Author:
Blog About:
Elite Sports
I may get flamed for this but I’ve been thinking for a long time that campaigns to allow us to compete in sports – particularly at elite levels – is scoring a huge own goal for the TERFs.
In a perfect world then yes, allow it – however, once we have been through a male puberty it is unreasonable to claim that we have no physical advantage over born women. I hate what testosterone did to me, and I do not value the body that it gave me, but physically it has given me advantages over most women for many sports.
Even if it didn’t, the perception of cheating would remain and a trans woman winning an Olympic or other title, or a sports scholarship will always be suspect.
I know that this is unfair to us, but we must also consider what is fair to born women. Winning is great, but it means some other woman has lost and it will only make us enemies, and give ammunition to the TERFs.
I would happily play sports with women for fun, but if it was for a prize, or a title or other award my history would devalue winning even for me, and I know I would be resented. I decided a long time ago that I didn’t want to make any more enemies. Friends are better, as is acceptance and depriving born women of their sporting achievements would not help.
None of this applies to those who were fortunate enough to transition young with puberty blockers, or AIS or other intersex conditions. Sadly that doesn’t include me. I am speaking from personal experience – when I first transitioned I dreamed of competing as a woman. However, time, reflection and talking to others convinced me that it just wasn’t right.
This is my first blog post, can't see how to get my name on it - AlisonP
Comments
Frustration.
Iowa just banned all sports participation on girls and womens teams for transgender female athletes, following other states. Meanwhile Texas bans ALL medical care for transgender kids under the age of 18 - ironically removing the very real solution to their objection to trans girls on girls teams. Blockers = No male puberty = no advantage.
As of the end of January, there were no fewer than twenty bills in states across the country aimed at limiting or outright removing rights for trans persons. And Texas is encouraging health care and private citizens to report any doctor, nurse, parent, or other adult who facilitates medical intervention for a transgender child. One woman has moved her family from Texas to California for the sake of her transgender daughter. Other parents are looking into similar solutions, Sigh...
Love, Andrea Lena
New Jersey!
New Jersey is actually quite progressive for Transgender Rights and Transgender care these days, even at the Medicaid (NJ FamilyCare) Level. We need to remind people that California isn't the only option! (even if we are overly republican)
-Kirstyn Piper Plummer
Seeking Clarity
It's important to put your thoughts out there to advance the community. Thank you! However. . ..
The debate on trans athletes was settled in 1977 when Billie Jean King submitted an affidavit to the New York Supreme Court that said:
“From my observation of Dr. Richards and experience with her on the court, as well as my total knowledge of the sport of tennis,” the 33‐year‐old Mrs. King said in the affidavit, “She does not enjoy physical superiority or strength so as to have an advantage over women competitors in the sport of tennis.”
There's a very minuscule chance of a male athlete faking gender dysphoria to become a winner. That's the basis of B movies and TG novels.
There is NO place in sports for discrimination.
Jill
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
What About?
A sport like archery, or any of the equestrian sports?
I can't see that transgender women have any advantages there. Still, that doesn't matter to the homophobes at the Right end of the Republican party.
Female jockeys ...
... could actually have an advantage over male ones because they are usually smaller and lighter than most men and therefore don't need to diet so heavily (with all the problems that may cause) as their male counterparts. Horse riding in any case is primarily a female activity in the UK at the lower levels. We live on an unsurfaced road leading to a farm where many riding enthusiasts keep their horses. Well over 90% are female.
Of course one way to avoid the problem altogether would be to abolish gender discrimination in sport completely. Just let the best, most skilled human(s) win. ;)
I used to cycle a lot with a former international women's road and TT competitor. She wasn't at full racing fitness and we were well matched (though I think her TT times were better than my modest ones). She is about 10 years my junior. We once rode a 100km non-racing MTB event together and she was a great companion.
I'm an archer. Men in field
I'm an archer. Men in field archery nearly always beat women. Partly due to te abilty to use higher powered bows. Th is could be overcome somewhat by standardizing the bow draw weigth. Then I found this
Men and women compete separately in individual archery competition because men's scores are typically higher. For example, the new WRs are 700 (male) and 673 (female).
