[ED] Discussion: Trans Women Are not Women (Part 6)

[Emily's Cat]

This is really an ETA on the previous post but it's not up yet so I'm making a new post. I just thought I would do a little bit of googling to get a first pass at whether your argument makes sense.

I looked at Rachel McKinnon's performance in the Women's Masters Cycling in 2019 as it was the first thing that popped up.

The winning time in the men's race was just about 11s. McKinnon's winning time in the female race was about 12.5 seconds.

I can't find the 2nd place time but the 3rd place woman's time was about 12.8 seconds.

I appreciate this is only 1 example but I chose it at random to see what the evidence suggested and it definitely shows that in that race the leading transwoman's times were much more comparable to the leading ciswoman than to the leading cisman.

McKinnon's times were more comparable to those of the very slowest cismen in the contest. Oliver Jenner for example finished last in qualifying with a time of 12.5 seconds.

It's worth noting that McKinnon is an out-of-shape middle-aged person, competing against younger females who are in significantly better shape than they are... but still manages to beat them on a regular basis.

Allow me to reiterated that mediocre males can beat elite female athletes on a regular basis, because of the differences in size, strength, lung capacity, and overall athleticism between the sexes.

 

[Meadmaker]

Here's a story I just loved:

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/18/9787...s-have-an-unfair-edge-what-does-the-science-s

Here's the headline:

Wave Of Bills To Block Trans Athletes Has No Basis In Science, Researcher Says

No basis? None? Not one little prophecy basis?

Because I'm sure I read somewhere that males are better at most sports than females. I think there's a whole lot of sports doctors and coaches and all sorts of other self proclaimed experts who swear that males are stronger and faster and have more endurance and that these traits help them win sporting competitions, and they say that they have rigorously studied this stuff.

So, when I see something that seems as incredibly stupid as that headline, at least at a reputable news source like NPR, I figure that maybe the headline got it wrong and the researcher isn't really saying something that stupid.

Not this time. Here are a couple of quotes:

And higher levels of the male hormone testosterone are associated with better performance only in a very small number of athletic disciplines: 400 meters, 800 meters, hammer throw, pole vault — and it certainly does not explain the whole 10% difference.

That's it? No others?

Now I could ask about a whole other group of sports and such, but I want to go at this from a slightly different angle.

How could the statement above be anything other than ridiculous on its face?

How could testestone give someone an advantage in the hammer throw without giving someone an advantage in weightlifting, or as an offensive lineman in football? How could testesterone be highly significant in pole vault without giving an advantage in sprinting? The physical abilities required for the four events she mentioned would also help in other sports. Never mind that we also know that males are better than females in ever sport just by observation. It's also ridiculous to admit that being male provides an advantage in those four sports without acknowledging it helps in pretty much every other sport as well. It's stupid from every angle.

Here's another quote:

For example, the body of a marathon runner is extremely different from the body of a shot put champion, and a transwoman athlete may have some advantage on the basketball field because of her height, but would be at a disadvantage in gymnastics.

Yeah, so, maybe a female might have an advantage in, say...........nothing. Including women's gymnastics. I included that quote because it repeats a myth that I myself stated in the not too distant past, which is that gymnastic events are chosen to emphasize female abilities, so males would be at a disadvantage if they were to compete together.

However, this is a skeptic's board, and so someone provided a link to incontrovertible evidence that it's not true. Males are also better at women's gymnastics events.

In some events, the difference in ability is small. In some large.

As best I can tell, there is no advantage in Equestrian, and that's the one Olympic sport with head-to-head competition between the sexes.



With drivel like this in the media, it's no wonder people are so confused.



The real, honest, debate about whether untransitioned males ought to be able to compete in women's events is not about science, and it's not about performance. That part of the debate is settled. It's about priorities.

Do you care about females losing? Do you care about transgender males feeling bad about racing in a male event? How important are these things to you, or to the people competing? That's a legitimate debate.

Questioning whether males have an advantage is not a legitimate debate. The answer is known and clear.

Oh, and note that I said, specifically, "untransitioned" males. If you want to restrict the sports debate to males who have undergone feminizing treatment, then that's a legitimate debate as well. How much and what kind of transition should be required? Reasonable people could disagree on the answer, and it's worth discussing. When it comes to whether or not males have an advantage, NPR should be embarrassed for publishing that article.

