UK Politics: Russian Adventures in Toryland

[dog-days]

Grassroots sports should maybe be about inclusion,* but top-level sports is inherently exclusive. It's about bringing together a tiny subset of the overall population with genetic predisposition, youth, training and access to equipment on their side, and then seeing which one of them is best in their field. 

To me is does seem potentially unfair to permit athletes who have passed through male puberty to compete in events meant to provide an elite space, a spotlight and financial rewards for athletes who haven't, but not more unfair than the general selection practices anyway. 

* Though stories I've heard from a colleague's son's experiences on the local youth football team make me imagine something more like Grange Hill meets the court of Mehmed III. 

[lessthanluke]

40 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

You have literally no way of knowing that. A significant portion of the people on one side of this debate are just hateful bigots. That doesn't mean all of them, or even a majority are. 

 

 

It's easier to call someone a bigot than it is to admit that its not a clear cut subject.

[Heartofice]

Obviously men and women are separated from each other in most sports because being male gives you a size and strength advantage in most cases. 
 

The question then is, do transwomen have any unfair advantages over biological women by having gone through male puberty. The evidence around isn’t great but it’s very likely that they do, and we know the limitations of hormone therapy, what it does and doesn’t do. 
 

One of the arguments I see is that we should be treating everyone on a case by case basis, and maybe that is true, but it’s also true that for sport to be ‘fair’ you have to categorise people on some level and split them out. That’s why men and women don’t compete against each other and we have weight classes in some sports. You do have to have some clear way of determining who goes into what group to keep a level of fairness.

One way being testosterone levels but again that doesn’t tell the whole picture of male puberty and ignores many other features such as size, muscle strength and bone structure.

So really i question why you wouldn’t have separate categories for trans atheletes, who can then compete against each other with the same limitations and rules. I think the answer is one of ideology, that because you have to say that trans people are ‘literally’ the sex they state they are it becomes very difficult to have a solution that goes against that basic starting point.

[mormont]

36 minutes ago, dog-days said:

Grassroots sports should maybe be about inclusion,* but top-level sports is inherently exclusive. It's about bringing together a tiny subset of the overall population with genetic predisposition, youth, training and access to equipment on their side, and then seeing which one of them is best in their field.

But by the same token, top level sport inherently favours people who have certain genetic advantages - no matter what gender they were assigned at birth. Is a trans woman really any different than someone like Caster Semenya, or Michael Phelps for that matter?

Either trans women have inherent advantages or they don't - as HoI notes, more research is required (mainly because the number of elite trans female athletes is relatively small and the controversy makes it hard to do objective research). But to some extent that's actually a side issue. The real issue is whether and why any such advantage should be treated differently than any other advantage conferred by accident of birth or (taking Lionel Messi as an example) side effects of a medically required treatment. If you think it should, if you are in favour of blanket restrictions, then you have to ask yourself why? Is it because you are making assumptions about 'fairness' from a position of relative ignorance?

Or, if you happen to be the Prime Minister, are you just in political trouble and desperate for some red meat to throw to your supporters?

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

So really i question why you wouldn’t have separate categories for trans atheletes, who can then compete against each other with the same limitations and rules. I think the answer is one of ideology, that because you have to say that trans people are ‘literally’ the sex they state they are it becomes very difficult to have a solution that goes against that basic starting point.

The answer to this is surely obvious. Setting aside the fact that it is wrong to segregate trans people and treat them as a different class of person than their transitioned gender (in effect saying that there are women and there are trans women, and these are different things, ie asserting that trans women are not women): the number of trans athletes is tiny. Such competitions simply wouldn't be viable in any way.

[lessthanluke]

It is a very difficult topic. There really isn't enough data available right now to definitively say either way which is a big issue.

It's also an emotional topic with the word transphobe being thrown out where it really doesn't apply which really limits any discussions that can be had about it. 

We should be talking more about whether current legislation does enough to create a fair playing field (trans women are currently allowed higher test levels than cis women which just makes zero sense)

 

Hopefully as the years go by more data comes out and we can find a way to be inclusive and fair to everyone.

[polishgenius]

I think one of the things blurring the conversation is the difference- difficult to define precisely but pretty definitely there- between 'unfair advantage' and 'any advantage whatsoever'. Like the article linked earlier says that in one study they found the average of the trans athletes they studied to be 12% faster than the average woman - but elite women athletes are much faster than that. Everyone who achieves anything in sport is faster, stronger, better than the average, and while some of that is just the willingness to train, it's pretty obvious that some people just have tendencies suited to doing well at one or another sport or sport in general.

