World Athletics chief say rules will uphold the integrity of women’s sport amid debate over inclusion of trans athletes.
Finding a Y chromosome isn’t that helpful where performance is concerned as it isn’t just XY and XX out there and some chromosomal abnormalities can mean you are less susceptible to testosterone which can impact development.
There are people with genetically high red blood cell counts or lung capacity. Usain Bolt has a much higher percentage of fast-twitch muscle fibres (top sprinters tend to be 80-90% compared to the average of 50%). Are we going to test for those too?
Human biology is complicated and the more we know the less black and white it becomes. A crude genetic test isn’t going to help with this.
While broadly aimed at athletes who have changed their gender, World Athletics’s testing requirements would also affect small numbers of competitors who were born with atypical sex chromosomes.
But they aren’t discriminating against men with chromosomal abnormalities? Why? Is it because they see men as inherently better and if you are the best you must be a real man?
What chromosomal abnormality would give a male an advantage over other males in sports?
You remember that high-profile win where a trans athlete beat all at-birth people of the same gender? Yeah. Despite the fear-mongering, it just doesn’t happen…
As a short person I will not rest until tall people are banned from sports
Procrustes rule.
This is a pretty sad grey area. Trans athletes definitely need to be included in sports/competition but in sports like swimming, running and power lifting the men’s qualifications are just in another league of their own, hormones and muscle mass really do make a massive difference and I have no idea what the solution is (its not DNA testing). I’d even go as far as saying that genetics on their own give some athletes a massive advantage over others in their sports (Eg XX females with naturally high testosterone, muscle mass ect…)
The rules that already prevent competition until 2 years after transitioning already 100% cover any point in time where there would be any remnant of their time spent with different hormone levels. Basically, the problem was already solved decades ago, which is why there has never been an actual issue in practice.
It also heavily depends on what hormones if any the transgender woman is on. Monotherapy increases estrogen count well above cis female levels, and both monotherapy and via T blockers reduce testosterone so drastically that agab has absolutely no role in overall strength. I had moderate muscle mass and a very lean build before transitioning (from amateur climbing and track), and quickly lost all of that within four months on monotherapy even with regular gym attendance. My leg strength stayed about the same but overall build and gains are exactly on par with my cisgender peers now. The point being I’m not sure one can even argue that they could train on natural T before transitioning to gain an advantage, as maintaining that muscle mass is near impossible. And if policing hormonal levels becomes a thing if low-dosage is a concern, then many cisgender women would also be barred for competing due to naturally high testosterone.
Thats great insight, you’re right I was exclusively thinking about my own experience as a cis male swimmer growing up. I hope things become more inclusive and more research is done on the topic.
The results should be interesting. IIRC, 23andme had to stop sharing sex chromosome data after discovering just how many intersex people exist and how many people who thought they were cis women turned out to have Y chromosomes.
Had to? What do you mean?
Apparently people got mad when they were told that, genetically, they were not the sex they thought they were.
I’m thinking of all the intersex people who were mutilated without consent, and never told the truth. They’re mad at the wrong people if being informed is their problem.
The Olympics have nothing to do with the original Olympics anymore, do they? They have skateboarding ffs. But trans is too far.
Actually, now I’m curious how they will handle cases of people with more than 2 chromosomes.
And, who runs these organisations? Are they under US influence?
Which original Olympics? In nude? With OG disciplines?
To be honest, the classic disciplines are boring.
I liked skateboarding, breaking (breakdance).Maybe we should be more unisex, add more shooting, chess, card games, e-sport, Formula E, etc.
add more shooting, chess, card games, e-sport, Formula E, etc.
I know it wouldn’t be unheard of (art used to be a category) but I’d hate this so much because to me, the Olympics are a celebration of physical excellence.
Sebastian Coe, the president of World Athletics, said on Wednesday that track and field’s governing body had agreed to introduce the testing to keep the “absolute focus on the integrity of competition”.
That’s the point I was addressing. The Olympics have change a lot. If they want to talk about integrity, they’ve already lost.
Maybe we should be more unisex, add more shooting, chess, card games, e-sport, Formula E, etc.
This is why I don’t watch the Olympics anymore. They are a parody of the original.
Actually, now I’m curious how they will handle cases of people with more than 2 chromosomes.
Me too. Actually, this is explicitly called out in the article,
World Athletics’s testing requirements would also affect small numbers of competitors who were born with atypical sex chromosomes.
But they don’t say what would happen. The easy ones: presumably, XYY is treated the same as XY and XO is treated like XX. But how would XXY be handled? Or cases where we have genetic chimerism - e.g. some cells are XY and some are XO or XX. (One way this happens is if fraternal twins of different sex are in the womb, and then one absorbs the other.)
Intersexed folks at best seem to be an afterthought in this proposal.
