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

[Aber]

Observation and application of logic and maths.

I have never seen a transwoman that is what I would consider to be at the upper end of male strength and size. They may well exist but certainly in smaller numbers than in cismen.

Most transwomen are going to want to pass more effectively and therefore will be discouraged from building muscle mass and pursuing those extremes of strength.
.
And then there is the effect of transitioning, hormones etc if they happen to be using them.

That's just three points off the top of my head.

Anecdotal.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yeah, I get that. One question is how extensive that difference actually is for the entire population. The other question is how extensive that difference will be for athletes? My intuition is that the tendency you identify would be minimal for athletes, but don't bet your mortgage on my intuition.

Well that would seem to be a sensible question that needs to be investigated. Has it been?

My intuition is different to yours but I admit neither of us seem to know the answer.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Because nobody is saying they should be stopped from every competing at all, just that they should compete in the division for their biological sex because biological sex, not identity, is the reason for sports being segregated. Or transgender groups could start new sporting leagues segregated in another way, such as 'androgenized or non-androgenized' or whatever criteria they want.

When this is pointed out you just shift the goalposts and say that there are reasons they might not want to. You are saying the feelings of transwomen are more important than the feelings of everyone else.

I'm sure if we said 'women can just compete with men' you would rightly say no they can't. But yet you don't give the same level of consideration to transwomen.

And yet again I see the anti-trans brigade co-opting 'everyone else' as if 'everyone else' agrees with them.

Because beating somebody on occasion who has an unfair advantage does not make it acceptable for them to have an unfair advantage. According to your logic, it's ok for some athletes to take performance-enhancing drugs as long as others who don't take them still beat them on occasion.

It kind of gives a lie to claiming that transwomen have 'an insurmountable biological advantage' if in fact you surmount it though.

Taking drugs is pretty much non-analogous since people have a choice whether to take drugs or not. People can't choose whether to be transgender or not any more than they can choose to be short or tall or Kenyan or not.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Everyone knows that males are faster.

Except when they are not of course. Such as when they get beaten by females.

That 'individual vs group' thing kind of went out the window when it didn't suit, didn't it?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Do we really? While it may not appear that way, I think we kind of want a lot of the same things. I do not want to exclude trans-women from sports. I don't even necessarily want them excluded from women's sports. But I want them included in an appropriate manner.

Sometimes that may mean that their competitive division will not match with their gender, at least until a certain point in transition. But I question the importance of this, given that girls can (and some do) play "up" into the male leagues. Female wrestlers on male teams pop up occasionally, and female players on male baseball teams are not super rare. you'll even occasionally see it in football. For the most part the reactions have been supportive. (Except maybe wrestling, because the guys might get cooties or something from the close contact.)

The issue for trans-girls on male teams, I think, has less to do with competitive disadvantage (although that comes along with transition) and more to do with locker room harassment from teammates and the lack of support similar to that that cis-girls get when they "play up." Those are the problems that I think need to be addressed.

Should transition result in a female level of performance in a given sport, I see no reason a league should not allow a trans-woman to compete. But I'm not sure there is a good objective measure of this. I think it's more of a subjective thing, requiring judgement. Not only does this require that the government stay out of it, it also requires that both sides accept the judgements. Yes, there are some advantages that won't go away (bone mass) but a determination has to be made on an overall basis relevant to the particular sport. On the other side, there has to be acceptance that not every trans-athlete will be judged eligible at the same point. Kendall may judged eligible, but Kylie not and that shouldn't result in a media blitz, marches and protest. That is also trying to remove the ability to make judgments. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a way to appeal the decision, just that using social pressures to gain outcomes in individual cases is counterproductive to the whole.

I may have got you confused with Paul2 when saying we came at it from different directions... anyway not important

I broadly agree but my only concern with the 'every individual is a special case' approach as that it can lead to 'engineering the results' - i.e. transwomen can compete as long as they don't win.

Of course social pressure is always going to be an option to influence judgements because the people making the judgements can be wrong.

For that reason I think there probably need to be more objective guidelines established within sports for when and if specific transwomen should be excluded and on what grounds.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

(Emphasis added)

Just a reminder that according to many trans rights activists, there ought to be no need for a transwoman to engage in any sort of transition beyond self declaration in order to compete against females.

The discussion about how much feminization should be required in order to be allowed to compete against females is a different conversation.

I'm not speaking for 'many trans rights activists' I'm speaking for myself here. And trying to establish some kind of evidence-based reasoning on the topic.

Reality is that many transwomen athletes ARE going to be on hormones and any solution has to take that into account

I just read that the lawsuit filed by Selina Soule, Alanna Smith and Chelsea Mitchell was dismissed on the grounds that Miller and Yearwood had already graduated, and there were no other transgender athletes known to be competing, so the lawsuite was moot.