 

[Collin237]

I think the actual people affected may object to the phrase "slightly diminished".

In general, I think that applies to pretty much every aspect of this debate. The actual concerns of people affected are consistently relegated to insignificance.

I think the actual people affected are not being allowed to speak freely.

 

[Collin237]

The proportion of transwomen competing who earn titles and places exceeds the proportion of ciswomen competing who earn titles. As a percentage of competitors, transwomen *are* dominating female sports.



Why do you think you're not seeing this happen in reality? We have repeatedly seen transwomen set records in women's sports that are significantly higher than the records set by ciswomen... but which are also considerably lower than the records set by cismen. We've repeatedly seen male-bodied competitors of mediocre athletic ability beat female competitors with no effort.

This is absolutely false. Who's been telling you this?

 

[Collin237]

No basis? None? Not one little scary word to derail the issue basis?

No. There is no scientific bases for forcing a state law onto a social-life decision between legal activities in a school.

Because I'm sure I read somewhere that males are better at most sports than females. I think there's a whole lot of sports doctors and coaches and all sorts of other self proclaimed experts who swear that males are stronger and faster and have more endurance and that these traits help them win sporting competitions, and they say that they have rigorously studied this stuff.

Appeal to imagined authorities.

How could testestone give someone an advantage in the hammer throw without giving someone an advantage in weightlifting, or as an offensive lineman in football? How could testesterone be highly significant in pole vault without giving an advantage in sprinting? The physical abilities required for the four events she mentioned would also help in other sports. Never mind that we also know that males are better than females in ever sport just by observation. It's also ridiculous to admit that being male provides an advantage in those four sports without acknowledging it helps in pretty much every other sport as well. It's stupid from every angle.

Argument from incredulity.

However, this is a skeptic's board, and so someone provided a link to incontrovertible evidence that it's not true. Males are also better at women's gymnastics events.

This is a skeptic's board, and so saying "someone provided a link" with no elaboration is no indication whatsoever that such a link exists.

Do you care about females losing? Do you care about transgender males feeling bad about racing in a male event? How important are these things to you, or to the people competing? That's a legitimate debate.

No it's not. The only priority is how the actual individual real people in a particular sporting event on a real day in a real place care about each other's participation. And that's not up to us to debate.

 

[Paul2]

Because I'm sure I read somewhere that males are better at most sports than females. I think there's a whole lot of sports doctors and coaches and all sorts of other self proclaimed experts who swear that males are stronger and faster and have more endurance and that these traits help them win sporting competitions, and they say that they have rigorously studied this stuff.

Appeal to imagined authorities.

Across dozens of sports, women's world speed records consistently fall 10 percent short of men's records.

The Israeli physicist Ira Hammerman spoke at the 2010 Wingate Congress of Exercise & Sports Sciences, and he found that this little-known ratio held across all sports.

Running. Swimming. Rowing. Kayaking. Short distance, long distance. Accomplished in teams or attempted alone.These are such diverse events, requiring different parts of the body and diverse types of talent. And yet they all share something: Their women's speed world records are all about 90 percent of their men's speed world records, in both short, middle and long distances.

Eyes on the goalposts!

 

[Aber]

I just thought I would do a little bit of googling to get a first pass at whether your argument makes sense.

I looked at Rachel McKinnon's performance in the Women's Masters Cycling in 2019 as it was the first thing that popped up.

The winning time in the men's race was just about 11s. McKinnon's winning time in the female race was about 12.5 seconds.

McKinnon's times were more comparable to those of the very slowest cismen in the contest.

Exactly.

McKinnon's times are not related to being a transwomen, but reflect that a mediocre male can beat elite females.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Here's a story I just loved:

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/18/9787...s-have-an-unfair-edge-what-does-the-science-s

Here's the headline:

Wave Of Bills To Block Trans Athletes Has No Basis In Science, Researcher Says

No basis? None? Not one little prophecy basis?

Oh goodness. This person is quite clever. It's some pretty good misdirection. Let's start with the first section:

We know that men have, on average, an advantage in performance in athletics of about 10% to 12% over women, which the sports authorities have attributed to differences in levels of a male hormone called testosterone. But the question is whether there is in real life, during actual competitions, an advantage of performance linked to this male hormone and whether trans athletes are systematically winning all competitions. The answer to this latter question, are trans athletes winning everything, is simple — that's not the case. And higher levels of the male hormone testosterone are associated with better performance only in a very small number of athletic disciplines: 400 meters, 800 meters, hammer throw, pole vault — and it certainly does not explain the whole 10% difference.

