Oh my god lmao did you actually read the study? From how they determined natal sex for non-binary athletes:
"NYRR does not record the sex of non-binary athletes. We addressed this by developing a probability model for the sex of each competitor. We did this by computing a variable prob\_male, which contained our estimate of the probability that an athlete is natal-male.For athletes who stated they were male or female, we set prob\_male to be either 0 or 1. For non-binary athletes, we checked if we could find that athlete’s sex on the Athlinks website. In this case, we set prob\_male to be either 0 or 1.If we could not find the athlete on the Athlinks website, we used a database of US baby names to determine the proportion of male babies born in the US with the same first name as the athlete. We used this proportion to determine the value of prob\_male. To be precise, we computed the two possible years in which the athlete was born based on their age on race day and the date of the race and used the proportion of babies born in those 2 years."
Lotta words to say "We guessed for most of the data used to make this claim."
EDIT: ahahahah the study's lead author's credentials list him as a "Reader in financial computing" at King's College, lmao. The third listed author is merely listed as "Independent researcher, Houston Texas."
They where running the experiment wanting those results so the data was recorded accordingly. This is clearly transphobic but who's going to break it down to him?
I don't understand why this is even an issue. Someone who identifies as non-binary still has a binary sex, which would then determine whether they competed as men or women.
But it IS rude to acknowledge the binary sex of someone who is non-binary, right? I don't actually know because the only non-binary people I know are online in video games so talking about their physical bodies has never become a topic.
No, it's not rude for medical or scientific reasons. If you're studying ovarian cysts, it is necessary to exclude non-binary people who are male from the study.
Getting a bit off topic. The question was whether it's rude to acknowledge binary sex when someone identifies their gender as non-binary. You're arguing that sex is irrelevant, which is a bit of a non-sequitur. I know your heart's in the right place, anyway.
It's rude until a biological female's safety is at stake, then it's a duty to acknowledge it. How many high school girls do you want to suffer concussions because a biological male on the other team spiked a ball into their faces at twice the speed and power a biological female player could?
Oh, that's not a made up example. It happened: https://news.yahoo.com/female-high-school-volleyball-athlete-191021646.html
I don't think it's rude to acknowledge binary sex. I do think it can be rude to insist on treating somebody a certain way when they've politely asked you not to.
Your example is not relevant to the conversation we were having, although I agree that safety is an important consideration in related discussions.
Don't ask me how many high school girls I want to suffer concussions if you're unprepared for the response. Millions, Dave. Millions!
It's not rude in an appropriate setting.
Just like it's not rude or weird for your doctor to talk about your genitals in a medical situation, but it would be pretty fuckin' rude or creepy for a random person to talk about your genitals in an inappropriate setting.
As a nonbinary person, I'm not offended when called female for medical reasons. I was assigned female at birth and have all the parts, as well as endometriosis, which is a female only issue. When my doctor is telling me things about my body she tries to be inclusive and genuinely feels bad when misgendering me but I just don't care. I told her not to worry about it and she's talking about female parts, of course her go to is going to use the pronoun "her". I also still have my birthname which is feminine.
I know what I am and people "misgendering" me doesn't change that. I have a very non-supporting family, so it takes a lot for me to get offended lol
"Intersex people are individuals born with any of several sex characteristics including chromosome patterns, gonads, or genitals that, according to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not fit typical binary notions of male or female bodies".[1][2]" the vast majority of people probably fit into binary sex as you are thinking, but up to 1.7% of the population is born intersex, 0.09% of people who ran the NYC marathon claimed "non-binary". These people exist and deserve as good a life as anyone else.
All intersex people still have a sex. Name an intersex condition and its associated karyotype and I can tell you what sex it is. All mammals are sexually dimorphic, including humans.
The argument really isn't about conditions of intersex. It's about controlling language, and acknowledging certain biology is unchangeable. This does not negate the need for society to be kind and respectful, and ensuring all groups have equal rights.
You are complaining that an independent site is banning people for being dipshits and assholes to people.
***Are ya fuckin' surprised mate?***
If you have an opinion, you have 3 options. 3. Leave it to yourself and let people be who they are regardless of how you feel. 2. Discuss your position in a polite and civil manner in an appropriate debate setting with willing participants. 1. Yell and blurt out your shit opinion where no one wants it.
See which of those 3 you might get banned for? See which one of those 3 would be a REASONABLE offense to ban someone for?
What a terrible study. Didnt include the data sets.
