me from the start you're not interested so I don't waste both our time.
Click to expand...
That's what my wife says to be every night.
 
NotThatSoph said:
So the answer is yes, right? Gametes don't matter, muscle mass doesn't matter, sex characteristics don't matter, gonads don't matter, hormones don't matter. True or false?

No psychology, no feelings, no identification.
Click to expand...
You tell me, bud. I’m sorry that the Y chromosome exists, but it does.
 
stepic said:
You’ve not really addressed either of my points.

As for yours, yes, men are generally stronger than women. Some men are also stronger than other men. Some women are also stronger than other women. Some women are also stronger than other men. There isn’t 100% integrity in any sport because we are all different, mentally and physiologically. That’s what makes sport interesting.
Click to expand...
At the end of the day it's unfair competition if you're being placed in a category of people who are and will always be stronger than you. It's pretty much asking someone who is biologically female to compete with someone who is biologically male. It doesn't matter if they are a weaker male. Bottom line is they are biologically and scientifically male and are stronger. There isn't any female out there who will willing compete with males because they are just not at the same level. Some women are stronger than some males but it's extremely rare. You also have to remember these are athletes and they will be training to compete. It's not just someone off the streets. Is there any proof to show that trans female athletes are weaker than regular male athletes ?
 
NotThatSoph said:
I've literally never been more surprised by an Internet interaction, but whatver. Have a good night.
Click to expand...
So I'm no scientist or doctor, but does any of what you're talking about negate the athletic benefits of a Y chromosome? This is a genuine question
 
arnie_ni said:
So I'm no scientist or doctor, but does any of what you're talking about negate the athletic benefits of a Y chromosome? This is a genuine question
Click to expand...

Not sure I understand the question.

Do people with a Y chromosome in general, on average, have an athletic advantage? Yes, clearly. Always? No, clearly not. Do people with an Y chromosome who happen to be women with Swyer syndrome have a general advantage over women with two X chromosomes? Not that I'm aware of, but I'm not an expert.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Not sure I understand the question.

Do people with a Y chromosome in general, on average, have an athletic advantage? Yes, clearly. Always? No, clearly not. Do people with an Y chromosome who happen to be women with Swyer syndrome have a general advantage over women with two X chromosomes? Not that I'm aware of, but I'm not an expert.
Click to expand...
You've answered it fine. I thiught the y chromosome would still give an athletic advantage in swyer syndrome women simply by the fact they have it.

I'm just wondering, if when it comes to sporting integrity, should the only thing thats considered be athletic advantage gained by having the Y chromosome.

Should all the other factors that are considered in daily life (ie outward appearance, how the person feels/thinks etc etc) factor into it when it comes to professional sport?

If science can bridge the gap and level the playing field, carry on, if it can't, should sporting integrity be the driving factor here or is that transphobic?

Even at that, Is it only up to sporting women to decide whether they feel their at a disadvantage?
 
arnie_ni said:
You've answered it fine. I thiught the y chromosome would still give an athletic advantage in swyer syndrome women simply by the fact they have it.

I'm just wondering, if when it comes to sporting integrity, should the only thing thats considered be athletic advantage gained by having the Y chromosome.

Should all the other factors that are considered in daily life (ie outward appearance, how the person feels/thinks etc etc) factor into it when it comes to professional sport?

If science can bridge the gap and level the playing field, carry on, if it can't, should sporting integrity be the driving factor here or is that transphobic?

Even at that, Is it only up to sporting women to decide whether they feel their at a disadvantage?
Click to expand...

If we're talking about advantages then I'd say XX males competing against XX females would be more of an issue than XY females competing against XX females.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Not sure I understand the question.

Do people with a Y chromosome in general, on average, have an athletic advantage? Yes, clearly. Always? No, clearly not. Do people with an Y chromosome who happen to be women with Swyer syndrome have a general advantage over women with two X chromosomes? Not that I'm aware of, but I'm not an expert.
Click to expand...

Swyer syndrome is so rare it’s pure sophistry to bring it up in this context.

EDIT: no username pun intended
 
Scarlett Dracarys said:
At the end of the day it's unfair competition if you're being placed in a category of people who are and will always be stronger than you. It's pretty much asking someone who is biologically female to compete with someone who is biologically male. It doesn't matter if they are a weaker male. Bottom line is they are biologically and scientifically male and are stronger. There isn't any female out there who will willing compete with males because they are just not at the same level. Some women are stronger than some males but it's extremely rare. You also have to remember these are athletes and they will be training to compete. It's not just someone off the streets. Is there any proof to show that trans female athletes are weaker than regular male athletes ?
Click to expand...

but the only trans Olympian that has ever existed is literally weaker than plenty of biological women. that's a fact. and people keep bringing up her age - I'm pretty sure none of them would argue a 43 year old man wouldn't be able to compete with 20-something women.
 
stepic said:
but the only trans Olympian that has ever existed is literally weaker than plenty of biological women. that's a fact. and people keep bringing up her age - I'm pretty sure none of them would argue a 43 year old man wouldn't be able to compete with 20-something women.
Click to expand...
I think the main issue here is that a biological male regardless of age, ability and strength shouldn't be competing a female category. What's going to happen when the younger stronger trans athletes wants to compete? Is anyone allowed to say to them you can't compete because you're not old or weak enough to compete in a female category?
 
