Caitlyn Jenner opposes trans girls in women's sports as unfair
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Vapordave
They can't compete with cis men, so should they just be banned altogether?
No. Compete on their own.
Men with men
Women with women
Transmen with transmen
Transwomen with transwomen
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by Bushyasta
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.
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.
I agree they have an average advantage.
Only really radical left-type people would disagree with the biological reality that trans-women have an average physical advantage over cis women.
The point is, so what?
A 90kg 6 foot 4 woman has a huge natural physical advantage over my wife in any sport that requires strength or height. Should all women built like that be banned for having an average advantage? No. In fact, sport embraces unfair natural advantages. Look at the olympics this summer and you will see countless individuals who posses unfair physical advantages over the average women/man. We don't ban people over 6 foot 10 from playing basket ball because they have an advantage, or ban certain ethnicities from sprinting because they have an advantage etc. In fact we cheer on these unfair advantages, celebrate their achievements and treat them as heros.
So why ban one group of women for an average advantage? The only reason, when you really come down to it - is because they are still not viewed as women. Which is the whole wider trans debate - should society be ordered by gender or by sex. That is the core of all of this. The shift in recent politics is from sex to gender, and that is the heart of all this friction.
Interestingly the only sport where we do take into account natural physical advantages is contact sports like martial arts, boxing etc. That makes sense given the risks involved, and I think in these sports it would be entirely inline with the existing segregated organization of them to exclude trans women.
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by Bushyasta
No. Compete on their own.
Men with men
Women with women
Transmen with transmen
Transwomen with transwomen
Men with men
Women with women
Transmen with transmen
Transwomen with transwomen
What about white with white and black with black?
I mean, there is very good evidence that black people have a natural physical advantage over white people when it comes to sprinting, due to their twitch muscle fibres and a higher center of gravity due to differences in bone structure?
If we were to segregate sprinting, it would be much fairer for white men, would it not?
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by fallen_acorns
What about white with white and black with black?
I mean, there is very good evidence that black people have a natural physical advantage over white people when it comes to sprinting, due to their twitch muscle fibers?
If we were to segregate sprinting, it would be much fairer for white men, would it not?
I mean, there is very good evidence that black people have a natural physical advantage over white people when it comes to sprinting, due to their twitch muscle fibers?
If we were to segregate sprinting, it would be much fairer for white men, would it not?
Sports are played and differentiated between sexes. Not between people of different ethnic origin, colour, weight, height, and heritage. There is a reason we differentiate biological men from women.
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by Bushyasta
Sports are played and differentiated between sexes. Not between people of different ethnic origin, colour, weight, height, and the heritage.
Stating something, isn't the same as justifying it.
But you raise a good point though:
Women in their 20s have unfair average physical advantages over women in their 50s. Should they be banned for possessing an unfair average advantage? Perhaps we do need segregation by age as well as by gender and race.
(edited 2 years ago)
At no point has anyone who is stating that transwomen should be allowed in ciswomen sport offered any scientific evidence for the basis.
A typical man is taller withe a greater arm span and larger hands than a women, which provides an advantage over women as they have more leverage and are faster. They have more muscle than women and use this more efficiently when translating it to strength because of their frame. No amount of HRT will shrink someone's stature or remove the amount of muscle they have (which even is minimal it is still more than the average woman because of a greater surface area).
Everyone has an opinion about how they compete. But life is not fair and we make decisions along the way that impact us which includes not being able to compete at a professional level. Whether we wish to agree with that or not does not matter - it is reality. As a member of the LGBTQ community I made decisions which impacted my life at the time and I don't regret them because the sacrifices I made meant I could live how I wanted. Whether you are in the community or not we all make decisions that limit our life from which options which chose for GCSE to our A level subjects and degrees.