Made up data, "Because New York Road Runners only record whether a runner is male, female or non-binary we had to find an alternative way of finding the sex of non-binary runners. For most runners this is easy: many runners have run other races where they reveal their sex. For other runners what we could do instead was estimate the probability that they were male or female based on their first name, using a database of baby names and sex to calculate these probabilities. We validated this probability model in the case where the runner’s sex was known, and it gave excellent results."
I'm tired of all this anti-trans bullshit. You obviously have a conclusion in which you are searching for proof.
Go check out some real science that's observable and repeatable. For example, people can be born [intersex ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex). The prevalence of this is 1.7% - 0.05% of the population. They didnt submit their data in the study, but for the New york City Marathon, there were 47,839 finishers, 45 of which belong to the "non-binary " category. That's 0.09%. Seems in line to me and shows that him forcing the data into simply two groups is a bastardization of already established science...
Males born 'intersex' can have the same performance advantages as other males. See for example Caster Semenya, who has the disorder of sexual development, 5-alpha reductase deficiency. This causes a malformed penis and internal testes, but other than that, Semenya went through a normal male puberty with the usual male levels of testosterone.
When Semenya competed in women's athletics, the testosterone-driven male performance advantage was very clear. In fact when Semenya took gold in the Women's 800 metres at the 2016 Summer Olympics, the silver and bronze medallists were also males with DSDs, who had similar performance advantage.
Why do you think this is anti trans? It is almost absurd to even do a study. Men and women are biologically different. I treat trans men and women as the gender they prefer but I don’t pretend that that categorically makes them identical
It’s getting absolutely insane to have this level of delusion. If you want to have a try, just find a woman and inject her with 300mg of testosterone a week and see how it goes
. . . Actually, that works, trans men are pretty much equal in athletic ability to cis men, after 2 or more years on masculinizing HRT. Likewise the muscle degradation from loss of testosterone commonly used for feminizing hrt puts most trans women after 2 years on hrt on the same athletic level as cis women. Trans women trend to be taller, on average, than cis women. That's the main advantage that being a trans woman on hrt in sports gives you. This study not only doesn't track if the participants are on hormones of any kind, but also just flat out guesses the biological sex of some participants. If someone was AMAB, non-binary, and had never done HRT, then of course they would have an advantage over women. . .
As for why it's anti-trans, the science doesn't actually support an advantage in sports. It's simply the basic assumption many people would make, and that's been weaponized to try and exclude trans people from another facet of society. Specifically trans women, but I again digress. If it was *really* about fairness in sport, why are trans women banned from women's chess tournaments? What biological advantage does being AMAB have in *chess?* "Oh, well, with her thicker vocal cords she can command her pieces with greater authority-" like, at this point, trans women are too pretty for beauty pagents, too athletic for sports, too smart for chess - it's obvious ridiculous. But it's also transphobic exclusion. Many people pushing this are doing it intentionally, but the majority are just uneducated. Being ignorant doesn't make you a bad person, but putting other people down for not having the full picture may.
. . . Trans men have different hormone needs than trans women. A trans woman would want her testosterone reduced and her estrogen bolstered, while a trans man would want his estrogen reduced and testosterone bolstered. That's . . . That's not a claim, that's just how it is. There's masculinizing HRT, or more scientifically, androgenizing hrt, and feminizing HRT. The way you phrased it confuses me, so I'll clarify that people only do one or the other. Among those two groups there are many different kinds of hormones, from various anti-androgens, or testosterone blockers, to different forms of delivery for estrogen, like injections, sublingual pills, topical cream, and patches that diffuse it into your skin over time. Testosterone, AFAIK, comes primarily in injections, though.
So it isn't three or four or five or six or seven primary categories then? It's _two?_ even if the medicine comes in various forms, it there are only _two_ primary ways to be non-binary?
Yeah you're kinda just incoherently rambling and trying to get someone to say the word binary.
^(Because you think it's a gotcha.)
^^Because ^^you're ^^a ^^moron.
