Caitlyn Jenner opposes trans girls in women's sports as unfair

it's not that interesting to me tbh. Caitlyn Jenner has a historical mixed bag of feelings about rights for the LGBTQ community and politics in general for as long as i've known her. i mean, it wasn't that long ago that she was against same-sex marriage and was also a Trump supporter.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2021/04/23/heres-where-caitlyn-jenner-stands-on-trump-obama-and-same-sex-marriage-as-she-launches-gubernatorial-bid/amp/

Jenner is also a former Olympic athlete so realistically what's she supposed to say to that question? deny that there are biological differences between a cisgendered woman and a transgendered woman? if she ran in a women's Olympic race back in the 70s that she would not possibly have had an advantage over other female athletes? twould be very bad for her campaign, bearing in mind the Governor has no say in any sports association or has the ability to pass laws so for me it's a bit of a stupid question to ask.

Then why have women's sports at all? Just have 'Sports' and let anybody who identifies as anything join in.

Once you can answer that without mental gymnastics, you'll have the answer to your own question.

This is one of those topics that infuriates me, but finding the motivation to point out the same thing time and time again is hard.

Just follow the series of factual questions, and see where the logic goes...

Do trans women have an average physical advantage over cis women? yes.
Is sport largely based around unfair physical advantages already? yes.
Do trans women exist on anywhere near a sufficient level to shift the needle of fairness in sport even a little? no.

You end up having two layers of the same arguments. The right just wants to argue about the first half, which they are correct about, yes trans women do have on average physical advantages over cis women. The left though wants to argue the second part, does that advantage matter in an environment that is already incredibly unequal, and is making it a tiny bit more unequal worth helping a marginalised group? I would say the left is right here, including trans people makes very little difference to the fairness of women's sport, but it makes a big difference to trans people themselves.

The reason the debate becomes frustraiting is because neither side is willing to give ground. So you end up with people on the left lying to themselves that trans people don't actually have any advantage, and people on the right pretending that sport is this perfectly fair arrangement that worked wonderfully and equally before those pesky trans people came and messed it up.

You made a claim of evidence, but didn't actually provide it.

I would point to trans record-holders Mary Gregory for weightlifting(Stripped due to her trans nature), Cece Telfer (Track and field record holder), Tiffany Abreu (Women's Volleyball) and Rachel McKinnon (Cycling). I'm sure there's more. That's just the ones I'm aware of.

I don't know of any legitimate studies of Trans vs CIS performance. It does seem anecdotally that if records are being shattered within a shockingly short time of introduction by a tiny proportion of people that we might want to do a root cause analysis before solidifying the results.

This is one of those topics that infuriates me, but finding the motivation to point out the same thing time and time again is hard.

Just follow the series of factual questions, and see where the logic goes...

Do trans women have an average physical advantage over cis women? yes.
Is sport largely based around unfair physical advantages already? yes.
Do trans women exist on anywhere near a sufficient level to shift the needle of fairness in sport even a little? no.

You end up having two layers of the same arguments. The right just wants to argue about the first half, which they are correct about, yes trans women do have on average physical advantages over cis women. The left though wants to argue the second part, does that advantage matter in an environment that is already incredibly unequal, and is making it a tiny bit more unequal worth helping a marginalised group? I would say the left is right here, including trans people makes very little difference to the fairness of women's sport, but it makes a big difference to trans people themselves.

The reason the debate becomes frustraiting is because neither side is willing to give ground. So you end up with people on the left lying to themselves that trans people don't actually have any advantage, and people on the right pretending that sport is this perfectly fair arrangement that worked wonderfully and equally before those pesky trans people came and messed it up.

Is sport largely based around unfair physical advantages already? yes.

I would say the left is right here, including trans people makes very little difference to the fairness of women's sport, but it makes a big difference to trans people themselves.

Sports with transgendered women already involved show that they have an advantage over cis women. I suppose a lot depends on when someone transitions i.e. if they block puberty that would be different to if they went through puberty. You cannot deny the effect of years worth of testosterone on athletic performance.

Some of these matters may not be black and white only. Although I am not against same sex marriage, others are for whatever reasons. Likewise I have so much sympathy about those who are gay and want a normal life without persecution or discrimination. The UK is perhaps one of the greatest places for the LGBQT community.

Same for the transgender people. They can identify as they want to. No issue with that. However when it comes to sports it is likely that transwomen may have an advantage over other women. The criticisms of these issues is not transphobia by any stretch of the definition.

Likewise a few days ago in other threads we witnessed a number of users/feminists who found that the criticisms of specific female behaviours are equivalent to sexism and misogyny... The usual nonsense...

By the way you are still my favourite left wing trainee solicitor. Unless you have finished your training, please upgrade me.

This is one of those topics that infuriates me, but finding the motivation to point out the same thing time and time again is hard.

Just follow the series of factual questions, and see where the logic goes...

Do trans women have an average physical advantage over cis women? yes.
Is sport largely based around unfair physical advantages already? yes.
Do trans women exist on anywhere near a sufficient level to shift the needle of fairness in sport even a little? no.

You end up having two layers of the same arguments. The right just wants to argue about the first half, which they are correct about, yes trans women do have on average physical advantages over cis women. The left though wants to argue the second part, does that advantage matter in an environment that is already incredibly unequal, and is making it a tiny bit more unequal worth helping a marginalised group? I would say the left is right here, including trans people makes very little difference to the fairness of women's sport, but it makes a big difference to trans people themselves.