 

Like I can't speak for any trans people or for everyone in general but I've seen no serious argument that trans women should be allowed to compete the moment they transition, with no HRT, and all the trans people I've talked with or seen talking about this are pretty much of the opinion that studies should be done and if it is found that trans women have a dominant advantage then that would be unfair - but there's just no data to support that and one trans woman winning one race in a sport she was already very good at before transition isn't the data some are trying to make it out to be.


But also we do need to be damn careful because even if you are only thinking about this as a case of fairness in sport, you have to be aware that this issue is pretty definitely being used as a wedge to drive anti-trans conversation in general. Like it's not a coincidence that Lia Thomas winning that one race has suddenly frontlined conversation on both sides of the atlantic that isn't just about women's sport but has been circling back to trans people's right to exist at all. It's not, despite that some will claim it must be because no-one's directly said it, a coincidence that Glinner has attempted a rehabilitation tour so shortly after. 
That doesn't mean it should never be had, but how, when and in what tone we do it is important. I mean even those of us being supportive here- and I'm including me in this given what I've written above- are reducing trans people's lives to statistics and biological details, and even with the best of will I'm sure that can't be comfortable for at least some trans people, already struggling with their image and body etc, to be around. Like I say I don't wanna speak for anyone so apologies if that seems like I am, but... I mean I've seen enough trans people speak around this sort of thing to know it's at least a sensitive subject for many.

And that's from those of us who are supportive.   

[Heartofice]

6 minutes ago, mormont said:

But by the same token, top level sport inherently favours people who have certain genetic advantages - no matter what gender they were assigned at birth. Is a trans woman really any different than someone like Caster Semenya, or Michael Phelps for that matter?

Again this is answered in my post. If you use this logic you would simply remove all categorisation by sex and weight and males would win every sport for the rest of eternity. Obviously we don’t do that. 
 

6 minutes ago, mormont said:

The answer to this is surely obvious. Setting aside the fact that it is wrong to segregate trans people and treat them as a different class of person than their transitioned gender (in effect saying that there are women and there are trans women, and these are different things, ie asserting that trans women are not women): the number of trans athletes is tiny. Such competitions simply wouldn't be viable in any way.

Well we have paraolympics with quite specialised categories and that still seems viable. Maybe by creating it’s own category we can encourage more participation. Right now there is surely a huge barrier for a trans athelete wanting to compete against biological women because they will be singled out and every win will be seen as unfair. 
 

That argument that the number of cases is so small is no consolidation to the female atheletes who have worked incredibly hard to be beaten by someone  who only recently had been competing in the male category. 

[DaveSumm]

6 hours ago, Week said:

Also, it's sports. Some people need to have perspective on what they are vehemently arguing about (and who else is on "their" side of the argument).

Quoting this but just a general response to a few posts; this isn’t an argument. We’re here discussing it, however much of an issue it is or isn’t. So ‘who cares’ and ‘look at the transphobes on your side of the debate’ don’t actually combat any points. I say this as someone who doesn’t give a fuck about sports, but sadly this issue has become the poster child for a lot of the debate around gender dysphoria.

Just complete spitballing so this will probably get shot down as unworkable, but is biological sex perhaps not a great way of dividing up sporting competitors? I mean boxing has a huge weight advantage, so they divide by weight (OK, and sex). Without even talking about trans athletes, there are already strong females and weaker males. Is it possible to come up with other criteria to divide them?

ETA; OK that kinda got addressed in the 8-9 posts since I typed that last paragraph.

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

Quoting this but just a general response to a few posts; this isn’t an argument. We’re here discussing it, however much of an issue it is or isn’t. So ‘who cares’ and ‘look at the transphobes on your side of the debate’ don’t actually combat any points. I say this as someone who doesn’t give a fuck about sports, but sadly this issue has become the poster child for a lot of the debate around gender dysphoria.

Just complete spitballing so this will probably get shot down as unworkable, but is biological sex perhaps not a great way of dividing up sporting competitors? I mean boxing has a huge weight advantage, so they divide by weight (OK, and sex). Without even talking about trans athletes, there are already strong females and weaker males. Is it possible to come up with other criteria to divide them?