The statements made are false by misdirection, even though the data provided is true. What's missing is the context. Allow me to elaborate.

This person references that the difference in athletic ability between males and females is due to testosterone. But their subsequent discussion relies on the marginal advantage of having higher testosterone levels than other males. That's what they fail to mention. Between males, those with higher levels of testosterone than their male competitors have an advantage in only a few sports.

They ignore, seemingly on purpose, the difference that testosterone contributes at puberty. They ignore the effect that a male puberty, fueled by testosterone, has on male as opposed to females. This person presents a statement as if it is complete, while failing to mention the extremely relevant differences in bone density, musculature, lung capacity, etc. that males gain during puberty and females do not.

This makes their statement a pretty significant lie by ommission.

Then there are parts that just made me laugh. It's all I can do at this point.

But more disturbingly is that all these rules at the elite level have affected women — not all women, but women with a Y chromosome.

So the disturbing thing about elite level rules is that they affect "women with a Y chromosome". Translating that to be more accurate, the problem is that the rules affect males.

smh

 

[Emily's Cat]

How does self-declaration of gender affect statistics?

Rape suspects can choose to self-identify as female

Police Scotland said that if a rape or attempted rape was perpetrated by a “male who self-identifies as a woman . . . the male who self-identifies as a woman would be expected to be recorded as a female on relevant police systems.”

 

[Emily's Cat]

Interesting article discussing biology versus ideology.
The New Evolution Deniers

The author makes reference to the "Intelligent Design" argument of a couple of decades ago, not as a direct analogy, but as a comparison of the methodology being employed, and the lack of science backing gender ideology.

The whole thing is worth reading, and isn't horrible long. But I particularly liked this segment, as it references a topic that I've run across repeatedly - the assertion that biological sex is not binary in humans.

Emphasis mine.

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of rule 4 removed.

What these articles leave out is the fact that the final result of sex development in humans are unambiguously male or female over 99.98 percent of the time. Thus, the claim that “2 sexes is overly simplistic” is misleading, because intersex conditions correspond to less than 0.02 percent of all births, and intersex people are not a third sex. Intersex is simply a catch-all category for sex ambiguity and/or a mismatch between sex genotype and phenotype, regardless of its etiology. Furthermore, the claim that “sex is a spectrum” is also misleading, as a spectrum implies a continuous distribution, and maybe even an amodal one (one in which no specific outcome is more likely than others). Biological sex in humans, however, is clear-cut over 99.98 percent of the time. Lastly, the claim that classifying people’s sex based on anatomy and genetics “has no basis in science” has itself no basis in reality, as any method exhibiting a predictive accuracy of over 99.98 percent would place it among the most precise methods in all the life sciences. We revise medical care practices and change world economic plans on far lower confidence than that.

Despite the unquestionable reality of biological sex in humans, social justice and trans activists continue to push this belief, and respond with outrage when challenged. Pointing out any of the above facts is now considered synonymous with transphobia. The massive social media website Twitter—the central hub for cultural discourse and debate—is now actively banning users for stating true facts about basic human biology. And biologists like myself often sit quietly, afraid to defend our own field out of fear that our decade of education followed by continued research, job searches, and the quest for tenure might be made obsolete overnight if the mob decides to target one of us for speaking up. Because of this, our objections take place almost entirely between one another in private whisper networks, despite the fact that a majority of biologists are extremely troubled by these attacks to our field by social justice activists. This is an untenable situation.

 

[Collin237]

The Israeli physicist Ira Hammerman spoke at the 2010 Wingate Congress of Exercise & Sports Sciences, and he found that this little-known ratio held across all sports.

It's that simple? Then why don't we just reduce the scores of trans women by 10% and call it even?

 

[Meadmaker]

Going back a bit:

So I guess my question to you is what would a world where transwomen and ciswomen were able to compete with each other in an acceptable way look like to you? Would 1 gold medal in 20 be OK? Or is any gold medal too much?

If won by an untransitioned male, 1 would be too much.