Also, you are all speaking about transwomen wanting to compete in professional sport and how it is unfair they cannot despite the physical advantage. Everyone has spoken, and is in agreement, that women and men's sport is separated because of the physical advantages of a male. But no one has yet commented that a transmale cannot compete in professional sport. A transmale is more likely to have participated at a younger age in sport (typical tomboy activity) but when he transitions he still has many of the disadvantages of his female past and so cannot compete professionally. Where is the fairness in that? We cannot accept the physical disadvantage of a transmale in men's sports and then argue the basis of a physical advantage of a transwoman.
A typical man is taller withe a greater arm span and larger hands than a women, which provides an advantage over women as they have more leverage and are faster. They have more muscle than women and use this more efficiently when translating it to strength because of their frame. No amount of HRT will shrink someone's stature or remove the amount of muscle they have (which even is minimal it is still more than the average woman because of a greater surface area).
Everyone has an opinion about how they compete. But life is not fair and we make decisions along the way that impact us which includes not being able to compete at a professional level. Whether we wish to agree with that or not does not matter - it is reality. As a member of the LGBTQ community I made decisions which impacted my life at the time and I don't regret them because the sacrifices I made meant I could live how I wanted. Whether you are in the community or not we all make decisions that limit our life from which options which chose for GCSE to our A level subjects and degrees.
Also, you are all speaking about transwomen wanting to compete in professional sport and how it is unfair they cannot despite the physical advantage. Everyone has spoken, and is in agreement, that women and men's sport is separated because of the physical advantages of a male. But no one has yet commented that a transmale cannot compete in professional sport. A transmale is more likely to have participated at a younger age in sport (typical tomboy activity) but when he transitions he still has many of the disadvantages of his female past and so cannot compete professionally. Where is the fairness in that? We cannot accept the physical disadvantage of a transmale in men's sports and then argue the basis of a physical advantage of a transwoman.
Original post by one_two_three
At no point has anyone who is stating that transwomen should be allowed in ciswomen sport offered any scientific evidence for the basis.
That's because the rational people who argue in favour of trans inclusion, don't do it on the basis that biological differences don't exist. So what would you like scientific evidence about? Given my position is that they hold an unfair advantage, surely you don't need me to prove something you already agree with, before we continue talking about whether they should be allowed to take part or not?
Others have stated (at the beginning of the thread) that the scientific evidence exists that there is no advantage.
Women are continually disadvantaged in sport, there are fewer opportunities, less money and less coverage. No one is arguing depriving transwomen an opportunity to participate in sport but it shouldn't be at a level where there is financial gain to be made and they possess the male advantage. We do not live in a utopia, we live in reality and when we make a choice it has implications. You are arguing for equality on the basis of transwomen are women (which I do not disagree with) without any consideration for equity and the physiological advantage that they possess. Equality=/=fair.
Women are continually disadvantaged in sport, there are fewer opportunities, less money and less coverage. No one is arguing depriving transwomen an opportunity to participate in sport but it shouldn't be at a level where there is financial gain to be made and they possess the male advantage. We do not live in a utopia, we live in reality and when we make a choice it has implications. You are arguing for equality on the basis of transwomen are women (which I do not disagree with) without any consideration for equity and the physiological advantage that they possess. Equality=/=fair.
Original post by one_two_three
Others have stated (at the beginning of the thread) that the scientific evidence exists that there is no advantage.
Women are continually disadvantaged in sport, there are fewer opportunities, less money and less coverage. No one is arguing depriving transwomen an opportunity to participate in sport but it shouldn't be at a level where there is financial gain to be made and they possess the male advantage. We do not live in a utopia, we live in reality and when we make a choice it has implications. You are arguing for equality on the basis of transwomen are women (which I do not disagree with) without any consideration for equity and the physiological advantage that they possess. Equality=/=fair.