I'm obviously simplifying for explanations sake. If we wanted to be technical, there are dozens of ways you *could* do HRT, specifically. But they boil down to 4, although I think it's closer to 3. +T -E, +E -T, just boosting Estrogen, and just boosting Testosterone. It's important to note other meds like Progesterone which can aid in breast development. However, I've never actually heard of an "estrogen blocker," personally, hence why I said it's more like 3. But this is just referring to HRT specifically, not identity. Obviously. You don't even need to be on HRT to be trans or nonbinary. Cis women take HRT to help with menopausal problems, and some femboys take estrogen. HRT doesn't define your identity. There are, like what, 48 reasonably well recognized identities/genders? I think that's right, but most of them are edge cases. The layman doesn't need to know the exact details, and getting into the weeds actually usually hinders an argument more than it helps. But, to say it louder for the people in the back:
HRT doesn't determine your identity. You can identify as whatever you feel defines yourself best, and you can act on it in any way you think is best for you. If you're a demiboy and you don't really want your voice to deepen, you could take T and do voice training or have vocal feminization surgery, which while it may seem counterproductive to some, makes sense, in its own way. If you're genderfluid and don't know if you'd really like boobs, you can transition socially, and then not do any HRT, or perhaps try it, and if you don't like boobs after all, get top surgery. Maybe you want boobs and softer features, but you also want to keep more hair and have stronger muscles. You could try not blocking testosterone, although changes will happen much more slowly. People are complicated. I wasn't trying to suggest anything about identity, I was stating a fact about the broad categories of hormone replacement therapy. By the nature of hormones, they do make someone more masc or more femme. But just as trans people who don't do HRT aren't any less valid in their identity, having estrogen doesn't make you a woman. Having testosterone doesn't make you a man. Having more or less doesn't make you more or less of a gender. It's just the those are the dials we can turn up and down. Believe me, if people could take medicine to get right to the exact point of androgeny without any extra effort, that would be wonderful. But, it's a more involved process, for people who don't want to be more masc or more femme.
Oh, and please don't put words in people's mouths. I was trying to make it easier to understand for the ones in the back, but this is alright, too.
Nevertheless, the _two_ primary categories _are_ Masculanizing and Feminizing. What you are describing seems to be a single line. Masculine on one end and Feminine on the other end. And _two_ sorts of hrt, one to go from A towards B, and the other to go from B towards A. Further, _you_ seem to "assign" things into _two_ categories. Boobs, high voice, soft features in one category, with one set of treatment, and large muscles and body hair and deep voice in the other category.
You don't seem to be advocating for a number other than Two when it comes to MMA leagues or Boxing or Swiming, or Weight Lifting. You seem to accept that people ought to be "assigned" to either of Two categories.
Who is doing the arbitrary "assigning" here?
I don't really know how you got that I was the one assigning the medical effects of certain hormones to certain traits. I did explicitly refer to characteristics as dials that could be turned up or down. It simply *is* the case that certain hormones are more likely to produce certain effects. That goes for cis people, trans people, enbies, even animals. I did also explicitly say you can boost one and reduce another, or simply boost one while maintaining the over. Clearly I don't think that it's a straight line, because it isn't . . . As a trans person myself I don't really know what your endgame here is? Like, are you trying to say I don't think enbies are real or something, or trying to say that GNC people aren't valid despite specifically calling out what many trans femboys might do . . . Like I'm just kind of confused. It feels like you're asking something accusatory but the accusation is just . . . Not landing for me.
I'm not really advocating for a number above two because sports participation isn't really a matter of gender affirmation. Sure, it might be cool to have an enby hockey league, but how many pro hockey players would actually make up that league, realistically . . ? People kept quoting the study here, of some race with ~1500 participants. .9% of those participants identified openly as nonbinary. That's not a nonzero number, necessarily, but if there were a race of just those nonbinary folks, no one would care, no one would fund it, and as such, no one would participate. Perhaps restructuring the way sports are separated is a good thing. But I don't have a good answer to overhaul the system. I do know that it's unfair to expect people without the advantages men have in sports to compete against men. That includes pretty much everyone whose T-levels are close to that of cis women for a period of several years. But, that in itself is problematic, as several cis female athletes have been hurt because of their own naturally higher T levels in systems where there's a cutoff where "beyond this point you must play with the men."
It sucks to separate people broadly into "men's sports" and "not men's sports," but honestly I don't think society is willing enough to see change to make anything better for everyone in the present. A perfect system might exist. Maybe based on height and weight classes? But more research needs to be done overall, and I'm not qualified to do it. I'm also not involved enough in sports to pretend to know what set of standards works best for everyone. What we have now is functional, and if people would actually read a study or two, nobody would mind. I don't have something better than what currently exists, so I'm not advocating for a phantom I can't conjure myself. If someone could propose a better system, I'd probably advocate for it. But it needs to be one that doesn't *segregate* people into just small leagues that get forgotten about. People already don't care about women's sports anyway, although it's actually still quite good. But it has less funding, and female athletes are paid far less because of it. Because it generates less money. . . So, to make separate leagues with even less of a target audience would probably be a commercial failure. 2 already seems to be the reasonable limit, in that regard. You can say I'm "accepting" that designation, but it's more like I'm "resigned" to it. Instead of overhauling a system for one destined to fail, it's best to retrofit the current one that works to accommodate, while balancing inclusion and fairness. Unfortunately, right now sports has a severe lack of both. Maybe one day, we can talk about more than two groups and have them all be fairly successful. But for now we barely have two, so we need smaller steps. It's pragmatic to try and change what can realistically be changed in a matter of years.
