Trans people & sports

[Little lunch]

I hope no friendships are lost over this, but also I'm finding this debate to be quite exciting.
I'm just really liking the wordplay. :-)

[Shell B]

Khemical is the only person I'm debating whom I would consider a buddy, and I don't think he'll be a little bitch over this. I've given him a heap more shit than this on this forum and vice versa. We still manage to get along.

[The Grand Nudger]

Of the two sources already made available to you in thread, your objection is that they do not demonstrate that there is no advantage..they just couldn't find it.  That's always true, it's never more than tentative.  Provisional certitude is all that any clinical study or literature review can provide...and if you maintain that objection...then no additional study or consensus of studies reaching the same conclusion really overcomes it.  If you're satisfied with your position-of-no-position on that basis, then there's little that -I- could refer to in order to address your concerns.  Additionally, no amount of debate can really be applied to this one..since you don't have a position to debate, in the first place....and are apparently unaware of the data presented to the IOC, for example...requiring someone to google it for you?

 Right?

[Shell B]

You didn't provide the sources. Someone else did. They equally supported both claims. If you have something better, please provide it. Something that could show that the demonstrated advantages a male obviously has over a female in competitive sports are completely negated by transitioning.

Right, I do not have a position to debate, unless you consider the ultimate fair treatment of all athletes, obviously including trans, a position. If that is already happening with these rules, great. As it is right now, I believe the opinion of people within these sports who experience it first hand warrants discussions like this. If they're wrong, awesome. That means we have perfected transitioning. If not, it can't hurt to figure out what remains and why.

I think you know me well enough to know that I do not come from a position of anything phobia or anything -ism. I just find myself not quite understanding why either side feels so confident that we know all there is to know or that the subject has been decided.

[John V]

One source said that there wasn't enough information to reach a conclusion. The other was clear that MTFs still have more muscle mass than cis women.

BTW, in the second news link I gave (regarding the high school track runner), the person in question isn't even on hormone therapy.

[The Grand Nudger]

You didn't provide the sources. Someone else did.

That should probably be a pro, not a con.  They're not my handpicked sources. In fact, they're the handpicked sources of my positions direct opposition. That's as sympathetic as it gets to the other guy.

They equally supported both claims. If you have something better, please provide it. Something that could show that the demonstrated advantages a male obviously has over a female in competitive sports are completely negated by transitioning.

Those studies did...actually, show that?  They simply couldn't rule out that there may be unknown advantages either below the threshold of detection..or, as the study borrows - the whole is not just the sum of the parts.  There may be a subtle but effective cumulative advantage.  That's a commitment to integrity, granted..but it's not -support- for "the other side".  "The other side" is wrong about those advantages even if they -do- exist.  That much was lain out plainly in those sources.  

Right, I do not have a position to debate, unless you consider the ultimate fair treatment of all athletes, obviously including trans, a position. If that is already happening with these rules, great. As it is right now, I believe the opinion of people within these sports who experience it first hand warrants discussions like this. If they're wrong, awesome. That means we have perfected transitioning. If not, it can't hurt to figure out what remains and why.

I think you know me well enough to know that I do not come from a position of anything phobia or anything -ism. I just find myself not quite understanding why either side feels so confident that we know all there is to know or that the subject has been decided.

OFC I don't think that your an icky phobe.  I already said, I think that you're hung on being on the fence for no good reason.  That's all.  The reason you've given isn't something that I can rationally overcome with any additional examples studies, or debate.  It would just be more of the same "nope, not here, but maybe somewhere" stuff. It's not good enough the first time, when somebody who really wants there to be an issue presents it, and it won;t be good enough the 100th time either.

I can understand that. I just don't agree.

---

In elaboration, in defense of the IOC's ruling, btw...not -exactly related to this thread-.  The way they're heading, their regs are moving toward a basis in hormone levels, anatomy..testable biological metrics which might, in absolute fairness, match some men up to women, and some women to men..This, arguably, would be a better way to ensure that competitors are all peers on a level field than whether or not someone happens to be swinging Richard.

[Shell B]

That should probably be a pro, not a con.  They're not my handpicked sources.  In fact, they're the handpicked sources of my positions direct opposition.  That's as sympathetic as it gets to the other guy.  

But you keep mentioning these conclusive studies. I was hoping you had them.

Those studies did...actually, show that?