If the tests are sensitive enough, someone with XY gonadal dysgenesis might be counted as XX as well, though I’m skeptical on this point. Actually, this is exactly why such tests are bad - someone who presents as female in virtually every public way, and would be seen as female in terms of sex under even many forms of medical examinations, could be treated as male under these rules and forced to compete against men.
It’s the exact opposite of what the anti-trans folks say that they want to accomplish - protecting women from male athletes.
This isn’t about not wanting trans people in the sports and you know it. It’s about the unfair advantage they have over biological women.
Spoken like somebody who hasn’t read a single line of research on the subject. Maybe educate yourself first before believing the “unfair advantage” hoax.
Removed by mod
Again, read research on the subject. You do not have any idea what you’re talking about. You’re comparing pretransition people to transitioned people. It’s completely different.
What you’re spouting is the lowbrow kind of stuff a person at a bar would utter “I could run the country better than that imbecile” or “if scientists knew anything about anything, they’d have asked me how to fix the economy”.
I’m telling you again: read the damn research. You have no friggin’ idea what you’re talking about.
P.S look up Denning-Kruger
“You’re wrong. I’m not telling you why but go read up on it. Also you’re stupid”
And not a single mind was changed that day.
“I won’t change my mind by reading scientific research because I know my bar talk is strong”
based. stay ignorant friendo
Men have a significant advantage over women when it comes to strenght and speed and in most (but not all) cases this applies to trans women as well.
Nothing about your comments indicates a willingness to change your mind. However, your statement above is the first concrete statement of the thread, so it seems like the onus would fall on you to support the claim, rather than /u/astro_city@fedio.io to refute it. If you make factual claims without evidence, nobody’s especially obligated to provide evidence to tell you that your made-up facts are wrong.
Hand-grip strength of young men, women and highly trained female athletes
The results of female national elite athletes even indicate that the strength level attainable by extremely high training will rarely surpass the 50th percentile of untrained or not specifically trained men.
You and people like you keep saying this and there is no fucking proof.
You just “gesture vaguely at the male-female strength difference”
Vibes based regulations will hurt people. Mostly not even the people you are trying to hurt.
People like me?
Poor phrasing I meant “other people saying the same things”
If it was about that, then it was solved decades ago… when it was made that people who have transitioned can’t compete for 2 years.
You ever wonder why, despite how there should be hundreds of cases of the thing you are worried about actually happening, it still literally never has happened? That’s because it already can’t happen. It was solved. 100%.
The best data is from military recruits, and there are a couple of recent studies, one published in 2020 and one in 2023. They looked at cis men, cis women, trans man and trans women. How many steps you can do in a minute, how many push ups you can do in a minute, and how fast you can run 1.5 miles. And what they found in that study was that trans women remained faster for up to two years after the initiation of gender affirming hormone therapy. At four years, trans women continued to do more sit ups and push ups.
You can also google endless examples of trans athletes breaking women’s records. Don’t lie that it has never happened.
Are you sure you can google results of trans athletes setting female records? Cuz even trying to find a conservative website giving an example is not turning up anything. And for other, science-based sites, I just keep seeing over and over that it’s a myth and doesn’t actually happen.
Here’s almost 600 examples.
Ignoring how incredibly offensive that site is.
It’s just a list of people that showed up.
The only records they mention are local records that were incidentally broken by those individuals, and in many cases are also listing unofficial events that specifically have no wait period.
They seem more concerned that “girls” are losing opportunities, seemingly forgetting that they are also talking about girls taking those places.
For someone who is claiming it’s not about “trans people participating” you didn’t pick a very good example of that not being your focus.
Please look into the actual science, you are backing your opinion up with feelings rather than facts.
Please look into the actual science, you are backing your opinion up with feelings rather than facts.
Like the NPR article I linked before that you simply ignored?
You claimed it has literally never happened and I linked you 600 examples and now you’re claiming not a single one of them is good enough for you? You sure it’s me whose going on by feelings here?
Please, link me one of those scientific studies that you approve of that shows no difference and I’ll look into it.
What’s a biological woman and why do they matter more than ““non-biological”” women?
There are certainly female athletes with chromosomal abnormalities competing at any level. Women, who are completely unaware they’re in any way different because they have lived their entire life like any other woman. Women, who on average have a small boost in performance compared to women without chromosomal abnormalities.
Why should they be banned? Please elaborate and please also answer why this shouldn’t also apply to women of certain ethnicities with boosted competitive performance.
I haven’t said they should be banned.
Bullshit. You don’t and have never cared about sports, this is bigotry plain and simple.
I’m all for trans rights. Trans people deserve rights, and support, and respect. BUT, here’s my take on sports:
If I wanted to coach an athlete to make it to the Olympics and win gold, I’d scour my country for a trans woman and train her for literally ANY individual sport.
Pole vault, 100 meter, javelin, swimming, you name it. We’ll kick ass.
That is simply not true. A male puberty does give some benefits in some sports. But any advantages in, e.g. muscle density, vanish once hormone levels are accounted for. And hormone levels have been (over-)* controlled for decades now.