So I must have gotten the timeline wrong.

ETA: Or....something. Due to Covid, things are messed up. Apparently the season was in fact screwed up this year, but some meets continued, so I'm not sure what to make of the results. I did, however, find a site https://www.athletic.net/TrackAndField/Athlete.aspx?AID=14046370 that verified that Terry Miller's 2020 times were substantially lower than the 2019 times. She got slower in 2020. A lot slower.

I read an interview with Miller that said she was on treatment to reduce her testosterone levels but I don't know any more than that about specifics of timings, effect or what is influencing her times.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm saying that the population males has a mean and distribution for attributes and that the population transwomen in all likelihood has a different mean and distribution for the same attributes.

So if you say something like the average male can bench fifty pounds more than the average female it does not follow that the average transwoman can bench fifty pounds more than the average female.

Whether transwomen ARE males or not is neither here nor there with respect to this point. It's a statistical observation

Avocados are fruits. Fruits have much lower fat content than cakes. But it would be wrong to assume Avocados therefore have lower fat content than cakes.

It's not a statistical observation. It's a statistical presumption. You're presuming that a difference between cismen and transwomen *must* exist, and are forming your conclusions from that. You don't have have any information about whether or not transwomen are materially outside the distribution of males in genera or not. You definitely don't have anything demonstrating that they are materially within the distribution of females. You're just assuming that it must be... because without that you don't really have an argument.

What you imagine might be the case isn't actually an argument.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm not speaking for 'many trans rights activists' I'm speaking for myself here. And trying to establish some kind of evidence-based reasoning on the topic.

Reality is that many transwomen athletes ARE going to be on hormones and any solution has to take that into account

Evidenced based reasoning? Evidence of what? Male advantage? It's not even worth discussing. (See: Flat Earth)

Evidence about the effect of hormone therapy and its role in eliminating male advantage? Yes. That happens. On that level, it's not worth discussing. As for exactly how much and what kind of therapies should make a male eligible to compete against females, that is worth discussing, but it's beyond my knowledge. I discussed my opinions, and misgivings, on the subject a couple of days ago.

Evidence about whether we ought to allow males to compete against females despite their advantage? That's a value judgement, not a scientific one.

So, I'm not sure what sort of evidence based reasoning you are looking for.

Perhaps you could provide one or more of the questions that you would like to see addressed using evidence based reasoning.

 

[Matthew Best]

Pride in London's Facebook page is an interesting battleground for this whole topic. Yesterday they posted this:

https://www.facebook.com/PrideinLondon/posts/6390372444322288

"Happy #LesbianVisibilityWeek! A week dedicated to celebrating and supporting all LGBTQI women and non binary people in our community."

This was met with a barrage of complaints that Lesbian Visibility Week should actually be about lesbians, and not everyone else.

It's the same on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/PrideInLondon/status/1386646602564186114

Obviously, this doesn't mean that everyone (or even anyone) complaining is transphobic, but I found it an interesting clash anyway.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The notion of trans-racial identity put me in mind of this science fiction story from 1973:

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/on-venus-have-we-got-a-rabbi




Anyway, comparing transgender and transracial identities, some thoughts.

I think there are people who may very well identify, in a very meaningful way, as a different race, but I think it's different from people who identify as the gender not associated with their sex.

There is no conclusive, definitive, explanation for transgender phenomena, but a lot of scientists who have studied the phenomenon feel that there is an actual medical explanation. There is some evidence that hormonal fluctuations during pregnancy at certain key times can influence fetal development and cause someone to identify as the "other" gender.

In order to believe this, the only thing that we need to believe is that some behavior is inherently sex-biased, and that we have an instinctive "knowledge" of what it means to be male or female. I put "knowledge"in quotes, because it's not exactly knowledge, but I can't think of a different word. You have to believe that somehow, thoughts and behaviors are instinctively associated with being one sex or the other, and that there's a developmental pathway that causes the behavior patterns and even the thought patterns to develop, and that development is correlated with sex. However, you also have to believe that something can "go wrong" or "get crossed" or something, so that the psychological/neurological elements go a different route than the physical development.
None of that is implausible to me, and a lot of people think that's what happens. A person has male genes and develops male anatomy, but there is something that influence our own behavior and thought, and that can go down a female pathway.

That's a transgender person, at least if the theory is correct.

I don't think there's any support for a similar concept of "transracialism". I don't think there is "knowledge" of what it means to be an African or a European. I don't think that's instinctive.