Women are continually disadvantaged in sport, there are fewer opportunities, less money and less coverage. No one is arguing depriving transwomen an opportunity to participate in sport but it shouldn't be at a level where there is financial gain to be made and they possess the male advantage. We do not live in a utopia, we live in reality and when we make a choice it has implications. You are arguing for equality on the basis of transwomen are women (which I do not disagree with) without any consideration for equity and the physiological advantage that they possess. Equality=/=fair.
I have, in all my posts, considered their physical advantages, I just haven't seen any argument that justifies why they are nothing more than a drop in the ocean.
I mean, lets play this out. Lets say that physical attributes are a bell-curve, meaning the majority of women are at the average Center, and far fewer exist at the extremes of physicality. Were we to strive for the maximum fairness in sport, banning the extremity of the bell curve would enable the the majority of women to compete at elite level. So for basketball, if we were to ban the tiny percentage of women who are really tall, then the majority of women of roughly average height would now be able to compete fairly in the top level of competition.
Why don't we do this? It creates a fairer system, a much more level playing field, and opens up opportunities to a much larger pool of women to compete?
We don't because women who exist at the extremity of the bell curve are still women and it would be unfair to exclude them just because they were born with physical advantage over the average women. Instead we celebrate the advantage they were born with, we call it elite/professional sport and monetize how particularly excellent they are at something, and consign the majority of women to being unable to compete.
So why should the cisgender women who exist at the extremity of the bell curve be allowed to use their unfair physical advantage to win, when trans women should not?
The only answer is because they aren't women; 'women' in sport should be defined by sex and not gender. Any other justification ends up in a tangled illogical mess.
Original post by fallen_acorns
I agree they have an average advantage.
Only really radical left-type people would disagree with the biological reality that trans-women have an average physical advantage over cis women.
The point is, so what?
A 90kg 6 foot 4 woman has a huge natural physical advantage over my wife in any sport that requires strength or height. Should all women built like that be banned for having an average advantage? No. In fact, sport embraces unfair natural advantages. Look at the olympics this summer and you will see countless individuals who posses unfair physical advantages over the average women/man. We don't ban people over 6 foot 10 from playing basket ball because they have an advantage, or ban certain ethnicities from sprinting because they have an advantage etc. In fact we cheer on these unfair advantages, celebrate their achievements and treat them as heros.
So why ban one group of women for an average advantage? The only reason, when you really come down to it - is because they are still not viewed as women. Which is the whole wider trans debate - should society be ordered by gender or by sex. That is the core of all of this. The shift in recent politics is from sex to gender, and that is the heart of all this friction.
Interestingly the only sport where we do take into account natural physical advantages is contact sports like martial arts, boxing etc. That makes sense given the risks involved, and I think in these sports it would be entirely inline with the existing segregated organization of them to exclude trans women.
Only really radical left-type people would disagree with the biological reality that trans-women have an average physical advantage over cis women.
The point is, so what?
A 90kg 6 foot 4 woman has a huge natural physical advantage over my wife in any sport that requires strength or height. Should all women built like that be banned for having an average advantage? No. In fact, sport embraces unfair natural advantages. Look at the olympics this summer and you will see countless individuals who posses unfair physical advantages over the average women/man. We don't ban people over 6 foot 10 from playing basket ball because they have an advantage, or ban certain ethnicities from sprinting because they have an advantage etc. In fact we cheer on these unfair advantages, celebrate their achievements and treat them as heros.
So why ban one group of women for an average advantage? The only reason, when you really come down to it - is because they are still not viewed as women. Which is the whole wider trans debate - should society be ordered by gender or by sex. That is the core of all of this. The shift in recent politics is from sex to gender, and that is the heart of all this friction.
Interestingly the only sport where we do take into account natural physical advantages is contact sports like martial arts, boxing etc. That makes sense given the risks involved, and I think in these sports it would be entirely inline with the existing segregated organization of them to exclude trans women.
This is an interesting take on it: Women like Chyna/Joan Marie Laurer exist. It's documented. They're more muscular, more powerful and stronger. Someone like that would be strong enough to beat me, certainly. And most Trans women as well.
