Cont: [ED] Discussion: Trans Women are not Women (Part 5)

[Boudicca90]

The biological advantages of people Assigned Male At Birth. It's funny how often those two things correlate.

I never said there aren't advantages there, just that they don't mean that much in the grand scheme of things. There are plenty of other factors that go into success with any sport, for example this quote from the article from The Nation that I linked to earlier:

I contacted Dr. Nicole LaVoi, director of the Tucker Center for Research on Girls & Women in Sport about the way ignorance fuels the fires against these athletes, who told me: “Unfortunately, the backlash surrounding both athletes is in part due to lack of education and factual knowledge about transgender individuals. Both girls are on hormone suppression, which negates any competitive advantage due to testosterone, but most people are unaware of this fact. There are many factors that go into athletic performance—for example, to name a few, physical training, conditioning, dedication, motivation, quality of coaching, nutrition, and psychological skills that get erased when the sole focus is on gender identity and hormones.”

Hormones are a factor, but they aren't the only ones.

 

[Boudicca90]

The distinction is that one part of your defence is contradicted by another.

You can't have your cake and eat it. For you the "minimization of biological advantages" is surely irrelevant. What you are advocating is essentially nothing other than that if, say, Usain Bolt declared he was now a she and wanted to compete in the women's 100m then so be it. The records would tumble in all kinds of races and that would be that, right?

Of course, it is easy to see that womens sports will be destroyed by this. If that is no biggie for you, then fine for you, but it is a biggie to others and their pointing this out does not make them hate-filled, does it?

No, it's not easy to see. We have a handful of examples of trans athletes winning over cis ones (often then losing to others as well, but nobody focuses on the losses) and this leads to "women's sports will be destroyed"? Sorry, but I'm not a fan of slippery slope arguments.

You do have a point that I don't know why this discussion always comes back to sports, as I don't find it very important myself. Athletes are usually overvalued in our society anyway.

Where the hatred comes in is when you start trying to ban trans athletes from competing with cis ones. I'm more concerned with letting them compete along with their own gender in the first place than what their hormone levels are.

 

[lionking]

I never said there aren't advantages there, just that they don't mean that much in the grand scheme of things. There are plenty of other factors that go into success with any sport, for example this quote from the article from The Nation that I linked to earlier:

I contacted Dr. Nicole LaVoi, director of the Tucker Center for Research on Girls & Women in Sport about the way ignorance fuels the fires against these athletes, who told me: “Unfortunately, the backlash surrounding both athletes is in part due to lack of education and factual knowledge about transgender individuals. Both girls are on hormone suppression, which negates any competitive advantage due to testosterone, but most people are unaware of this fact. There are many factors that go into athletic performance—for example, to name a few, physical training, conditioning, dedication, motivation, quality of coaching, nutrition, and psychological skills that get erased when the sole focus is on gender identity and hormones.”

Hormones are a factor, but they aren't the only ones.

Yeah, we get it. Females just have to train harder to compete with male bodied transwomen.

Do you realise how this callous dismissal of the concerns of female athletes impacts on the trans rights campaign?

 

[Manger Douse]

Considering how a boys under 15 team stuffed the USA Women's World Soccer cup winners team, I'm sure Bodiccia will be along any second now to tell us what training these 15 year old boys had that the USA Women's world cup winners didn't. Assuming she cares if course

 

[angrysoba]

I never said there aren't advantages there, just that they don't mean that much in the grand scheme of things. There are plenty of other factors that go into success with any sport, for example this quote from the article from The Nation that I linked to earlier:

I contacted Dr. Nicole LaVoi, director of the Tucker Center for Research on Girls & Women in Sport about the way ignorance fuels the fires against these athletes, who told me: “Unfortunately, the backlash surrounding both athletes is in part due to lack of education and factual knowledge about transgender individuals. Both girls are on hormone suppression, which negates any competitive advantage due to testosterone, but most people are unaware of this fact. There are many factors that go into athletic performance—for example, to name a few, physical training, conditioning, dedication, motivation, quality of coaching, nutrition, and psychological skills that get erased when the sole focus is on gender identity and hormones.”

Hormones are a factor, but they aren't the only ones.

But wait a second...

Could you just finish the thought here. You seem to be close to acknowledging something.

Let's acknowledge that yes, hormones are not everything, and then ask why it might be that anyone goes through any kind of hormone suppression anyway.

While you later point out that trans athletes are not dominating female sports right now, this is true partly because of how sports are structured to begin with and for many sports (I believe under IOC rules), trans athletes have to have a certain period of living under their new identity as well as in many cases being within certain hormonal parameters.

So, isn't it likely that without hormonal suppression, then trans women will have an enormous advantage, not unlike that of taking PEDs? (And by the way, the argument that some athletes put forward for why they see no problem with PEDs is often the same - steroids aren't everything! - No, but they are important enough in some sports that people are not competetive without them, and that may well be the case if gender identity becomes "It's just what I feel!")

 

[Boudicca90]

But wait a second...

Could you just finish the thought here. You seem to be close to acknowledging something.

Let's acknowledge that yes, hormones are not everything, and then ask why it might be that anyone goes through any kind of hormone suppression anyway.

While you later point out that trans athletes are not dominating female sports right now, this is true partly because of how sports are structured to begin with and for many sports (I believe under IOC rules), trans athletes have to have a certain period of living under their new identity as well as in many cases being within certain hormonal parameters.