This is in large part due to the men having higher arrow speeds. Higher speed leads to higher scores because higher arrow speed = less wind interference + more forgiveness for form mistakes. As such, men don't have to account for the wind as much or be as precise with their movements. (They're still REALLY precise though!)
So how do men get this higher arrow speed? Two major reasons:
longer arms = longer draw length (basically how far you can pull back the bow)
stronger muscles = able to handle higher draw weight (basically how much force the arrows leaves the bow with)
Leeanna
Terfs
and their kindred ardent equality 'nazis' have long had double standards. There are plenty of examples not just in sport but in wider life but as an example lets take my sport, cycling and one quite specific discipline that we Brits used to participate in in the thousands from spring to autumn, time trialling.
If you've read Gaby or watched any of the big Tour's you'll know how it works, riders ride on their own, setting off most usually at one minute intervals around a set course (in the UK most events are over traditional 10, 25, 50, 100 mile courses). For a long time women couldn't compete at all, then due to demand not law, ladies events started to be run and most other events would allow a % of female riders. This worked very well for decades.
You wouldn't think equality legislation would have much impact and it didn't really, the few men only events became fully open but there are still lady only events. Equality? hmm, me thinks not. Events are usually restricted to 120 riders and they are selected based on previous best times at the distance, popular events could be over subscribed by 100% or more. The forced inclusion of 10% ladies effectively means that a dozen men don't get to compete, the ladies are only graded with the other women. This doesn't hit the Elite riders but it does have an effect on the grass roots, less able riders have even less chance of riding a faster course than before. Of course if a woman doesn't get in she still has the option of riding a ladies only event, the men however are barred from that option.
But thats only the unequal equalities, when it comes to performance, men do have an advantage over the shorter, sprint distances (10, 25, 50 miles) but as the distance ramps up things become much more equal, The great Beryl Burton was a world + national champion across various disciplines and in the early 70's became the first woman to win the 12 hour event outright setting a new national record in the process. In fact she would beat most men over any distance, it was only the small cadre of elite level men who would beat her, against such a force a TG/TS would have no advantage whatsoever. Thing is, Beryl was neither the first nor latest woman to beat the men, or at least a significant number of them in open competition.
We see this repeated in many disciplines, the best women can generally be rated alongside 90% of elite men, indeed the upper end of that range. In other words, you'd need to be a top 10 elite male athlete to beat all the women anyway and thats without the whole hormone thing being taken into account.
Clearly there are some 'strength' sports, wrestling, weight lifting for example where, particularly a well built TS person would have a big advantage but skill and endurance sports there is no or very little advantage. You could come up with all sorts of metrics to, if you like, keep a level playing field but they would only be fair if all women regardless of birth gender, were treated the same way. You could for example dream up a height/weight ratio, exceed number x and you can't compete. But of course, Terfs wouldn't allow that as it could discriminate against women, in their heads at least.
Its not a simple one size fits all subject and opinions can be very strong. I know a former elite woman MTB'er who even in her 60's will show a clean pair of tyres to all but the best male riders. No TG/TS rider ever came within a Roman mile of beating her but this otherwise very liberal individual is adamant that they should not be able to compete at any level against 'real' women, her argument is that 'they' would be bigger and stronger than her, the fact that as she's only 5'4" and about 7 stone wet through almost all the genetic women are bigger and potentially stronger than her doesn't come into the equation ar they are 'real' wimmin!
Selective equality, don'tcha just love it?
Madeline Anafrid Bell
I think most TERFs imagine
I think most TERFs imagine someone like Hulk Hogan in a dress saying he is now a female boxer.
We all know that the real problem is not the competing, it's when a trans athlete wins
Leeanna
Sports
I drafted a second post last night which I am now revising as Leeanna19 has already said most of it in her two posts – archery and perception of winning. Archery is a good example, men score better than women and a trans woman would statistically fall somewhere between the two.
Billie Jean Kings statement about Renee Richards was only her opinion about one person in one sport, and the issue is still very much open. The IOC produced guidelines in 2015 and an update a few months ago and is still not definitive.
