What do you think of this? (Transgender athletes) Watch

Obolinda
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#1
You may or may not know that a Youtuber called "Rationality Rules" has caused a lot of controversy in the YouTube atheist community. His initial video was about trans athletes but has since unlisted that video and released some new ones taking on board the criticism. I believe his latest video offers a more nuanced perspective in the debate but I'm intrigued to know what you think of the video?




Ps: keep it respectful
2
reply
AngryRedhead
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 months ago
#2
Transgender women have a huge advantage over biological women and this is well known whether people deny it or not. If you allow transgender women to compete as biological women you might aswell allow steroid use
12
reply
Obolinda
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#3
Ok, thanks for sharing. Did you watch the video?
(Original post by AngryRedhead)
Transgender women have a huge advantage over biological women and this is well known whether people deny it or not. If you allow transgender women to compete as biological women you might aswell allow steroid use
0
reply
Ascend
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 months ago
#4
Interesting video, I'm halfway through but wanted to say this quickly:

Biological advantages and disadvantages are inherent in every sport on an individual level. Getting triggered by trans atheletes would only logically lead to scrutinising the biology of every single competitor to determine "fairness".
5
reply
SchmuckOff
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 months ago
#5
He raises a quite fair point. The fastest woman to complete a Marathon would not even be in the top 2000 times of the men athletes. This clearly highlights the differences in physical ability due to factors surrounding gender. Such as men having a larger heart and lungs ( as stated in the video) Therefore it would be unfair for a transgender athlete to complete against women if they had experience puberty as a male and had the attributes previously stated .
4
reply
DryTowel
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 months ago
#6
Erm, no. The competitions are for 'women' only for a reason. This isn't segregating sex/gender (not sure what is the appropriate term) for the sake of it like PE in primary school, the rules were there with this in mind. Many of the competitors probably signed up because they wanted to compete against other women, and so putting them against people who are have the physical advantages of a man is not only 'unfair', but also lying to the actual women told that they were competing against WOMEN.
(Original post by Ascend)
Interesting video, I'm halfway through but wanted to say this quickly:

Biological advantages and disadvantages are inherent in every sport on an individual level. Getting triggered by trans atheletes would only logically lead to scrutinising the biology of every single competitor to determine "fairness".
6
reply
Obolinda
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#7
I'm glad ppl actually watched the video
(Original post by SchmuckOff)
He raises a quite fair point. The fastest woman to complete a Marathon would not even be in the top 2000 times of the men athletes. This clearly highlights the differences in physical ability due to factors surrounding gender. Such as men having a larger heart and lungs ( as stated in the video) Therefore it would be unfair for a transgender athlete to complete against women if they had experience puberty as a male and had the attributes previously stated .
(Original post by Ascend)
Interesting video, I'm halfway through but wanted to say this quickly:

Biological advantages and disadvantages are inherent in every sport on an individual level. Getting triggered by trans atheletes would only logically lead to scrutinising the biology of every single competitor to determine "fairness".
0
reply
Ascend
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 months ago
#8
Just finished it. It's very interesting but it still makes me question the idea of fair play. Competitive sport is quite a ridiculous thing when scrutinised properly and you start getting into advantages and disadvantages.

(Original post by DryTowel)
Erm, no. The competitions are for 'women' only for a reason. This isn't segregating sex/gender (not sure what is the appropriate term) for the sake of it like PE in primary school, the rules were there with this in mind. Many of the competitors probably signed up because they wanted to compete against other women, and so putting them against people who are have the physical advantages of a man is not only 'unfair', but also lying to the actual women told that they were competing against WOMEN.
I get that but there's just an inherent silliness to fair play principles in competitive sport, gendered or not. Instead of arbitrarily segregating by identity, maybe a more biologically relevant division is needed even if that puts the majority of (or even all) women out of the top physical strata.

The whole thing is silly, either way.
0
reply
J Papi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 months ago
#9
You want people with similar biology or shape to be competing in a certain sport so that the outcome is reasonably close and so that every individual that competes should have a somewhat decent chance of winning.

'Gender' (sex) used to be a good proxy for this. In other areas of sport, the different divisions are based on height or age or body mass.

Now you get individuals who end up (hopefully unintentionally) breaking the system by competing in a category where they are clearly overpowered compared to everyone else.

The best way to accommodate this is to change the categories from being called 'male' or 'female' to being defined in terms of testosterone levels or something. That removes any suggestion that we're refusing to recognise the trans man or woman's identity while maintaining an equal playing field.
1
reply
J Papi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 months ago
#10
(Original post by Ascend)
Just finished it. It's very interesting but it still makes me question the idea of fair play. Competitive sport is quite a ridiculous thing when scrutinised properly and you start getting into advantages and disadvantages.



I get that but there's just an inherent silliness to fair play principles in competitive sport, gendered or not. Instead of arbitrarily segregating by identity, maybe a more biologically relevant division is needed even if that puts the majority of (or even all) women out of the top physical strata.

The whole thing is silly, either way.
My thoughts would be that:

a) You need people to have a reasonable chance of success to push them further, etc. You want sporting rivalries between evenly matched (more or less) individuals.
b) If biological differences should not be allowed to determine the outcome of competitive sport (because they privilege someone over something they can't control), we should be aiming to reduce them by ensuring that classes are as biologically homogenous as possible. And the implication of that is that trans women should be excluded from women-only events.