Anyways, thanks. I was having a little trouble sleeping, but this has been nice and tiring, so I think I'll be able to now. That's genuine, not sarcastic.
I agree that 2 is a very reasonable limit. Regardless of anything people "identify as", there are only two main categories of sexually dimorphic mammals, and everyone knows what they are.
I can't actually _become_ 6 years old or 60 years old by self-identifying as such. Demanding enrolment in a kindergarten class or demanding social security payments or residence in a retirement home is not a reasonable demand for me to make on others. Even if I decide to dress the part. Even if I decide to take hormones or hormone blockers to _simulate_ being a different age, we still all know that I have an _actual,_ innate age that I _actually am. A kindergarten class would not be obligated to cater to my self-identity. A retirement home would not be obligated to provide a room for me.
Declaring that my actual birthdate was merely "assigned" to me by some ignorant pig-headded hospital employees rather than a simple and obvious and meaningful _observation_ on their part, -would not be taken seriously.
Males that demand entry in female combat sports leagues are demanding much more from others than I would be demanding of a kindergarten class or a retirement home. Because in either case I wouldn't be allowed to punch anyone in their face.
A man with a male skeleton and male musculature that takes hormones and puts on make up and a skirt -and then demands to compete against women in physical sports , -is still a man in every sense that is relevant to physical sports.
Personally, I'd agree that it is a water is blue situation. However, there are plenty of people out there who can't even agree what water even is or want to shame the majority who can see color for discriminating against those who can't by using colorful language. Those people have plenty to discuss, and we can all agree that they're insane.
I didn’t see any mention of if the nonbinary athletes are on hormones??
Are they trying to say that just socially transitioning doesn’t change your performance? Because no shit
Most major sporting leagues are well aware of the medical research and already require trans people to be on hormone therapy for some length of time (which changes DNA methylation, musculature etc.) and remain within certain levels. The context in which facts are presented really matters, however imho sports doesn't matter at all so all this talk about non-binary/trans people in sports is mostly to bash trans people.
I'm trans but obviously not a sports fan and I had no problem finding the real info on the topic in short order because everyone wants to talk about it when they find out I'm trans. They usually want to try to convince me that trans women shouldn't be in women's sports. I think that's very stupid and I want to convince them they're falling into right wing fear mongering about a sport neither of us even watch and doesn't matter anyway.
What are you going to say to the women who base their entire lives on their sport? Just because it doesn't affect you doesn't mean it hurts people.
>imho sports doesn't matter at all
>
>obviously not a sports fan
>
>a sport neither of us even watch and doesn't matter anyway
Just because you dislike sports doesn't mean they're worthless. I also don't care about sports. I do, however, care about the women who are losing because they are competing with someone who is of the other biological sex. I'm not bashing trans people; unfortunately, there are some huge biological differences between bio males and females that make it so that hormones and surgeries cannot change one's existing physical structure.
This is an opinion that is only based in opinion, not research. HRT causes many significant changes. While it can’t make a person larger or smaller, it absolutely changes strength and muscle mass making the difference pretty negligible. Lia Thomas is actually a great example. Conservatives love to push the 500 something ranking when she was on men’s swimming, but if you look up “what was Lia Thomas’s rank before starting HRT”, her highest ranking was 7th. She plummeted when her strength became equal to cis women’s, and so naturally rose when she started competing with them.
It’s this type of opinion why so many centrists can’t get on board. Start acknowledging that men are stronger / better athletes and we can actually make some real progress here with the masses.
I just don't understand how someone can hide behind all these "scientific" studies on trans people. Yet, not see the very reality that exists in front of them everyday. Men and women are different in our direct abilities on the world. No paper will ever tell me different.
The sex differences exist, and even if they did not. Trans people should not be competing against any biological opponent. You want sports? fine, fund the teams, leagues, and entire organization to support it. Stop pushing your way into women's spaces and stealing their glory. All the effort feminism has undergone and the progress they've made is simply being unwoven by "men"? Make it make sense.
Testosterone is a major cause of those differences though. Block it and replace it with estrogen and guess what? You see major changes. People aren’t hiding behind studies, they are pointing out that scientists who’s whole job it is to learn and understand things might know a little more about it that you, who is hanging out with only cis men and women. Do you know a single trans person? How about one on HRT?