Joanna Harper is a Canadian based at Loughborough University (UK) researching trans issues in elite sports and is an advisor to the IOC. She is also a competitive distance runner, and is trans. She makes the point that trans women do have some advantages in some sports https://thehill.com/opinion/international/582651-understandi...
My point is about a) only some sports and b) at elite levels. I don’t believe that there is a gender advantage in equestrian events, but there is in Archery. In female gymnastics the majority of trans women will be greatly disadvantaged. As Maddy says, Cycling is probably fairly even other than sprint events, and other sports are a mix of pro and con. If I had a daughter I would not be happy about her engaging in contact sports with a 6 foot 6 inch 18 stone trans woman (1.95 metre, 250 pound / 115 kg).
Testosterone is much of the reason, but puberty changes don’t reverse just because T levels come down. The IOC insist on T levels being at female levels, mine are at the low end of the female range but I remain about 6 feet tall and stronger than most women, even after 30 years. Without Testosterone reduction – well, there is a reason why there are male and female competitions. Remember Caster Semenya.
I think that the key points are perception and making enemies where we really don’t need to, and about not taking anything away from born women like Olympic team places and scholarships. Recreational level sports are less problematic as it is about fun, exercise and making friends.
I wish the world was different and this was not an issue, but I wish for many things I can’t have, like XX chromosomes and ovaries but the world is how it is.
Variation
If everyone were as rational as you are being on this subject, there would be no dispute.
Just a point, though, that leads to a conclusion. The thing about human variation is that there is more variation within categories than between them. Take your hypothetical 6'6" transwoman: odds are there are more 6'6" genetic women out there than there are such transwomen. Are they to be banned from sport also?
Sport is inherently unfair; someone is always taller, stronger, faster, born at an advantegous time of year to get coaching while young, or whatever other factors, misleadingly called talent, that have actually nothing to do with dedication or other personal virtues. We have contests to see which entrants have had the good fortune to be winners in an invisble lottery. It's a tautology.
The effort to ban transwomen from sport looks reasonable, but in reality is wholly based on bigotry against people who are different.
And everyone is different— it's the one way we are all alike.
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Shoe size
We decide which characteristics are important for a context and which are not. Through our history and culture we choose that skin tone and sexual phenotype and who your parents are as important factors in how to divvy up social status, wealth and how to divide into sports leagues. Personally I think that we need to break away from these silly archaic social constructs and make sports leagues based on shoe size or maybe body mass.
To me this makes way more sense than trying to make leagues based on someting as arbitrary as the sex on your birth certificate.
Your friend
Crash
School sports
Most of these restrictions are aimed at sports in schools, primarily middle schools, high schools, and universities. When I was in high school (back when dinosaurs roamed the earth) some of the boys were smaller and less athletic than some of the girls. All of them were post puberty, though some, especially the boys , would continue to grow taller. One of my friends I saw more than a decade after graduation was still quite small for a man, though probably close to average size for an adult woman. Such a person, were he TS/TG, would have had no physical advantage in competition against born women who might very well be larger. I look at the women's university-level basketball teams and am amazed a the athleticism of these women.
My point is, individuals vary as do sports. In non-contact sports, endurance is often as important, if not more important, than strength. A blanket prohibition is mere bigotry.
Appearances are deceptive
Beyond size, testosterone has a huge impact on upper body strength. From the time I was 15 until my 40s I weighed close to 120 lb and am 5'11". I was in ROTC in High School and, because it was ROTC, all cadets competed against one another in the physical fitness tests, so boys AND girls in RO were all measured against the same standards. I could regularly beat all the girls in sit-ups, push-ups, pull-ups, and any other physical fitness test... both in number completed and in time taken to complete them...
...and I was a wimp compared to the guys in RO that were also on the sports teams. I looked like a skinny geek, but my muscle tissue was more efficient and much stronger than the girls... even the sporty ones. So size doesn't matter... biology does.