On the other hand, the general concept of a tribal identity I think is, in fact, instinctive. In other words, I think we are "programmed" to associate with people of our own tribe, our own racial group. I think appearance plays a huge role in that. i.e. I am more likely to think of people who look like me as part of my tribe, and I think it's instinctive to behave differently toward people of your own tribe. However, the tribal identification aspect also has a huge cultural component. It might not be just people who look like me, but people who dress like me, or even just people who live in the same place, or, very importantly, people who work together in shared activities, like a sports team or company or army.

So, a person could have European genetics, but if raised among Africans, he could very well think of himself as an African. It seems to me that he would even be right to do so. Of course, he could easily tell, from a very young age, that, genetically, he must be different from the other members of his tribe, but nonetheless he would still identify as part of his tribe. That would be a trans-racial person.

So, I think both transracials and transgenders can exist, but I think one of them is caused by culture, while the other one probably has an underlying associated medical condition.*


*ETA: In many cases.

There ARE sex-differentiated behavioral tendencies. Evolution includes both natural selection and sexual selection, and we have historically sexually selected for certain characteristics. IIRC, most of the tertiary sex characteristic differences between males and females are probably the result of sexual selection - males tend to be taller than females because females sexually select for taller males. I find it entirely likely that some element of behavioral tendencies are also selected for.

At a bare minimum, we know for a fact that behavioral tendencies CAN be sexually selected - several breeds of dogs have been bred specifically for behavioral traits. Terriers dig. Hounds bay. Retrievers go get things. Shepherds herd. There's still an element of training involved. Terriers have an innate tendency to dig... but you have to teach them when it is acceptable to dig and when it is not. Retrievers will go get things all on their own, but you have to teach them not to bite into the duck and to release it to you when you ask for it. And if you don't train an Aussie Shepherd properly, they will chase and drive almost anything that moves, just not in a useful or meaningful way.

The problem is that many of the sex-linked behaviors that we can observe as persistent differences between male and female humans are directly related to hormones. Testosterone causes aggression and competitiveness, just like other steroids. We know this for a fact. If you reduce the amount of testosterone that a male human receives, they become less aggressive. If you increase it they become more so. If you increase the amount of testosterone that a female human receives, they become more aggressive as well. Estrogen (and maybe progesterone) increase emotional sensitivity. If you decrease the amount of estrogen that a female human is receiving, their emotional magnitudes reduce. If you increase the amount of estrogen that a male human receives, they become more emotionally volatile. We know this is true, in part because we have observed these patterns in cisgender humans with hormone imbalances, *and* we have observed the same behavioral tendencies in transgender humans receiving cross-sex hormones.

What we have NOT been able to determine to date are two things:
1) Material and predictable behavioral tendencies between males and females that are innate (not a product of social conditioning) and are independent of hormone exposure
2) Material and predictable behavioral tendencies that are shared by cisgender males and transgender females (transmen) or shared by cisgender females and transgender males (transwomen) that exist prior to cross-sex hormone treatment.

So while it's hypothetically possible, and logically plausible, evidence does not currently exist in order to support or negate the hypothesis.

 

[Aber]

In the UK the Maya Forstater case appeal is underway.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission is supporting the appeal.

The UK EHRC have intervened in Forstater’s appeal saying that the employment tribunal’s December 2019 ruling was “wrong” and that gender critical views should be a protected belief under the Equality Act 2010.

 

[Meadmaker]

So while it's hypothetically possible, and logically plausible, evidence does not currently exist in order to support or negate the hypothesis.

As is true with so many things related to human behavior, and especially sexual behavior. You can't exactly do double blind experiments that remove societal influences.

Which leaves an awful lot of speculation.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Evidenced based reasoning? Evidence of what? Male advantage? It's not even worth discussing. (See: Flat Earth)

Evidence about the effect of hormone therapy and its role in eliminating male advantage? Yes. That happens. On that level, it's not worth discussing. As for exactly how much and what kind of therapies should make a male eligible to compete against females, that is worth discussing, but it's beyond my knowledge. I discussed my opinions, and misgivings, on the subject a couple of days ago.

Evidence about whether we ought to allow males to compete against females despite their advantage? That's a value judgement, not a scientific one.

So, I'm not sure what sort of evidence based reasoning you are looking for.

Perhaps you could provide one or more of the questions that you would like to see addressed using evidence based reasoning.

My questions are around to what extent transwomen have an advantage and how much of that advantage is taken away by transitioning. I see a lot of people talking about 'male advantage' without taking into account that transwomen are not typical males in any way.

I'm also interested in trying to look at some kind of evidence/logic based reasoning as to when a natural genetic/biological advantage becomes an unfair advantage.

What I am interested in understanding is if there is the possibility to come to some kind of reasoned position on at what point a transwoman should be excluded from competing with ciswomen.