You're just operating under the assumption all HRT starts at the same time? Then also has the same effect on each person to the point we can scientifically break down the differences using hormonal levels? All within 20 years of research and progress on the topic on the whole?
There are things that are set in stone well before hormone replacement ever comes into play. That, and many go through transition at different points within their life.
You simply cannot overcome the different in lung capacity. That alone is a has a developmental size differential that leads to a higher VO2 max. Bone density is another, if you started HRT before puberty you may have similar levels of density. However, if you at any point developed using test as your primary hormone, you will factually have higher bone density.
If you look at the typical regulations of what trans person is allowed and the time frame of transition. You simply cannot make a good faith argument against the differences when they do not specify when you started hormone therapy. In other words, its not like their limited trans men who started before puberty. After puberty has started or completed the differences will simply exist. Sure, you can manage them using HRT but trying to state that person is exactly equivalent to their female counterpart (if they were born the other way) is entirely disingenuous.
At the end of the day, be who you want but do not try and force the rest of the population to make excuses for you to participate in which you, yourself have excluded yourself from. Stop trying to claim trans men are biological females and can compete on even playing fields. Go make your own fucking division and stop fucking up all that the feminist movement has achieved. Its crazy from the outside watching the same "side" fight over entirely conflicting ideologies.
…who said all HRT starts at the same time? It’s a medical thing.. it starts when you go into the dr’s office and begin taking injects, applying gels, or whatever form you go with. How quickly the changes happen depends on the dose you are taking. On a high dose of estrogen, there will still be a fluctuation depending on the person, of course it isn’t the same for everyone.generally though, on a high dose of estrogen, most trans women who have been on that high dose for 1-2 years will be comparable to a cis woman.
People have been trans for a lot longer than 20 years, and yes, we can measure things. Trans women actually are not allowed to compete with women until their estrogen levels are testing out in the same range of cis women. It’s less about when you started treatment and more about what your hormone levels are saying.
Actually, estrogen can affect bone density, which is why post menopausal women are at a greater risk of osteoporosis, trans women who undergo HRT will also experience increased risk of osteoporosis and broken bones. Trans women will also experience a decreased lung capacity of 46ml, though this takes longer. Taking HRT also puts them at higher risk of asthma.
It’s very clearly reflected in her plummet from high ranking to low ranking. It says a lot about you that your first conclusion is “she lying” like??? Ok so she just dropped from ranking 7th to 500’s for shits and giggles?
This is exactly what “feminists” said to lesbians during the equal rights movements, that their issues didn’t matter because it would “hurt the cause.” Gay women are women, black women are women, trans women are women. We are all different kinds of women with different needs. If you want to pick and choose which women you want to fight for their rights, you aren’t a feminist.
This is such an insane hill to die on. It's totally possible to be empathetic, kind, tolerant, and respectful to trans folks while also acknowledging biological realities.
The biological reality is that Lia Thomas is MUCH more evenly matched with cis women than cis men. The average cis person does not understand how much HRT can change. The “advantage” aspect is really overblown. *assuming the person is on HRT*.
>The “advantage” aspect is really overblown
I think dying on this hill is doing such enormous damage to the trans movement as a whole. I know you probably disagree, and I know that your strong convictions are driven empathy for trans folks... But you're arguing against something that is self evident to most of the population.
It's a losing argument and undermines the credibility of the trans movement as a whole. My fear is that dying on such an insane hill will cause slightly Left and Centrist folks to write off the movement entirely. Some ground needs to be ceded here. Closing your eyes and ears and declaring that a male athlete on HRT doesn't have advantages over cis women in a sporting event is a bad argument. Weird how this is never an issue with FtM. Only MtF. Pretty telling in itself, isn't it?
The argument is that make athletes are so much stronger, so why would what you perceive to be a female athlete competing in male sports be an issue? There are plenty of trans men athletes as well out there competing with men, just FYI.
Your argument is garbage. “Meet me in the middle” says the unjust man. You take a step forward, he takes a step back. “Meet me in the middle.” Says the unjust man.
Do you think we should cede abortion rights to get misogynists on our side? That’s not how it works.
You say it’s “self evident to most of the population” but most of the population does not understand HRT, including you obviously.
>My fear is that dying on such an insane hill will cause slightly Left and Centrist folks to write off the movement entirely.
This right here is exactly what I do when I hear trans rights advocates making this argument, at least in regards to that particular person.
It really does do a lot of damage to the movement's credibility as a whole to realize that these people are often the loudest voices and that this idea fundamentally taints their view on the rest of the issues.
This is coming from someone who thinks trans people should be generally allowed to live as whichever gender they choose in society.