I'll have to give that a thought. It comes down to:
What is the purpose of Sport?
What is the purpose of segregating by sex?
What are the potential downsides to inclusion or exclusion?
Sport is about elitism and winning - but on an even playing field. People do have natural attributes that they were born with that gives them an advantage and that is ok. But sportsmanship is also about fairness. We can appreciate a physical attribute that gives an advantage BUT if a transwoman has gone through puberty and then competes in a woman's sport then they are benefiting from all the attributes they gained as a male and that is not fair on the women in the sport who could only gain those same attributes through doping - even at the top of their game.
Everyone is bothered about transwomen and no one is considering transmales in sports and their disadvantage. Why should a transmale have consequences in sport but a transwoman given an advantage when they made a choice? At the end of the day, to live as you are is a choice we make and it has both advantages and disadvantages.
Everyone is bothered about transwomen and no one is considering transmales in sports and their disadvantage. Why should a transmale have consequences in sport but a transwoman given an advantage when they made a choice? At the end of the day, to live as you are is a choice we make and it has both advantages and disadvantages.
Original post by fallen_acorns
If you train hard enough, do you think you could ever be a top 100m runner? or a top footballer? Or knock out a heavy weight boxer?
If the answer is no, then re-evaluate the nonsense you just wrote.
If the answer is yes, then why are you on TSR instead of making millions?
(also, thanks for proving the point of my post!)
If the answer is no, then re-evaluate the nonsense you just wrote.
If the answer is yes, then why are you on TSR instead of making millions?
(also, thanks for proving the point of my post!)
Probably not but I also probably couldn't cut it as a pilot or a surgeon either. Do you think they should lower the standards to make it more "fair" ?
If the answer is no, then re-evaluate the nonsense you just wrote.
(I can do dumb a false dichotomy too)
Original post by ThatOldGuy
This is an interesting take on it: Women like Chyna/Joan Marie Laurer exist. It's documented. They're more muscular, more powerful and stronger. Someone like that would be strong enough to beat me, certainly. And most Trans women as well.
I'll have to give that a thought. It comes down to:
What is the purpose of Sport?
What is the purpose of segregating by sex?
What are the potential downsides to inclusion or exclusion?
I'll have to give that a thought. It comes down to:
What is the purpose of Sport?
What is the purpose of segregating by sex?
What are the potential downsides to inclusion or exclusion?
Your spot on that the trans question really brings the entire choice to segregate sport by sex/gender into question.. that’s the next set of questions that this debate poses. If we accept that to include trans people is ok because sport is unfair by nature, then what is the logical justification for segregation at all?
Original post by Starship Trooper
Probably not but I also probably couldn't cut it as a pilot or a surgeon either. Do you think they should lower the standards to make it more "fair" ?
If the answer is no, then re-evaluate the nonsense you just wrote.
(I can do dumb a false dichotomy too)
If the answer is no, then re-evaluate the nonsense you just wrote.
(I can do dumb a false dichotomy too)
Except that the entire premise of trans exclusion is that they have an unfair advantage, thereby including them raises the standard, not lowers it.
Come up with another example. Perhaps where there are a group that is naturally good at being surgeons who we choose to exclude..
Wait a minute..
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by fallen_acorns
Except that the entire premise of trans exclusion is that they have an unfair advantage, thereby including them raises the standard, not lowers it.
Come up with another example. Perhaps where there are a group that is naturally good at being surgeons who we choose to exclude..
Wait a minute..
Come up with another example. Perhaps where there are a group that is naturally good at being surgeons who we choose to exclude..
Wait a minute..
Raising the standard? If I was a professional athlete then I could not revert to being born a male and go through male puberty and take all of the physiological benefits to raise my standard. You can be quite sure that the women at the top of their game are already engaged in everything to keep them at the top and that nothing will push them up to the level required to compete in male sports.