Not quite. While one did say it was justifiable to have M-F compete with F, there is much more than just the summary. There is evidence that M-F retain some of the advantageous muscle mass when compared to not-transitioned F-M (which is an element that I think limits the study), but that the overlap between males and females is already large, so fuck it, essentially. So, what they're basically saying, to my mind, is that, yes, the most elite M-F are going to have more muscle mass than the most elite F, but we think the muscle mass overlap renders any limits we make arbitrary, so go for it.

They simply couldn't rule out that there may be unknown advantages either below the threshold of detection..or, as the study borrows - the whole is not just the sum of the parts.  There may be a subtle but effective cumulative advantage.  That's a commitment to integrity, granted..but it's not -support- for "the other side".  "The other side" is wrong about those advantages even if they -do- exist.  That much was lain out plainly in those sources.

It looked like they were saying there is a residual increased muscle mass, but they're not really sure if it's enough to worry about. However, they did also say it seems justified that F compete with M-F, so they definitely support your side, but yield that it's not cut and dry. If you wanted a more tightly specified overlap in muscle mass, it would become unjustifiable, as they said.

OFC I don't think that your an icky phobe.  I already said, I think that you're hung on being on the fence for no good reason.

My reason is that I feel like it can make for a hearty debate. That seems a plenty good enough reason, this being a discussion forum and not a real-life decision-making panel. I'm debating for the sake of debate. There can be no other reason. If people are really here trying to make a difference, I feel bad for them, honestly. This isn't the place for it.

---

In elaboration, in defense of the IOC's ruling, btw...not -exactly related to this thread-.  The way they're heading, their regs are moving toward a basis in hormone levels, anatomy..testable biological metrics which might, in absolute fairness, match some men up to women, and some women to men..This, arguably, would be a better way to ensure that competitors are all peers on a level field than whether or not someone happens to be swinging Richard.

I love that concept.

[The Grand Nudger]

But you keep mentioning these conclusive studies. I was hoping you had them.

Not quite. While one did say it was justifiable to have M-F compete with F, there is much more than just the summary. There is evidence that M-F retain some of the advantageous muscle mass when compared to not-transitioned F-M (which is an element that I think limits the study), but that the overlap between males and females is already large, so fuck it, essentially. So, what they're basically saying, to my mind, is that, yes, the most elite M-F are going to have more muscle mass than the most elite F, but we think the muscle mass overlap renders any limits we make arbitrary, so go for it.

It looked like they were saying there is a residual increased muscle mass, but they're not really sure if it's enough to worry about. However, they did also say it seems justified that F compete with M-F, so they definitely support your side, but yield that it's not cut and dry. If you wanted a more tightly specified overlap in muscle mass, it would become unjustifiable, as they said.

My reason is that I feel like it can make for a hearty debate. That seems a plenty good enough reason, this being a discussion forum and not a real-life decision-making panel. I'm debating for the sake of debate. There can be no other reason. If people are really here trying to make a difference, I feel bad for them, honestly. This isn't the place for it.

IKR?  This is dickjokes and snappy argument space!

I really don't have much to add.  Either the inability to quantify a trans advantage, not a trans difference..a trans advantage....is sufficient the first go round, or it never will be.  If the IOC made it's determinations based primarily upon tight muscle mass overlaps as a metric...I suspect that a great many men would be competing with women ( I know I'd be, lol...) and vv.  They don't...but maybe they should.  
/ shrugs.

[brewer]

[edit] The other was clear that MTFs still have more muscle mass than cis women.

[edit]

There are plenty of cis women that have more muscle mass than me and I'm not even trying to trans. For those that do, please don't hit me. 

I'm not even sure how you would definitively state that as a fact unless you had monozygotic twins with the same muscle mass/same training/workout and then one trans'd. Didn't read to source, is this what it said?

[John V]

There are plenty of cis women that have more muscle mass than me and I'm not even trying to trans. For those that do, please don't hit me. 

Yes, the study notes that there is overlap between cis men and cis women. There's greater overlap between MTFs on hormone therapy and cis women. But, MTFs were found to still have significantly higher mean muscle mass.

I'm not even sure how you would definitively state that as a fact unless you had monozygotic twins with the same muscle mass/same training/workout and then one trans'd. Didn't read to source, is this what it said?

No, it said that, among those studied, MTFs still have significantly higher mean muscle mass than cis women.