Scarlett Dracarys said:
I think the main issue here is that a biological male regardless of age, ability and strength shouldn't be competing a female category. What's going to happen when the younger stronger trans athletes wants to compete? Is anyone allowed to say to them you can't compete because you're not old or weak enough to compete in a female category?
Click to expand...

I think this supposed risk of the floodgates opening up and trans women suddenly dominating women’s sports is just fear mongering rooted (at least partly) in transphobia. There is absolutely no evidence at all to suggest this is likely to happen with now over 17 years of history to go by.

At the end of the day though if trans women are good enough to compete in women’s events, and adhere to the relevant rules, then they should be allowed to participate. We can’t, as a society, say that trans women are women but then specify when that applies and when it doesn’t. That isn’t inclusivity.
 
stepic said:
I think this supposed risk of the floodgates opening up and trans women suddenly dominating women’s sports is just fear mongering rooted (at least partly) in transphobia. There is absolutely no evidence at all to suggest this is likely to happen with now over 17 years of history to go by.

At the end of the day though if trans women are good enough to compete in women’s events, and adhere to the relevant rules, then they should be allowed to participate. We can’t, as a society, say that trans women are women but then specify when that applies and when it doesn’t. That isn’t inclusivity.
Click to expand...
Is it unfair that 105+kg weight lifters aren't allowed compete in the 65kg class? Since when has top level sport ever been about inclusivity over fair competition?
 
stepic said:
just fear mongering rooted (at least partly) in transphobia.
Click to expand...
Where have you read that on this thread?

This is an agenda that you solely wish to pursue with no evidence to back it up.
 
stepic said:
I think this supposed risk of the floodgates opening up and trans women suddenly dominating women’s sports is just fear mongering rooted (at least partly) in transphobia. There is absolutely no evidence at all to suggest this is likely to happen with now over 17 years of history to go by.

At the end of the day though if trans women are good enough to compete in women’s events, and adhere to the relevant rules, then they should be allowed to participate. We can’t, as a society, say that trans women are women but then specify when that applies and when it doesn’t. That isn’t inclusivity.
Click to expand...
It's not transphobia. We're not arguing that they should not identify as a female. Anyone can identify as whatever they want but that doesn't change science and the genetic makeup of a person. It's just whats fair. Why do we have a male division and a female division in sports then ? Is simply because one category is stronger than the other. Are trans women stronger than men ..no. Are they stronger than most females ...yes, because that's how their genetic makeup is designed. They are designed to be the more dominant specie and that does not change. They choose to identify as a different gender but that does not alter their chromosomes or their ability to be dominant in terms of strength stamina etc. All of that remains the same. Is there anything in their transitions that reduces their strength stamina etc ? I don't think so.
 
hobbers said:
It's also not inclusive to make it unfair for women.

But on a more obvious point, elite sport isn't meant to be inclusive to begin with.
Click to expand...

it's weird to think that a y chromosone automatically makes it unfair on women. there's more to elite sports than having a y chromosone, otherwise me or you would be able to record better PBs than the majority of women Olympians. good luck with that.

oates said:
Where have you read that on this thread?

This is an agenda that you solely wish to pursue with no evidence to back it up.
Click to expand...

which is why i caveated it with 'partly'. when i see people making arguments rooted in fear, with literally no evidence to support it, then it sets off some alarm bells. it's the exact same line of reasoning terfs have with their fear of trans women being in women's bathrooms, because of 'inate male aggression' or some BS that means trans women are automatically potentially dangerous. and i'm not talking about evidence around how men are stronger than women - i'm talking about this actually meaningfully impacting womens sport, given there is so much more to being an elite sportsperson than simply having a y chromosone, and we now have 17 years of data that suggests the complete opposite of this supposed 'fear'.