Taking the unexaggerated point i can then weigh that up and say 'well on one hand we have a slightly diminished experience for a small number of girls vs a fairly significant barrier to participating in sport at all for an entire category of person.'

I think there is something significant in this. It seems as if "an entire category" of person is somehow significant.

I don't think so. I'm not sure if I am liberal or conservative, right wing or left wing, but one thing I know about my ideology is that I am unapologetically individualist. I think we should look at how rules affect each person as an individual, not how it affects an entire category.

The number of cis-girls affected by trans-girl participation is higher than the number of trans-girls affected by trans-girl participation, because every trans-girl has at least one opponent, but almost always more.

The degree of effect is something worth discussing, but the number of people affected isn't.

 

[Venom]

Certainly things like muscle attachments and bone mass do not change on transition, and would be catastrophic if tried (if even possible). A few people have mentioned this on other threads about trans athletes and I think it's an important point.

In contact sports it's highly questionable. In combat sports I think trans athletes are off the table completely. Durability and power are dependent on bone size and density. Maybe some Olympic sports we don't think much about as well.

 

[Louden Wilde]

Here's a story I just loved:

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/18/9787...s-have-an-unfair-edge-what-does-the-science-s

...
The real, honest, debate about whether untransitioned males ought to be able to compete in women's events is not about science, and it's not about performance. That part of the debate is settled. It's about priorities.

Questioning whether males have an advantage is not a legitimate debate. The answer is known and clear.

Oh, and note that I said, specifically, "untransitioned" males. If you want to restrict the sports debate to males who have undergone feminizing treatment, then that's a legitimate debate as well. How much and what kind of transition should be required? Reasonable people could disagree on the answer, and it's worth discussing. When it comes to whether or not males have an advantage, NPR should be embarrassed for publishing that article.

I hope there will be discussion, but am pessimistic. FWIW, the data seem clear that post-pubertal TW on hormone treatment retain advantages for at least 2-3 years (insufficient data beyond that, as well as before puberty). I too am disappointed in the lack of discussion in the US and the misrepresentation of the issue(s) on NPR. Several times now I've heard the person on-air refer the bills as banning trans people from sports (implying entirely).

My sense is that the the right here is using this as part of the culture war here to deflect from the crash & burn of the last presidency. The Republicans pushing the issue understandably and unfortunately make it likely that everyone else will be reluctant to discuss the issue - at least in public.

In other related news, I have read the ACLU is fighting a freedom of information request to find out how many male prisoners in CA have been transferred to women's prisons.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I think the actual people affected may object to the phrase "slightly diminished".

They might, but they might be exaggerating. Compared to never having competed at all finishing 3rd instead of 2nd of the State Championships is a lesser evil, no?

In general, I think that applies to pretty much every aspect of this debate. The actual concerns of people affected are consistently relegated to insignificance.

It's an "interesting" point. The person who finished 3rd affected the person that finished 4th. Should we ban them too? How do we decide who is too good to compete and who is allowed to compete? I mean think of the poor bugger that finished last. If we ban all of the people who finished ahead of them they can be first and have their identity validated.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Here's a story I just loved:

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/18/9787...s-have-an-unfair-edge-what-does-the-science-s

Here's the headline:

Wave Of Bills To Block Trans Athletes Has No Basis In Science, Researcher Says

No basis? None? Not one little prophecy basis?

Because I'm sure I read somewhere that males are better at most sports than females. I think there's a whole lot of sports doctors and coaches and all sorts of other self proclaimed experts who swear that males are stronger and faster and have more endurance and that these traits help them win sporting competitions, and they say that they have rigorously studied this stuff.

So, when I see something that seems as incredibly stupid as that headline, at least at a reputable news source like NPR, I figure that maybe the headline got it wrong and the researcher isn't really saying something that stupid.

Not this time. Here are a couple of quotes:



That's it? No others?

Now I could ask about a whole other group of sports and such, but I want to go at this from a slightly different angle.

How could the statement above be anything other than ridiculous on its face?

How could testestone give someone an advantage in the hammer throw without giving someone an advantage in weightlifting, or as an offensive lineman in football? How could testesterone be highly significant in pole vault without giving an advantage in sprinting? The physical abilities required for the four events she mentioned would also help in other sports. Never mind that we also know that males are better than females in ever sport just by observation. It's also ridiculous to admit that being male provides an advantage in those four sports without acknowledging it helps in pretty much every other sport as well. It's stupid from every angle.