So, isn't it likely that without hormonal suppression, then trans women will have an enormous advantage, not unlike that of taking PEDs? (And by the way, the argument that some athletes put forward for why they see no problem with PEDs is often the same - steroids aren't everything! - No, but they are important enough in some sports that people are not competetive without them, and that may well be the case if gender identity becomes "It's just what I feel!")

Yes, they would have an advantage, but not an enormous advantage. There are other factors there. And comparing naturally occurring hormones with steroids is just completely off base.

 

[Boudicca90]

It was more about caring to back up claims - it's clear she doesn't care about women's sports

I don't care about sports period. Men's, women's, whatever. It is not something I tend to care about in my personal life.

I understand it is something other people care a lot about, but I feel that is due more to the commodification of sports and the importance winning is on financial success.

 

[Manger Douse]

I don't care about sports period. Men's, women's, whatever. It is not something I tend to care about in my personal life.

I understand it is something other people care a lot about, but I feel that is due more to the commodification of sports and the importance winning is on financial success.

Do you care enough to explain how an under 15 boys soccer team comprehensively beat the women's world cup holders?

 

[cullennz]

..

 

[Manger Douse]

Yes, they would have an advantage, but not an enormous advantage. There are other factors there. And comparing naturally occurring hormones with steroids is just completely off base.

Randomly sampling the time differences on say the 100 metres, male bodies have around a 10% advantage over females. Strikes me as quite a lot but you're about to tell me how training can make up that difference:

 

[Boudicca90]

Do you care enough to explain how an under 15 boys soccer team comprehensively beat the women's world cup holders?

From what I gather, it was just a scrimmage, which seems like a match more focused on practicing skills and improving as a team. It doesn't seem like the USWNT really took it that seriously and saw it more like an exhibition match.

They also seem pretty fine with it. Again, the loudest voices about this are on the right, like Ann Coulter.

 

[Boudicca90]

Randomly sampling the time differences on say the 100 metres, male bodies have around a 10% advantage over females. Strikes me as quite a lot but you're about to tell me how training can make up that difference:

10% still doesn't seem like an enormous advantage to me.

When I had to run for PT in the military, the fastest people were always the tallest. Did I complain that it was unfair because I was 5'8" competing against guys who were over 6"? No, they got the luck of the draw there. I could train to the point of matching or exceeding them, but I would also have to put in more work to do so.

 

[Manger Douse]

From what I gather, it was just a scrimmage, which seems like a match more focused on practicing skills and improving as a team. It doesn't seem like the USWNT really took it that seriously and saw it more like an exhibition match.

They didn't try hard enough then - like, as you claim, all the other female athletes that lose to males in every other sports don't

They also seem pretty fine with it. Again, the loudest voices about this are on the right, like Ann Coulter.

Being professionals and unlike you, actually interested in sports, they probably knew what would happen when male bodied athletes go up against female bodied ones (hint: the males win ALL the time)

 

[Boudicca90]

They didn't try hard enough then - like, as you claim, all the other female athletes that lose to males in every other sports don't

Being professionals and unlike you, actually interested in sports, they probably knew what would happen when male bodied athletes go up against female bodied ones (hint: the males win ALL the time)

You apparently have a psychic link with the USWNT that lets you know what they were thinking so accurately, lol.

This is all just wild speculation on your part.

 

[Manger Douse]

10% still doesn't seem like an enormous advantage to me

I've highlighted your problem. Being 10% stronger than your rivals despite doing absolutely nothing to earn it probably isn't a big deal to you, probably is to them though

 

[Manger Douse]

You apparently have a psychic link with the USWNT that lets you know what they were thinking so accurately, lol.

This is all just wild speculation on your part.

Knowing that males have a physical advantage over females is in no way, shape for form "wild speculation" - if you think that's not the case then pony up some proof

 

[Boudicca90]

Knowing that males have a physical advantage over females is in no way, shape for form "wild speculation" - if you think that's not the case then pony up some proof

It's not about any physical advantage or lack thereof, it just wasn't a serious match, at least on the part of the USWNT. They were just practicing their skills for an upcoming game with Russia. The boys probably took it more seriously considering who they were up against.

https://www.truthorfiction.com/was-the-u-s-womens-national-team-defeated-by-teenaged-boys-in-a-2017-soccer-match/

 

[angrysoba]

Yes, they would have an advantage, but not an enormous advantage.

It depends on how you define "enormous". Are split second differences in 100m races "enormous" differences? Yes, of course.

There are other factors there. And comparing naturally occurring hormones with steroids is just completely off base.

Not if you look at, say, the differences in records between men and women in strength sports, and then look at the differences in tested and untested competition. In fact, you will find that women who use PEDs are likely to lose to "natty" men in most competitions because of hormonal (and skeletal) differences.

How is it that the "random assignment" of gender seems to end up with one group so obviously dominant in these sports. If we were trying to look at this statistically we would easily draw the conclusion that there is no p-hacking here. There seems to be something significant about this assignation.

 

[Manger Douse]

It's not about any physical advantage or lack thereof, it just wasn't a serious match, at least on the part of the USWNT. They were just practicing their skills for an upcoming game with Russia. The boys probably took it more seriously considering who they were up against.

https://www.truthorfiction.com/was-the-u-s-womens-national-team-defeated-by-teenaged-boys-in-a-2017-soccer-match/

To head off any charges of "wild speculation" You can point me to where the womens team said "we let them win" and then do the same where ever a male has beaten a female in any other sport (which is all of them)

 

[lionking]

Boudicca90, you know nothing at all about sport. So stop proclaiming this is not a major issue when it comes to transwoman claims. You are looking quite ridiculous.