It's not fair... it's not right... and it's not what I wanted... but biology doesn't care about fair, right, or wants. Biology isn't bigoted... it only cares about what is. People that go through male puberty will always have an edge on those that don't because testosterone makes changes in body structure and muscle tissue that can't be ignored or pretended away... and much of that edge is invisible to the human eye. It's at a cellular level. You can't tell someone's strength or endurance by their size or appearance. At 17, looking like a total wimp-geek, my upper body muscle tissue was far denser, stronger, and more efficient than any other girls my age... unless they spent more time working out than I did sleeping. (or took steroids or testosterone injections)
Is it possible for a given girl to be as strong as a given man? Sure... but only on an abstract basis. The strongest women will always be weaker than the strongest men... and the average of each is skewed in men's favor... making an even playing field impossible. That's why men and women, boys and girls, don't compete for the same sports teams. It wouldn't be fair to the girls because they have a handicap they can't fix... ensuring that the boys would get the lion's share of positions on shear ability every time. Then you'd have people saying, "Well, you have to have as many girls as boys on the team!"... which just results in cutting boys that deserve to be there, based purely on ability, in favor of girls that don't, just because they have a vagina.
Like it or hate it, boys and girls are in fact different... and not just because of their primary and secondary sexual characteristics. (if there was no difference, why would we all have had so much angst over being one instead of the other?) Men have physical advantages women simply don't have. Woman on the other hand can bear more pain, get sick less often and less severely, socialize better, do better in formal education environments, mature faster, and have better emotional awareness.
Now, if a girl can do just as well as the boys, without lowering the bar for them, of course they should be allowed to compete... but that will be the rare exception... not the rule.
The question however is about TGs competing in women's sports... TGs that have gone through male puberty and have all the physical advantages that gives them. (and there is no doubt that it does give an advantage) If they win, it will carry an asterisk* and people will use it to say that we don't belong in any women's activities... be that on the sports field or the ladies room.
Just my perspective. YMMV.
Hugs,
Roberta
* In colloquial usage, an asterisk attached to a sporting record indicates that it is 'tainted' in some way... that it is subject to explanation as to why some people may not agree that the record or win should count, such as Roger Maris's 61 home runs in the 1961 baseball season, which was "asterisked" because he didn't hit his 61st homer until the 162nd game as compared to Babe Ruth's 60th home run in 154 games.
How About?
Lawn bowls? Or croquet?
Thanks for all the comments
I seem to have started something in this, my first blog entry. Sorry, I'll try not to be so contentious in the future :)
Bowls and croquet are clearly in the no advantage group with equestrian events - as would be curling. For Womens Gymnastics T is a disadvantage. However, on this straw poll I think that many agree with my original point. As I said, sports for recreation, exercise and fun should not be too much of a problem.
Erin, everything you say is true – for 99% of sports participation. I am only talking about elite sports, where there is real value to be won – fame, kudos, money etc.
In many ways our generation has had it really good – most people are very happy to let us be who we are. This includes how we live, surgery, birth certificates, who we marry.
The thing is, none of these recently granted rights takes anything away from other women – just because we can live how we want it doesn’t mean that other women are deprived of anything. However, for a given sport there is only one Olympic gold medal and if one of us wins it then someone else has lost out and there will be cries of “cheat” and it will be a wedge. As I said, remember Caster Semenya – who is probably just intersex. RobertaME is right on the money about the asterisk.
What is happening in the USA right now is extreme and awful, and is turning the clock back 30 years. This is why I haven’t been to the US for the last 5 years – I feel that I would be as much at risk there as I would feel in UAE or many other countries.
We have it pretty good in the UK now, but I transitioned sufficiently long ago that I remember how it was before. If we are too loud in demanding equality then we become the radicals and dig a hole for ourselves. There is a move here – particularly in Scotland – for self-declaration to be all it takes – no T-blockers, hormones or surgery. This would make the whole sports thing even worse.
I consider myself a feminist, and this means – to me – supporting women and doing what I can to help them achieve all they can. For this reason I don’t want to compete with them where I consider that I have an advantage. I left competitive sports on transitioning for this very reason, and I believe that was the right thing to do however much I missed my sport...
It's been a good debate, thank you all
Alison