Undoubtedly this topic is a political hot potato that the right love to use to draw the conversation away from something more relevant. But then the reason it tends to work is because it is one the left / Labour really struggle to talk about whilst trying to look sensible. 
 

Also on your second point, try and imagine that first boxing match where a man beats a woman into a bloody pulp, can you imagine the sheer outrage. Even dividing by weight wouldn’t take in the difference between upper body strengths

[DaveSumm]

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Also on your second point, try and imagine that first boxing match where a man beats a woman into a bloody pulp, can you imagine the sheer outrage. Even dividing by weight wouldn’t take in the difference between upper body strengths

Yea I brought up boxing as they already have weight classes, but obviously it’s far more problematic for any sport where you’re directly fighting.

[BigFatCoward]

18 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

but there's just no data to support that and one trans woman winning one race in a sport she was already very good at before transition isn't the data some are trying to make it out to be.

 

I think this point is key. The issue for many is that they weren't that good at their sport before (Thomas being a prime example) so they see if as 'cheating'.

I wonder if it would change people's perceptions if it had been Caitlyn Jenner or Phillipa York? Who were world class athletes to start with. 

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

The real issue is whether and why any such advantage should be treated differently than any other advantage conferred by accident of birth or (taking Lionel Messi as an example) side effects of a medically required treatment. If you think it should, if you are in favour of blanket restrictions, then you have to ask yourself why? Is it because you are making assumptions about 'fairness' from a position of relative ignorance?

Yes, sport at the absolute top level is in no small degree a competition between performers, who won the biological lottery (Ussain Bolt would've been my pet example), that is part of what makes it compelling to watch, that combination of genes and hardwork to push things to the limit. You can argue, that it is the same thing, I'd disagree. By that logic, why is there a distinction between male and female competitions in track and field competitions? The excess testosterone (and thus more muscles) is also merely genetics. It's an unpleasent question, but would trans-women athletes distort cis-womens' competitions is pretty much at heart of the matter. On an unrelated note, why were there restrictions on the prosthetic legs used by Pistorius, when he did participate in regular competitions. They were obviously medically required.

[BigFatCoward]

4 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

On an unrelated note, why were there restrictions on the prosthetic legs used by Pistorius, when he did participate in regular competitions. They were obviously medically required.

I beleive it was because technically they were an advantage, as they are more efficient than an actual leg/don't fatigue. 

[The Anti-Targ]

I think those who are simply saying it's black and white, trans women can't be allowed to compete in women's competitions, are not interested in real fairness. The issue is more nuanced and complex for a black and white perspective without having a hidden (or not so hidden) agenda.

[BigFatCoward]

6 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I think those who are simply saying it's black and white, trans women can't be allowed to compete in women's competitions, are not interested in real fairness. The issue is more nuanced and complex. 

Surely that works both ways. 

[lessthanluke]

5 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Surely that works both ways. 

It should but alas.

[Which Tyler]

9 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Surely that works both ways. 

Of course it does.

 

Is anyone taking the reverse position though?
Either here in this conversation, or anyone with serious political clout?

[polishgenius]

2 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

I think this point is key. The issue for many is that they weren't that good at their sport before (Thomas being a prime example) so they see if as 'cheating'

She was very good at her sport before. The times being used to say she wasn't were after she started hrt. The year before, when she hadn't, she was posting as I understand very good college team times

That's what I mean about that wedge, and being careful. That idea is being spread to start by people who definitely aren't about ensuring fairness. 

[Heartofice]

51 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Of course it does.

 

Is anyone taking the reverse position though?
Either here in this conversation, or anyone with serious political clout?

I'm not sure what the reverse position is? 

I think the point being that while we need nuance in the conversation, sport requires a set of generalised rules and limits as to who can compete against who, so at some level you need make broader statements. You can say trans women can compete but only if their test levels hit a certain point, but does that remove all the other advantages brought on by going through male puberty? It doesn't look like it.

 

Quote

She was very good at her sport before. The times being used to say she wasn't were after she started hrt. The year before, when she hadn't, she was posting as I understand very good college team times

She was ok competing before transition, she was mid 500s rank in the 200 freestyle, and then became a leading swimmer in the female event. The difference is less exaggerated in other events but the pattern is the same.

[Which Tyler]

27 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I'm not sure what the reverse position is?

Well, that's easy.
If Point A is "it's black and white, trans women can't be allowed to compete in women's competitions"
Point B must be "it's black and white, trans women can be allowed to compete in women's competitions"