Scarlett Dracarys said:
It's not transphobia. We're not arguing that they should not identify as a female. Anyone can identify as whatever they want but that doesn't change science and the genetic makeup of a person. It's just whats fair. Why do we have a male division and a female division in sports then ?
Click to expand...

sorry, but i'm not having it. if trans women are women (which they are), then we treat them as women. end of story. not when it's just convenient for cis people. and there's plenty of science that supports trans people by the way, you make it sound like some kind of flippant decision people can make on any random day.
 
stepic said:
which is why i caveated it with 'partly'. when i see people making arguments rooted in fear, with literally no evidence to support it, then it sets off some alarm bells. it's the exact same line of reasoning terfs have with their fear of trans women being in women's bathrooms, because of 'inate male aggression' or some BS that means trans women are automatically potentially dangerous. and i'm not talking about evidence around how men are stronger than women - i'm talking about this actually meaningfully impacting womens sport, given there is so much more to being an elite sportsperson than simply having a y chromosone, and we now have 17 years of data that suggests the complete opposite of this supposed 'fear'.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not having your 'caveated'. If I were to accept your 'partly' then we would need to see partly proof, whereas all you have is suspicion and what you want it to be. Adding a supposed caveat to an accusation still requires proof which you cannot supply. You can't make comparisons with arguments people are not proffering either. It's not good enough, you cannot expect to continue to make these base allegations and not get called on it which I am not the only one doing.
 
stepic said:
sorry, but i'm not having it. if trans women are women (which they are), then we treat them as women. end of story. not when it's just convenient for cis people. and there's plenty of science that supports trans people by the way, you make it sound like some kind of flippant decision people can make on any random day.
Click to expand...
Isn't it discriminatory against cisgender women to have them compete against stronger transgender women ? Allowing them to compete with cisgender is totally missing the point of equality isn't it ? Transgender women should be able to participate in whatever they want but when it affects people who have worked their asses off training with hopes and expectation to get a scholarship etc that's not equality, it's just an unfair advantage. There is nothing cisgender women can do in situations like this because they don't stand a chance against a genetically stronger trans woman. They can train all they want but they will never be as good. Bottom line they are and will always be stronger. It's got nothing to do with inclusivity, transphobia etc. It's simply allowing someone with a higher level of physical strength to compete in a category of cisgender females weaker than them and they will always win. How is that fair ?
 
Scarlett Dracarys said:
Isn't it discriminatory against cisgender women to have them compete against stronger transgender women ? Allowing them to compete with cisgender is totally missing the point of equality isn't it ? Transgender women should be able to participate in whatever they want but when it affects people who have worked their asses off training with hopes and expectation to get a scholarship etc that's not equality, it's just an unfair advantage. There is nothing cisgender women can do in situations like this because they don't stand a chance against a genetically stronger trans woman. They can train all they want but they will never be as good. Bottom line they are and will always be stronger. It's got nothing to do with inclusivity, transphobia etc. It's simply allowing someone with a higher level of physical strength to compete in a category of cisgender females weaker than them and they will always win. How is that fair ?
Click to expand...

To me the problem with discussions like this becomes general v specific.

Now I maybe wrong but real world v sport is different.

Let's take boxing. Mayweather and Joshua are both black men and boxers. We accept that. Scientifically they probably share the same sort of diet and training when they get ready for a fight. However in Sport you won't find one fighting the other as there is an advantage for the bigger man.

Very simplistic I know but isn't this what it boils down to? Especially if some of the science suggests there is an advantage? (Again I maybe wrong here and just going by the discussion I've read. I'm not as knowledgeable as some seem to be on here).

I think overall the discussion has been fascinating and I've read it but not got involved mainly due to lack of knowledge on specifics. Happy to be educated and isn't that sort of the point here? For people like me who have no issue with calling a person what they want and probably don't think about it too much day to day. However on the face if it, in sport, it does come across unfair to me. Again doesn't mean I'm right. Simply don't know enough. I shouldn't then be called transphobic etc because I haven't been disrespectful. Naive at best?
 
stepic said:
it's weird to think that a y chromosone automatically makes it unfair on women. there's more to elite sports than having a y chromosone, otherwise me or you would be able to record better PBs than the majority of women Olympians. good luck with that.
Click to expand...

Nobody said it automatically makes it unfair. As has been said many times in threads like this already, it's the development and training after going through puberty as a male that gives a massive advantage in many different aspects of physiology. An advantage that no period of time on testosterone blockers will ever undo. And the more you train prior to transitioning the bigger that advantage.

I don't think anyone is complaining about transgender women competing with women in non-elite tier sport, maybe with the exceptions of things like boxing, MMA and rugby where there's obvious safety issues with a big power imbalance.
 
@stepic you keep repeating this "17 years and one trans athlete" thing and have not once acknowledged the major rule change in 2015 (that were in effect for the Rio Olympics but not really in time to affect qualification and selection).

The initial guidelines from 2004 stated that trans-athletes had to have legal recognition of their gender, have undergone sex reassignment surgery (including a gonadectomy), and have undergone hormone therapy for a recommended time of at least two years.

The latest changes removed the need for any surgery and legal recognition of gender, instead allowing trans-athletes to compete solely on their own gender declaration, with the hormone requirement also changed to a single year of testosterone suppression.

This Olympic cycle is essentially the first where these new rules are in effect, so I'm not sure how you've concluded that we have 17 years of evidence on this. We're basically at zero.

To be so righteously indignant about something to the point that you've now called people transphobes for having some very justifiable concerns about the future of women's sports is just absurd.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.