Agreed with the bit in bold. Most sports (including motorsports) do this, and very rigidly. No reason why it can't apply to running or whatever.
Last edited by J Papi; 4 months ago
2
reply
Obolinda
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#11
When transwomen compete in competitive sports, they do already have to maintain a certain testosterone level. There is still debate about whether this is effective enough.
(Original post by JohanGRK)
The best way to accommodate this is to change the categories from being called 'male' or 'female' to being defined in terms of testosterone levels or something. That removes any suggestion that we're refusing to recognise the trans man or woman's identity while maintaining an equal playing field.
0
reply
J Papi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 months ago
#12
(Original post by Obolinda)
When transwomen compete in competitive sports, they do already have to maintain a certain testosterone level. There is still debate about whether this is effective enough.
If that's true, then there's no more room for normative debate, and it can be relegated to a boring scientific enquiry about how effective different medications are.

However, I suspect that there will need to be a discussion as to how low the target for testosterone should be set. Should it be a certain deviation from the average levels of the average woman athlete in a particular field? Should it be any value that is lower than the highest testosterone levels ever recorded in a woman athlete? There are a billion different ways of setting the target and I hope that someone somewhere is engaged in a serious discussion on them.

Edit: Random point - I remember reading a short NYT opinion article that suggested that intersex athletes might benefit from a 'middle' category between that of men and women. This also allows for powerful cis women to stop dominating the rest of the field, and minimises the amount of intervention that a trans athlete needs to undergo.
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 months ago
#13
(Original post by Ascend)
Interesting video, I'm halfway through but wanted to say this quickly:

Biological advantages and disadvantages are inherent in every sport on an individual level. Getting triggered by trans atheletes would only logically lead to scrutinising the biology of every single competitor to determine "fairness".
It’s a similar argument to performance enhancers; good nutrition, recovery and vitamins are all performance enhancers but we draw a line at a point. The same applies here, there has to be a line where we say ‘this advantage is just too great’. If you want to allow trans women to compete again biological women you may as well abandon sex segregation in sport.
Last edited by Underscore__; 4 months ago
1
reply
AngryRedhead
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 months ago
#14
I don’t need to, there’s a reason we have separate sport leagues by biological sex
(Original post by Obolinda)
Ok, thanks for sharing. Did you watch the video?
0
reply
Obolinda
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#15
if you say so
(Original post by AngryRedhead)
I don’t need to, there’s a reason we have separate sport leagues by biological sex
0
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 months ago
#16
I agree with what he says. There are vocal idiots (or maybe they're clever, wanting to use the trans lobby to gain an unfair advantage for their own gains) who are in denial about the physical superiority of men in pretty much every sport. I can imagine that you could HRT the hell out of someone so that it outweighs any biological advantage their adolescence and hormones have given them, but it is on the individual (or their doctors, whoever) to demonstrate that is the case.

The inclusion of Pistorius is an interesting point. Personally, I think it's easiest to insist that a TUE does not exceed 100% for any aspect of the event, by default. So while Pistorius (or another blade runner who didn't murder his girlfriend) can claim that he is disdvantaged elsewhere, he is still holding advantages that he will exploit in the race and training. For instance, he was never going to rupture an Achilles, something that his competitors would have to factor into their training.

In effect, you can either have one clear line at the top end of women, barring men, transmen, transwomen etc from competing there (but still permitted in the men's competitions), or a small but growing grey area where everything is decided on a case by case basis. I'd compare it to boxing weight classes - you have restrictions to fight in lightweight, but anyone can fight in heavyweight.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 months ago
#17
(Original post by Underscore__)
It’s a similar argument to performance enhancers; good nutrition, recovery and vitamins are all performance enhancers but we draw a line at a point. The same applies here, there has to be a line where we say ‘this advantage is just too great’. If you want to allow trans women to compete again biological women you may as well abandon sex segregation in sport.
We should also ban Michel Phelps though right? Because he has such a huge physical advantage over everyone else.

Oh and we should ban really tall high jumpers because they have an unfair advantage too, right?
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 months ago
#18
(Original post by JohanGRK)
My thoughts would be that:

a) You need people to have a reasonable chance of success to push them further, etc. You want sporting rivalries between evenly matched (more or less) individuals.
b) If biological differences should not be allowed to determine the outcome of competitive sport (because they privilege someone over something they can't control), we should be aiming to reduce them by ensuring that classes are as biologically homogenous as possible. And the implication of that is that trans women should be excluded from women-only events.

Agreed with the bit in bold. Most sports (including motorsports) do this, and very rigidly. No reason why it can't apply to running or whatever.
Michael Phelps is an absolute physical phenomenon, and his physique gives him a massive natural advantage over his competitors.

Should be be banned?
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 months ago
#19
(Original post by DSilva)
We should also ban Michel Phelps though right? Because he has such a huge physical advantage over everyone else.

Oh and we should ban really tall high jumpers because they have an unfair advantage too, right?
To suggest the gap between Michael Phelps and other elite male athletes is as broad as the gap between elite male athletes and elite female athletes is completely absurd.
1
reply
J Papi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 months ago
#20
(Original post by DSilva)
Michael Phelps is an absolute physical phenomenon, and his physique gives him a massive natural advantage over his competitors.

Should be be banned?
I suspect that this is yet another silly attempt at a reductio ad absurdum that says more about the result you wish to achieve than anything else.

No, he shouldn't be banned, but I wouldn't rule out splitting the sport into multiple categories so that people like Phelps end up competing closer to those with similar physiques. The fact that we have to tolerate some difference in natural physique doesn't mean that we have to allow absurd or patently unfair differences.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (75)
66.96%
No I haven't decided yet (21)
18.75%
Yes but I might change my mind (16)
14.29%

Watched Threads

View All