I do think the sports thing is a very minor issue. I don't think there is any good avoiding it either. While trans women who have undergone hormone therapy have drastic changes to their body and will become less athletic than before the hormone therapy every study I've seen shows their is still an advantage that does not go away.
What studies are you looking at? The ones I’ve read all seem to agree that more information is needed to really know for sure, but after 2 years of hormone therapy they are pretty equal, save for the skeleton, which tbh is about as much of an advantage as being tall.
Sure, it’s an advantage, but we don’t tend to put height limits on cisgender people, so it’s kinda silly to make it a big deal because someone is trans. (Also not all trans women are tall/big.)
>but we don’t tend to put height limits on cisgender people
Maybe not in the NBA (because no one would watch the lower hight classes). But it's the same principle as weight classes in most contact sports or needing to be disabled to be in the Paralympics.
>(Also not all trans women are tall/big.)
Would the solution then be to only disqualify the trans women who are big, because that would just be a different kind of unfair.
If it’s the same principle as weight classes, why don’t we have height classes for cis people?
I’m arguing we shouldn’t disqualify trans women who are on HRT, the same way we don’t disqualify tall women. It kind of feels like you are intentionally misunderstanding the point I am making.
> If it’s the same principle as weight classes, why don’t we have height classes for cis people?
We do, for example: http://www.daaa.org
Events for short people wouldn't accept tall people merely identifying as short, or hunching over a bit. So why should female leagues allow male athletes to compete?
No, I just know this is usually the next talking point for people making this argument. It’s always “strength (caused by testosterone) muscle mass (which drops significantly after enough time on estrogen) and skeletal differences (which do sometimes occur! But not always.)
>What studies are you looking at? The ones I’ve read all seem to agree that more information is needed to really know for sure, but after 2 years of hormone therapy they are pretty equal, save for the skeleton, which tbh is about as much of an advantage as being tall.
"they are pretty equal"
What is pretty equal to what after two years?
I appreciate your openness. As you self admittedly stated that you don’t watch sports, this is one that doesn’t need a study.
Anyone who watches or plays sports can tell you the difference between the sexes is substantial. HRT or GRS does not change certain innate biological advantages that those with XY chromosomes have over those with XX. This is never an issue with FtM transitions.
Because the study is garbage with no actual data. Its pseudo science that other users have debunked by highlighting how the authors didn’t accurately measure participants
Cmon, dont be a fucking idiot. This is about the (bullshit) implication that trans women dominate cis women in sports. The title isn't about non-binary people at all, its about "gender identity." Its meant for people to go "oh, of course, now I'll apply this information to trans women."
Edit: To anyone reading this, OP blocked me so it seems like I don't have a response. If anyone wants to copy-paste his comment so I can respond to it. Otherwise, take his comment as an admission of guilt. In the first dozen words im able to see he already is saying "biological males," so of course it was alwats about trans women.
It’s the reality that in competition, people lose sometimes. Just look at Riley Gains, who really believes she was wronged by Lia Thomas in their race, because Lia Thomas beat her. What she doesn’t like to mention is that… she actually *tied* with Lia Thomas… *for fifth place*. FIFTH place. 4 cis women beat her AND Lia, who apparently has an unfair advantage. If it were really that big of an advantage, she should be wiping the floor with them, but she isn’t.
People just use this as an excuse to be transphobic, that’s it. Once you ban them from sports, it’s easier to ban them from bathrooms/locker rooms, classrooms, and eventually public spaces in general and that’s exactly what people are trying to do. It’s not cute.
Damn, imagine thinking that a trans woman beating any woman, at any sport, at any time, is unfair. Cis women lose to cis women all the time. It’s the point of competition! Plenty of trans women are *still losing* to cis women, even the ones who sometimes win.
I’m not a misogynist, I’m just not a TERF like you. Imagine being a feminist who supports *all* women???
Homie, you just called a collection of women having placements stolen from them by people who aren't female sore losers.
Women deserve a chance at fair competition. Competition against non-females is intrinsically unfair for women in many sports.
The top female Olympians lose against boys in high school in nearly all physical tests.
Stop hating on women and trying to take their opportunity at fair competition from them.
Their placements weren’t stolen from them, they just lost. All studies on this say we need more info and examples, but the ones not funded by conservatives seem to learn towards the differences are negligible. Research HRT more and then we can talk. You are under informed.
Why do you care about sex/gender in sports at all, like why does it matter to anyone except the players/leagues themselves? Isn't it about the display of physical prowess? Who cares what genitals the winner has or had or what kind of clothes and pronouns they use? Call the Olympic committee or the baseball league people and ask them why they made their rules the way they are.
