Man Named 'Tiffany' Is Dominating Women's Pro Volleyball in Brazil

[John V]

So, in keeping with the "it's not because they're male" theme...can we posit that two athletes of similar t levels,

IOC rules allow trans women to have T levels which are triple those of normal cis women.

similar strength, similar speed... and similar body fat

These are all affected by T levels - see above.

similar skeletal structure,

Bone density may be reduced in time by hormone therapy, but skeletal structure is not changed when an adult transitions.

would be a good match?  Building on that, if it just so happens that transitioning provides the relevant effect..there shouldn't be any specific advantage or reason to exclude them from competition with their cis gendered..well matched, peers?

Sure, but that's not the case here, in which an adult male transitioned (keeping his skeletal structure) and likely has higher T levels than the women he's playing with/against.

[Edwardo Piet]

It irks me when otherwise progressive people who aren't bigoted about anything else, will be transphobic. I made a whole thread about Sam Harris not getting it and many didn't get it. Apparently it's okay to laugh in agreement at a friend making transphobic remarks but it wouldn't be okay if it were homophobic remarks or racist remarks. Get with the goddamn program. This is 2018 and we're debating whether a woman should be able to compete in women's sports. Like, is it okay if she's trans? Yes it's okay if she's trans. What do you want her to do? Compete with the men? You're disgusting.

No, I won't 'get with the program'. If this is your expectation, you're as bad as an alt-righter when it comes to critically thinking. I am progressive, but I will critically analyze the effect any changes to the status quo will have. Not all change is good change, and not all of it makes sense. This doesn't make sense. It's like wally said, athletic competition is something that means a lot to people who are involved in it, and you sound glib when you come in and make these sweeping judgements about something you're not involved with.

Who are you to say it's the women's category, not the cis women's category? Many jurisdictions don't allow trans women to compete in the women's category, and for a damn good reason that comes from their understanding of the nature of sport.

To act like transwomen are biological women is scientifically incorrect. That's cornerstone to this discussion. Be objective, Hammy. Not everything can be equalized. It may not be what we would prefer, but it's simply a fact.

Transwomen aren't biologically women but they are women.

Do you want all the transwomen to compete in their own category? Based on what?

I don't see the problem with women winning women's sports.

What's the problem with transwomen winning? Isn't this just like wanting to ban black people from boxing if they win more on average than white people? And ban white people from swimming if they win more on average than black people? What's the justification besides bigotry? There's nothing wrong with winning.

I'm not acting like transwomen are biologically women and I'm not acting like all change is good change. I'm acting like women who are part of the women's category and pass all the hormonal tests and are deemed fair to compete... should be allowed to compete. And it is irrational and uncritical and can only be fueled by bigotry and bias if you disallow someone who has passed all the tests from competing even though they qualify for the category.

I'm not acting like transwomen are biological women. I'm acting like they're not men.

If a woman wants to compete in women's sports... and they pass all hormonal testing.... whether they are trans or cis is fucking irrelevant.

And as for the alt-righter remark, it's the transphobes who are more akin to alt-righters. It would be fair enough if there was an actual logical argument for why it matters whether someone is trans or cis.... but there isn't. If someone can pass the tests for competing fairly then they can compete fairly, and if they're a woman... they're a woman.

[John V]

I'm not acting like transwomen are biologically women and I'm not acting like all change is good change. I'm acting like women who are part of the women's category and pass all the hormonal tests and are deemed fair to compete... should be allowed to compete. And it is irrational and uncritical and can only be fueled by bigotry and bias if you disallow someone who has passed all the tests from competing even though they qualify for the category.

Problem is that the hormone levels were arbitrarily set higher than those for cis women, and transition done after puberty doesn't reverse certain advantages at all.

If you have a person who started transitioning pre-adolescence with puberty blockers, and who maintains testosterone at normal female levels, then sure, it's fair. But that's not the case here.

[shadow]

No, I won't 'get with the program'. If this is your expectation, you're as bad as an alt-righter when it comes to critically thinking. I am progressive, but I will critically analyze the effect any changes to the status quo will have. Not all change is good change, and not all of it makes sense. This doesn't make sense. It's like wally said, athletic competition is something that means a lot to people who are involved in it, and you sound glib when you come in and make these sweeping judgements about something you're not involved with.