Here's another quote:



Yeah, so, maybe a female might have an advantage in, say...........nothing. Including women's gymnastics. I included that quote because it repeats a myth that I myself stated in the not too distant past, which is that gymnastic events are chosen to emphasize female abilities, so males would be at a disadvantage if they were to compete together.

However, this is a skeptic's board, and so someone provided a link to incontrovertible evidence that it's not true. Males are also better at women's gymnastics events.

In some events, the difference in ability is small. In some large.

As best I can tell, there is no advantage in Equestrian, and that's the one Olympic sport with head-to-head competition between the sexes.



With drivel like this in the media, it's no wonder people are so confused.



The real, honest, debate about whether untransitioned males ought to be able to compete in women's events is not about science, and it's not about performance. That part of the debate is settled. It's about priorities.

Do you care about females losing? Do you care about transgender males feeling bad about racing in a male event? How important are these things to you, or to the people competing? That's a legitimate debate.

Questioning whether males have an advantage is not a legitimate debate. The answer is known and clear.

Oh, and note that I said, specifically, "untransitioned" males. If you want to restrict the sports debate to males who have undergone feminizing treatment, then that's a legitimate debate as well. How much and what kind of transition should be required? Reasonable people could disagree on the answer, and it's worth discussing. When it comes to whether or not males have an advantage, NPR should be embarrassed for publishing that article.

That would be a great rant if the evidence of transwomen actually competing in sports with ciswomen bore it out. Otherwise it kinda looks like someone claiming a lot of facts and 'proven' conclusions that aren't actually borne out in reality.

For a start the group 'transwomen' and the group 'males' are not analogous. So you kinda failed at the first hurdle there

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Exactly.

McKinnon's times are not related to being a transwomen, but reflect that a mediocre male can beat elite females.

Hang on you made the argument that a transwomen was much closer to a cisman than a ciswoman and then when i point out and example where it's not the case you say 'exactly?'

Mckinnon's times are not related to being a transwoman?

Then how have you identified that transwomen are closer to males than females for the purposes of sport?????

What's the evidence base you are using for your claim?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Going back a bit:
If won by an untransitioned male, 1 would be too much.

This is quite an extreme position then as it seems to suggest that you aren't open to evidence on the matter - there is no level of competitiveness for which you would consider it OK for transwomen to compete alongside ciswomen.

It of course is a double whammy when coupled with efforts to actively prevent people under 18 transitioning (can't remember your personal position on that one). It seems to give people a rather stark choice at an early age... you can be a sportsMAN or a transwoman. But not both.

At that point it seems to me to no longer be an evidence based position but an ideological one.

I think there is something significant in this. It seems as if "an entire category" of person is somehow significant.

I don't think so. I'm not sure if I am liberal or conservative, right wing or left wing, but one thing I know about my ideology is that I am unapologetically individualist. I think we should look at how rules affect each person as an individual, not how it affects an entire category.

The number of cis-girls affected by trans-girl participation is higher than the number of trans-girls affected by trans-girl participation, because every trans-girl has at least one opponent, but almost always more.

The degree of effect is something worth discussing, but the number of people affected isn't.

Again an interesting position but it doesn't seem to hold up under scrutiny for me. If we don't care about categories then that seems to undermine the whole existence of women's sport in the first place. Even moreso if we discard the idea that the number of people affected is relevant.

But even if we do only look at degree of effect then I am fairly confident in saying that excluding transwomen from participating in sports is a much bigger impact for that individual than for the individual that was knocked down from 7th to 8th or even 1st to 2nd.

 

[Elaedith]

Here's a story I just loved:

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/18/9787...s-have-an-unfair-edge-what-does-the-science-s

Here's the headline:

Wave Of Bills To Block Trans Athletes Has No Basis In Science, Researcher Says

No basis? None? Not one little prophecy basis?

Colin Wright did a good debunking of that article:

Dr. Eric Vilain Has Abandoned Facts for Ideology

 

[Roboramma]

For a start the group 'transwomen' and the group 'males' are not analogous. So you kinda failed at the first hurdle there

Maybe I'm confused, so I'll just ask: are you claiming that transwomen aren't males?