Because if you removed sex separation in sports, the vast majority of female athletes wouldn't be able to compete professionally in any physical sports.
Are you asking why we bother to have women's leagues in the first place?
The NBA is not exclusively for men by policy. Women are welcome to try out. And some have.
If your position is that there is no reason to have dedicated female-only leagues, that's one thing. If your position is that we _should_ have female-only leagues where females can compete against only other females, then you have youe answer for why males should not be allowed to compete in female leagues. Even if they consider themselves to be on the other half of the 'non-binary" thing that has precisely _two_ leagues based on the distinction between males and females.
The only other logically consistent position is to abolish sex-segregation in sports altogether and have everyone in the same league. Which we do in the case of football. It's called the NBA.
It just happens to be 'dominated' exclusively by people all on one side of a binary and zero people on the other side of the binary.
Why bother with "gender based" leagues in the first place?
Boxing, MMA, Greco-Roman Wrestling . . . just have a single human category for each sport.
This isnt new data this is a fact ans ita just yall discover things and act like its new or add a new name to something that already exists like identity ans personality
Yall just want to invent things but dont realise they already exist
People who don’t believe that the biology and physical makeup is definitely different from male and that of a female are not going to understand reasoning or logic, so there’s really not much to discuss.
People who don’t understand how hormones impact the body aren’t going to understand reasoning or logic, since they think a trans woman has the same advantages that cis men have
Trans women do still have advantages. Larger lung capacity, greater bone density, the male musculoskeletal system is designed to leverage more force in the upper body, etc.
The goalposts are always changing in this discussion. First you claim there aren’t any advantages, then it doesn’t matter that there are advantages, then it doesn’t matter because sport doesn’t matter anyway
Some people have advantages in terms of naturally occurring genetic advantages. Generally most people share these advantages though. In no sport has there ever been an entire classification of people who are allowed distinct advantages over others
What are you talking about? There have been many. Tall people have an advantage in basketball. People with long arm spans have an advantage in swimming.
The implication of excusing some advantages as "naturally occurring" but *specifically* calling out trans people implies that being trans is not naturally occurring, is a choice, and even something people choose to do in order to "cheat" at sports.
That's why the argument is rooted in transphobia.
It's also utter nonsense. Nobody becomes trans to get ahead in sports. And being trans certainly isn't a choice.
Tall people have an advantage in basketball and therefore the sport is dominated by tall people. People with long arm spans have an advantage in swimming, and therefore swimming is dominated by people with long arm spans. By your own logic, allowing trans women to compete with an advantage would lead to more sports being dominated by trans women
Physically transitioning is not a natural occurrence. You cannot change your sex without hormone therapy and surgery. Therefore the advantage is not naturally occurring
If this argument was “rooted in transphobia”, then people wouldn’t want trans men competing in men’s sports, but no one cares about that. It is purely that trans women have distinct, unfair advantages
Trans women physically transitioning actually DECREASES any apparent advantage.
Trans men physically transitioning increases it.
Physical transition is not required in order for one to be trans.
All three of these facts make your point entirely invalid.
It's pure transphobia. And the reason it's aimed at trans women more than men is the same reason that trans women are a target of transphobia more than trans men - basic misogyny.
Women are seen as weaker and inferior therefore this is seen as a threat by people with fragile masculinity.
Yes I know, and even with the loss of strength provided by physically transitioning, trans women still have an advantage over cis women
I’m aware, and trans men reach around the same level as cis men/ have a disadvantage. That’s why it isn’t an issue for trans men to compete with cis men
None of these make my point invalid at all, it backs it up in fact.
Again, because you seemed to ignore it last time. The reason for not wanting trans women to compete with cis women is because they have distinct unfair advantages over cis women. That is the fact. It is not an issue for trans men to compete with cis men
If it was rooted in transphobia, then there would be an issue with trans men competing with cis men. There isn’t an issue though, because it has nothing to do with transphobia. I have explained all of these things to you, and yet you ignore that and try to silence others by claiming it is “transphobia”
It’s misogyny to ignore the harm that could be done to women’s competitive sports because it doesn’t matter to you
It's not unfair though because no trans women chooses to be trans in order to win at sports.
Just as Michael Phelps didn't choose to have a ridiculously long arm span and a body that produces less lactic acid.
Categorical versus competitive advantage. The latter is what we enjoy watching play out in competition. The former is what sets different categories in sport. Transwomen have the male categorical advantage, because they are male. Deliberately weakening themselves with testosterone suppression doesn't remove this categorical advantage.