Who are you to say it's the women's category, not the cis women's category? Many jurisdictions don't allow trans women to compete in the women's category, and for a damn good reason that comes from their understanding of the nature of sport.

To act like transwomen are biological women is scientifically incorrect. That's cornerstone to this discussion. Be objective, Hammy. Not everything can be equalized. It may not be what we would prefer, but it's simply a fact.

Transwomen aren't biologically women but they are women.

Do you want all the transwomen to compete in their own category? Based on what?

I don't see the problem with women winning women's sports.

What's the problem with transwomen winning? Isn't this just like wanting to ban black people from boxing if they win more on average than white people? And ban white people from swimming if they win more on average than black people? What's the justification besides bigotry? There's nothing wrong with winning.

I'm not acting like transwomen are biologically women and I'm not acting like all change is good change. I'm acting like women who are part of the women's category and pass all the hormonal tests and are deemed fair to compete... should be allowed to compete. And it is irrational and uncritical and can only be fueled by bigotry and bias if you disallow someone who has passed all the tests from competing even though they qualify for the category.

I'm not acting like transwomen are biological women. I'm acting like they're not men.

If a woman wants to compete in women's sports... and they pass all hormonal testing.... whether they are trans or cis is fucking irrelevant.

And as for the alt-righter remark, it's the transphobes who are more akin to alt-righters. It would be fair enough if there was an actual logical argument for why it matters whether someone is trans or cis.... but there isn't. If someone can pass the tests for competing fairly then they can compete fairly, and if they're a woman... they're a woman.

There are physiological differences between men and women that can't be reversed. Body shape, height, bone structure and length, body fat content, strength of ligaments and tendons, muscle mass, and oxygen carrying capacity through higher hemoglobin levels... these are still factors. I was assuming you'd read this because I brought it up earlier.

This is a solid overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differ...physiology
There are also analyses applying these differences to sports: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3529284
http://work.chron.com/physiological-diff...20627.html (interesting, what Khem was saying about ultramarathons seems to be the exception, as it's the one place where women's physiology is an asset [they can process glycogen more efficiently]. So thanks Khem, now I have to do goddamned ultramarathons   )

[Catholic_Lady]

Transwomen aren't biologically women but they are women.

Do you want all the transwomen to compete in their own category? Based on what?

I don't see the problem with women winning women's sports.

What's the problem with transwomen winning? Isn't this just like wanting to ban black people from boxing if they win more on average than white people? And ban white people from swimming if they win more on average than black people? What's the justification besides bigotry? There's nothing wrong with winning.

I'm not acting like transwomen are biologically women and I'm not acting like all change is good change. I'm acting like women who are part of the women's category and pass all the hormonal tests and are deemed fair to compete... should be allowed to compete. And it is irrational and uncritical and can only be fueled by bigotry and bias if you disallow someone who has passed all the tests from competing even though they qualify for the category.

I'm not acting like transwomen are biological women. I'm acting like they're not men.

If a woman wants to compete in women's sports... and they pass all hormonal testing.... whether they are trans or cis is fucking irrelevant.

And as for the alt-righter remark, it's the transphobes who are more akin to alt-righters. It would be fair enough if there was an actual logical argument for why it matters whether someone is trans or cis.... but there isn't. If someone can pass the tests for competing fairly then they can compete fairly, and if they're a woman... they're a woman.

There are physiological differences between men and women that can't be reversed. Body shape, height, bone structure and length, body fat content, strength of ligaments and tendons, muscle mass, and oxygen carrying capacity through higher hemoglobin levels... these are still factors. I was assuming you'd read this because I brought it up earlier.

This is a solid overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differ...physiology
There are also analyses applying these differences to sports: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3529284
http://work.chron.com/physiological-diff...20627.html (interesting, what Khem was saying about ultramarathons seems to be the exception, as it's the one place where women's physiology is an asset [they can process glycogen more efficiently]. So thanks Khem, now I have to do goddamned ultramarathons   )

Road Runner has already posted about this. Men still hold the record for ultra marathons. Easily.