The reason the debate becomes frustraiting is because neither side is willing to give ground. So you end up with people on the left lying to themselves that trans people don't actually have any advantage, and people on the right pretending that sport is this perfectly fair arrangement that worked wonderfully and equally before those pesky trans people came and messed it up.

hi Louie, i mean Bushy! looks like somebudy finally came out of the closet

no i can't disagree with any of the above and so not sure i have anything to add here. i'm definitely not an expert on trans women in sports nor have i ever googled 'trans women in sports' it to my knowledge, cuz to me there is a disproportionate interest in trans people considering they make up 1 percent of the population and i don't want to contribute to that disproportionate interest and fascination with them despite having no problem with trans people (obvs).

it makes sense tho that there would be a concern considering biological men and women have different body composition

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8477683/

and there's a reason biological men and women have always played in different leagues out of fairness. like if you played tennis statistically men will always beat women no matter how hard you train or practice. men statistically are faster servers, so why is that?

https://www.perfect-tennis.com/fastest-tennis-serve/#Mens_Top_37_Fastest_Serves_Ever_ATP

the difference in tennis is enough to make me think there's enough reason to question the issue. but anyway, afaik this thread is about Caitlyn Jenner and not about trans women competition in sports in general so trying not to derail

Oh God save us from this "big brained Centrist" here...smh. this is the worst possible take on the issue.

x

Because as ou noted yourself, albeit circuitously, it is zero sum in sport.. you disadvantage women in womens sport for men and they have every right to be ticked off on the matter. Equity doesnt get a show in here for the simple fact you have already taken it away from someone else for some nebulous idea of 'inclusion'. It rather boils down to the quite simple notion of there being no 'ground' to give. If you let met play womens sports (not sure if the proportions you mentioned are wholly relevent but either way) ou disadvantage women and vice versa.
Now answer this, who would ou rather disadvantage women in their own game or trans kids? Not exactly a win win situation but you present the question nevertheless...?

how unexpected. a conservative. campaigning with conservative views. what a shock.

I'd disadvantage the women, easily.

For a start, due to the nature of sport, 99% of women already have physical disadvantages that will mean they will never be able to compete in professional sport, and the impact on the top 1% of including trans people will be tiny. Trans women making women's sport unfair is like adding a pinch of sugar into a can of coke and then saying 'look the sugar made it sweet!'. Well yes, technically it is, but not to a degree that will make any practical difference to anyone drinking it because it was already made full of sugar.

Except it does make a big difference to the trans people themselves. There isn't really another option for them. HRT makes them unable to compete with men, so it's either this or exclusion from sport. I don't think exclusion is the answer, and shy of radical things like removing gender/sex barriers entirely, I don't see a better solution.

The number of trans people is rising though - given my willingness is based on the impact to fairness (not the claim that it is fair, as the left make) were the increase in numbers to get to the point where it was actually having a serious impact? Then the situation would probably change for me. I imagine we would need a lot more trans people to get to that point though.

So sexism is okay ? A novel approach.

What does the elite level have to do with this given its to do with school children generally...?
As to it being a tiny percent, i ask so what? That doesnt make it any less gaulling for said girl to lose her place/medal/score etc. for no other reason than some people consider that her being is apparently worth less (as your first line clearly states)

And it makes a big difference to the countless more people youre advocating be ignored for the benefit of a minority to be given special and, arguably undeserved privilege's..
The solution youve given is already remove sex based barriers by allowing biological men to compete as women though..
Youre right that someones going to be upset the question is why is the majority to lose out here in an explicitly sexist manner simply for some virtue signalling, as it were.

Indeed it is, there is a rather good book on this.. event, extremely poor medical practice and intriguing sociological factors seem to be behind it.

Suffice it to say i cant say i agree with your expressed opinion that we should be sexist to pander to a tiny minority. Whilst you have explicitly stated these girls should be ignored due to their gender (as this is solely about that) im not sure advocating sexism to address supposed 'transphobia' is an especially good answer to a problem that you noted is growing. Shryers expansion on the issue was rather well put in ones view, i would suggest you read her book on it for a nuanced take.

But it's not about men "identifying" as a woman. The issue is with people who are now women. A man cannot simply say, "I am a woman" and compete in women's events. That kind of bonkers argument is the stuff of the far-right conspiracy theorists and professionally offended.

However, to address your facile point, there are differences in the performance of elite men and women in many sports so it is deemed reasonable to have separate events but men don't have an "unfair advantage" in women's sports - because they cannot compete in them. If you can grasp that simple concept, you'll have the answer to your own question. Not holding my breath though.

It’s only sexist if you still view them as men.

I view it to be the most optimal arrangement to societally view trans people as their transitioned selves. So we are arguing about whether to exclude one group of women who have a physical advantage from women’s sports to aid fairness vs inclusion. There’s nothing sexist about either position if it’s a debate that only includes women.

Still those who are transwomen have advantages in sports to those who are ciswomen. Regardless of whether it is a minority or not, which is the case as there are not that many transwomen in general, it puts them in a favourable position most likely.

No wonder why there are complaints mainly from ciswomen on whether transwomen should be taking part in women's sports.
My position is obviously not. They should not be taking part in on women's sports and they were born men.