Original post by fallen_acorns
Except that the entire premise of trans exclusion is that they have an unfair advantage, thereby including them raises the standard, not lowers it.
Come up with another example. Perhaps where there are a group that is naturally good at being surgeons who we choose to exclude..
Wait a minute..
Come up with another example. Perhaps where there are a group that is naturally good at being surgeons who we choose to exclude..
Wait a minute..
Now your moving the goalposts. Your point was about my chances of becoming a footballer et Al. Thus the example I gave was cogent.
People have all sorts of unequal attributes. That is not something they are responsible for as they are born with it. You cannot accuse them of cheating for naturally being born that way*. And that's why it's wrong it's simply cheating. You may as well allow steroids etc.
*( Good luck proving that trans people are born trans if that's what you want to argue )
....
I have no idea what point you're trying to make RE surgeons. Im sure it's something really witty.
Original post by Napp
QE2's stunningly sophisticated logic train of 'she's wrong' followed by an insult, i'm shocked. Less so by its not knowing what a transphobe is but thats hardly surprising given the low quality of its posting/trolling.
Outstanding response.
No amount of blustering from certain members on here about how it isn’t unfair will change the fact that transgender athletes competing in women’s sports have a genetic advantage along with higher levels of testosterone and stronger bone density. One would assume those who don’t see a problem with it most likely haven’t played a competitive sport in their lives, moreover never left their bedrooms.
Original post by imlikeahermit
One would assume those who don’t see a problem with it most likely haven’t played a competitive sport in their lives, moreover never left their bedrooms.
What are you on about I used to annihilate elites on a regular basis without even needing to leave the bedroom.
Original post by Ascend
What are you on about I used to annihilate elites on a regular basis without even needing to leave the bedroom.
PRSOM
Original post by Starship Trooper
Now your moving the goalposts. Your point was about my chances of becoming a footballer et Al. Thus the example I gave was cogent.
People have all sorts of unequal attributes. That is not something they are responsible for as they are born with it. You cannot accuse them of cheating for naturally being born that way*. And that's why it's wrong it's simply cheating. You may as well allow steroids etc.
*( Good luck proving that trans people are born trans if that's what you want to argue )
....
I have no idea what point you're trying to make RE surgeons. Im sure it's something really witty.
People have all sorts of unequal attributes. That is not something they are responsible for as they are born with it. You cannot accuse them of cheating for naturally being born that way*. And that's why it's wrong it's simply cheating. You may as well allow steroids etc.
*( Good luck proving that trans people are born trans if that's what you want to argue )
....
I have no idea what point you're trying to make RE surgeons. Im sure it's something really witty.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and just presuming you typed the wrong word...but lets roll with what you've confirmed you actually meant:
In your analogy, we have a group of people who are more talented than the current surgeons but are kept out by an aspect of the entry requirements. This analogy for you demonstrates why we shouldn't lower entry standards, because then we would let a more talented group become better surgeons than our current surgeons.
That's quite something.
You need to actually be able to debate before you can start to be patronising to others.
(edited 2 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Are Girls stronger than boys/Do girls and boys have the same amount of strength
- Joining Sports at Uni as a trans women
- NHS trust says transgender milk just as good for babies as normal milk
- Girls boxing, your views
- Pls help me mark my answer
- Are women fully protected by the Law?
- Am I the only one that wishes I was the opposite gender?
- How to meet Christian women to date? (24m)
- I hate having big boobs
- Help
- Are there hobbies or interests that make men more interesting
- India Willoughby reports jk rowling to the police
- Passion projects for law
- For those who chose between Murray Edwards and Newnham what persuaded you either way?
- Women of TSR
- Is being a virgin and having ZERO dating/relationship experience a turn off at 22?
- GCSE English Literature - An inspector Calls.
- Kingston University Sports and Active Lifestyle
- Inspector calls predictions?/ tips 2023
- what is it like being a trans student in first-year shared accommodation?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