[shadow]

Road Runner has already posted about this. Men still hold the record for ultra marathons. Easily.

Yes. I mean, I think in that event, where women have an advantage in one aspect of physiology but men have advantages in others, you'd then have a closer race, but whether the women's advantage would surpass other advantages that men have isn't a given. Overall the difference in times for the race would speak to how those different factors balance out.

[The Grand Nudger]

IOC rules allow trans women to have T levels which are triple those of normal cis women.

Sure, and they have their reasons for that..however...if the allowable level were the same would you have any issue?  This could be achieved by either allowing higher t levels in cis females or by insisting that trans competitors not compete until their own levels have floored.  That is the current discussion the ioc is having.  

These are all affected by T levels - see above.

Indeed.

Bone density may be reduced in time by hormone therapy, but skeletal structure is not changed when an adult transitions.

I'm entirely okay with "odd shaped bones" as a whispy difference between one competitor and another.  That's already true, anyway, between cis competitors.  

Sure, but that's not the case here, in which an adult male transitioned (keeping his skeletal structure) and likely has higher T levels than the women he's playing with/against.

Wonderful, then you should have absolutely no problem with trans athletes given a more relevant set of regulations, the kind of regulations now being discussed.  Correct?

[John V]

Sure, and they have their reasons for that

Do they? What are those reasons? From what I've read the 10 nmol/L limit was arbitrary, or biased toward trans women. Studies show that 99% of female athletes are below 3.08.  

..however...if the allowable level were the same would you have any issue?  This could be achieved by either allowing higher t levels in cis females or by insisting that trans competitors not compete until their own levels have floored.  That is the current discussion the ioc is having.  

You can't simply allow female bodies to produce more T, and I don't support doping by cis women. If trans women were limited to 3.08, that would be part of making things fair, but still doesn't address certain aspects of adult transitions.

I'm entirely okay with "odd shaped bones" as a whispy difference between one competitor and another.  That's already true, anyway, between cis competitors.  

Putting something that wasn't said in quotation marks - you're just calling out your own straw man? Bold strategy, Cotton. We're not talking about odd shaped bones. In this case, we're talking about height and reach. Those are advantageous in volleyball, and she likely would have less of them if she hadn't gone through puberty as a male. Hormone therapy as an adult doesn't take those advantages away.

Wonderful, then you should have absolutely no problem with trans athletes given a more relevant set of regulations, the kind of regulations now being discussed.  Correct?

If the regulations require puberty blockers and T levels at 3.08 or less, I'm OK with it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do they? What are those reasons? From what I've read the 10 nmol/L limit was arbitrary, or biased toward trans women. Studies show that 99% of female athletes are below 3.08.  

You should read their commissions review, report, and suggestions for continuing work on regs for yourself.  

You can't simply allow female bodies to produce more T, and I don't support doping by cis women. If trans women were limited to 3.08, that would be part of making things fair, but still doesn't address certain aspects of adult transitions.

Wonderful, so a fully transitioned athlete should be no problem on account of testosterone levels.  We can knock that one right off the list.  

Putting something that wasn't said in quotation marks - you're just calling out your own straw man? Bold strategy, Cotton. We're not talking about odd shaped bones. In this case, we're talking about height and reach. Those are advantageous in volleyball, and she likely would have less of them if she hadn't gone through puberty as a male. Hormone therapy as an adult doesn't take those advantages away.

Height and reach differences already exist between cis gendered compititers.  I'm fine with long bones or odd bones.  

If the regulations require puberty blockers and T levels at 3.08 or less, I'm OK with it.

Do you think that you're being reasonable, or simply putting forward an absurd suggestion so that no amount of overcoming any specific objection you may have leads you to a place where you're willing to consider a trans athlete well matched with their cis-gendered peer?

Since you brought it up as a disqualifier, and suggested that it be blocked, can I take your insistence on some puberty avoidance scenario as support for identifying and transitioning preteen boys or girls? So that this is a credible barrier, rather than the kind where you have to get a stamp no one is selling for reasons™......

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

(go khem go khem up up go khem)