You know what also gives you an advantage? Being taller. Or having higher blood oxygenation. Or certain abnormal body proportions. Once you get to top level sports, you have people that basically won the genetic lottery, mixed with a shitload of training. Just look at Michael Phelps or Katie Ledecky in swimming, for example. Both are very exceptional in both body and technique, and dominated their sports.
So why is trans inclusion such a divisive point, but, let’s say, height is not? Tall women dominate basketball, should we ban everyone over 1.80m? Or test for hemoglobin before runs?
Trans athletes dominating a sport has not happened in any relevant capacity. I challenge you to find even a single case where it has. This is purely a political talking point, nothing about this is about sports
* Women have (sometimes illegally, and often without consent) been subjected to hormone and chromosome testing for decades, to the detriment of mostly cis- and intersex women. I’m not aware of any trans women caught up in this, at least on an Olympic level.
Sadie Schreiner set the 200-meter record and qualified for the Atlantic Region Championship with a time of 25.27 seconds at the RIT January Friday Meet. The runner also broke the 300-meter record with a 40.78-second finish.
So someone won at a college competition. About 1% of people are trans, so you’ll see some winners. It’d be weirder if you didn’t. The records stated there, 25s for the women’s 200? The world record has been <22s for decades now. That’s not exactly “dominating a sport”.
But do you notice how everyone quoted in the article is actively transphobic, misgendering her and another athlete? If this was truly about sports, why go to that length? You could have a nuanced, respectful debate about fairness in sport. Yet whenever the topic is trans people, it’s always those that already deny their very existence that are the most ‘concerned about fairness’. This has never been about sport.
This is just a convenient front for the right’s culture war bullshit. Don’t fall for it.
Whether or not records are being broken is not the correct way to determine if a certain population has an advantage over the other. A variation toward the top performers could be interpreted as an unfair advantage. If this particular very small group of athletes is in the top 5% than one could think something is anti-competative about this arrangement.
Once again, the same is true for many other factors. Long legs help to be good at running, I’d presume, but we’re not measuring femurs for college sports. And the variation in top performers does not exist, at least not in the way you’re impling. Trans people are actually statistically underrepresented in competitive sports.
The singular focus on a handful of trans athletes, while actively misgendering those same athletes, is a hate and harassment campaign spread by people who couldn’t care less about fairness in sport.
Equating genetic outcomes (e.g. height) and advantages gained through a male or female puberty is a mathematical malpractice. Any advantages gained through male puberty will be seen across an entire biologically male population. Whereas genetic lottery outcomes are less predictable and more sparse.
There is an argument to be had about how a trans female’s advantages gained through a male puberty can be minimized through hormone blockers. However, I would presume advantages already gained through their frame would be retained. I am not opposed allowing these athletes to participate to determine if this hypothesis would hold. However, I doubt the ample data needed to test this is/would be collected across all levels of competition where applicable.
If the handful of trans athletes are mostly top performers, it could indicate that their participation hinders the competitiveness of the competition.
Equating genetic outcomes (e.g. height) and advantages gained through a male or female puberty is a mathematical malpractice. Any advantages gained through male puberty will be seen across an entire biologically male population. Whereas genetic lottery outcomes are less predictable and more sparse.
What do you define as “biologically male” here? This is a term often used by bigots, so I just want to make sure we’re on the same base. Biology isn’t binary, far from it. Intersex people are the ones most often caught up in any sort of gender testing for sports. Most of them don’t even know they are intersex, and find out through some competition excluding them. And what about trans women that went on puberty blockers early, that never went through a testosterone-driven puberty? While the advantage for someone who did go through puberty is debatable and varies from discipline to discipline, for someone who didn’t it’s non-existent. Would you agree that it’s only fair that they should be allowed to compete? Where do you draw the line then?
If the handful of trans athletes are mostly top performers, it could indicate that their participation hinders the competitiveness of the competition.
And you are getting this claim from where, exactly? This is pure conjecture on your part
So, why doesn’t anyone do that, if it’s so “possible”.
Downvote me all you want. If my trans woman athlete went through male puberty, my Olympian would take the gold metal.
Be real. Have a nuanced discussion about this.
Trans people have been able to compete at the Olympics since the mid nineties, so if male puberty really did have such a large effect on performance, we’d have had next to no cis women win medals for three decades. Instead, every women’s Olympic medal in that period went to a cis woman. Taking enough hormones to physically change the shape of your body has a detrimental enough effect on athletic performance to wipe out the advantage from male puberty. In principle, an athlete could gain the advantage back by stopping taking HRT, but the Olympic rules require stable hormone levels for two years, so they’d just disqualify themselves if they tried.
If that was the case, you’d think it would have happened at least once by now. You seem to be unaware that “problem” was solved decades ago, before it had any chance to become one.
Nuance?
It’s “medal”.