 

[Olmstead]

My questions are around to what extent transwomen have an advantage and how much of that advantage is taken away by transitioning. I see a lot of people talking about 'male advantage' without taking into account that transwomen are not typical males in any way.

I'm also interested in trying to look at some kind of evidence/logic based reasoning as to when a natural genetic/biological advantage becomes an unfair advantage.

What I am interested in understanding is if there is the possibility to come to some kind of reasoned position on at what point a transwoman should be excluded from competing with ciswomen.

There is a simple solution to what you want. All you need is an in-depth statistical analysis and some medical malpractice:

x% of female athletes can run 100 meters in under 11 seconds, so all transwoman athletes must undergo procedures that will ensure that only x% of transwoman athletes can run 100 meters in under 11 seconds. Add a ridiculous amount of other relevant parameters and adjust as needed.

This is of course absolutely ridiculous, but a different solution doesn't exist. In other words, transwomen can never compete against ciswomen if you want a fair competition comparable to the male division, at least not until we can create a genderbent clone of a person and perform a successful brain transplant.

 

[Aber]

In the UK the Maya Forstater case appeal is underway.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission is supporting the appeal.

Index on Censorship have also got involved:

https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2021/04/statement-on-the-maya-forstater-tribunal/

Link includes their skeleton argument.

 

[Aber]

My questions are around to what extent transwomen have an advantage and how much of that advantage is taken away by transitioning. I see a lot of people talking about 'male advantage' without taking into account that transwomen are not typical males in any way.

Perhaps this covers some of your questions:

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2020/11/06/bjsports-2020-102329

The 15–31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy. However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events.

 

[Belz...]

I've no doubt that future medical tech would allow for a full transition. But we ain't there yet.

 

[Meadmaker]

My questions are around to what extent transwomen have an advantage and how much of that advantage is taken away by transitioning. I see a lot of people talking about 'male advantage' without taking into account that transwomen are not typical males in any way.

I'm also interested in trying to look at some kind of evidence/logic based reasoning as to when a natural genetic/biological advantage becomes an unfair advantage.

What I am interested in understanding is if there is the possibility to come to some kind of reasoned position on at what point a transwoman should be excluded from competing with ciswomen.

I know that sports federations and the International Olympic Committee are looking at the same questions. As I said in my post, I don't have any special knowledge to add to that subject. Others, most recently Aber but including many others all the way back to the opening post of this thread's origins have contributed references to some of the research on that subject. To repeat myself, I'm not opposed, in principle, to males competing against females if the male advantage can be safely removed. I just don't have any real knowledge to contribute on how to do that.

I will repeat the misgivings on that subject that I expressed recently, just because enough time has passed that it might have been forgotten. I worry that simplistic approaches such as simply setting hormone levels are, effectively, picking winners, and I worry that people will alter medical treatments in order to satisfy athletic eligibility requirements rather than in pursuit of sound medical outcomes. I'm confident, though, that the medical authorities who are investigating these problems are aware of those issues and are doing the best they can to try and ensure an outcome that is both fair and safe.

I feel, though, tjat discussing transition effects is kind of moving the goal posts. You recently referred to the effects of hormones "if they happen to be taking them". If there are athletes who do not happen to be taking them, then any discussion of the effects of those hormones is moot. I have been discussing the presence of untransitioned males, such as the freshman version of Terry Miller, who set all time girls' records as a freshman and sophomore. Her times slowed down as a senior, and while we cannot prove it, it's a safe bet that the slowdown was caused by feminizing hormone treatment. Before she began those, the male advantage was clearly in evidence, and clearly responsible for the record beating performances.

As to the question of when the natural male advantage becomes an unfair advantage, "fair" is one of those loaded words that doesn't have a scientific definition. Asking for evidence of whether or not something is "fair" is kind of mixing a couple of different realms. Science can tell us that the advantage exists, but we have to discuss ethics to decide if it is "fair".

What we can say, based on evidence, is that there is an advantage to being male, so it's not surprising that most people consider it unfair to have people with male advantage competing against people who do not have the male advantages, especially in a division that was created specifically to exclude people who had the male advantage.

 

[Emily's Cat]

In the UK the Maya Forstater case appeal is underway.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission is supporting the appeal.

Good!

 

[Emily's Cat]

My questions are around to what extent transwomen have an advantage and how much of that advantage is taken away by transitioning. I see a lot of people talking about 'male advantage' without taking into account that transwomen are not typical males in any way.

In what way are they not typical males?

Aside from internal gender identity, I don't see that there's any evidence or suggestion that transwomen are materially different from other males in terms of biology or performance, at least prior to hormone therapy.