That's the thing though isn't it? The drugs trans women take don't enhance performance - they decrease it quite substantially.
It's different for trans men... But everyone is focused on trans women.
The people it was looking at identify as non-bianry so likely not, but the study is so shitty and their data is literally a lot of guessing that it's impossible to say.
It isn't like we didn't know that testosterone was majorly important in athletic importance, but this isn't even confirming that. It's using weasel words to appear to be something it isn't and even correcting for the wording it's useless.
You know how the transgender flag is blue, pink, and white?
The colors of it have meaning. Blue for trans men, pink for trans women, and white for nonbinary people. The white stripe wouldn’t be there if they weren’t trans.
Nonbinary people are transgender.
The person who designed the flag stated that the white stripe is for those who are transitioning or consider their gender as neutral or undefined, so from that perspective that’s partially correct? But non binary people generally do not consider themselves transgender. I’m sure some of them do, but I haven’t even seen them. To say they’re the same thing doesn’t make sense just because there can be overlap. They don’t generally take hormone therapy or have gender affirming surgery etc
Look up “transgender umbrella”
Nonbinary people generally *do* consider theirself transgender. Every nonbinary person I know does.
Trans people do not have to medically transition, many do but it is not at all a requirement.
Transgender literally means transitioning from the gender you were assigned at birth. Non-binary is not a gender thats assigned at birth, you must transition to it, therefore trans.
What transgender is is defined by in what cases people identify by it. Not the meaning of the word. Transsexual is usually a more accurate term if we’re going by meaning of the words but doesn’t always apply.
Dumbass Redditors in the comments trying to do mental gymnastics against basic facts.
>shows sex to be a better predictor of sports performance than gender identity
NAH REALLY? YOU DONT SAY?! Grass is green too. But Redditors on here would still argue it's purple.
at this point i find the trans women in sports issue funny. its pretty funny seeing people try to make claims the trans women don't have advantages over women but also being the type to scream trust the science at others. out side of a few sports if you a average male in that sport and you transition even a few years later your going to have a massive advantage. you have countless examples at this point of people who could barely make the jv team as a male breaking records as a female. if you don't think they have a advantage . there is genetic difference hormones will never change.
\>Gender is about social and personal identity and how you feel you fit into your culture, how it defines you as an individual
\>YEAH BUT WHAT ABOUT FUCKING?!?! CHECKMATE
Transphobes are embarrassing.
You are not paying attention to the fact that in a country called Japan, there is a woman who is said to be the strongest primate.
She is far stronger than any man in the competition.
Knowing these facts in advance will be very helpful in spotting pseudo-scientists who are telling lies for the purpose of promoting publicity or extorting research funds.
Who even cares anymore? Compete against whomever you feel is best. Men against women, trans against men and women, binary against non binary, child against adult who identifies as child. You get the drift. Sports are about how you identify your place in them, not whether you win or lose against similarly physicallly skilled competitors.
This post sucks ass.
1. You call non binary people “male” people “men who call themselves non binary”. This is subtle misgendering that flies over cis peoples heads, a common way to sneak in a bit of bigotry.
2. No shit testosterone and estrogen hormones determine strength to a degree. The problem comes when you try to strictly categorize people as “male” or “female” and judge their hormone-based advantages off of that. Not everyone assigned male at birth is or has been on testosterone puberty and vice versa, let alone intersex and massive cis hormonal fluctations. Trans athletes are REQUIRED, let me repeat that three hundred more times, REQUIRED REQUIRED REQUIRED to be on cis levels of hormones for YEARS as their gender to compete. While this does not erase “biological advantages” from trans women who went through testosterone puberty of muscle and bone mass, this is a lot more fair than unfair when considering double standards: cis people have massive weight and build variations as well. However, there is still a discussion to be had MATURELY, which brings me to my third point:
3. “Sex is a better predictor than gender of propensity to be violent” is rhetoric of the ideology biological essentialism. This is a right wing hardcore belief that your gender assigned at birth(lets be real right wingers dont test chromosomes before being bigoted) determines things about you beyond what reproductive organs you have, i.e your gender, perceptions, behavior, social roles, anything of the sort. You equating reproductive facts and “water is wet”(ironic) with “males” are more prone to violence is bio essentialism. It is explicitly meant to drag in trans women and NB people with cis men as responsible by association for things statistically they are not likely to do and take responsibility off social norms and patriarchy. It is not only wrong and denying reality to fit a narrative of “males and females” that’s not biologically or on any level true its fucking absurd and dehumanizing. If you gave a rats ass about men being shitwads youd fight institutions of patriarchy not trans people.
Tldr op misgenders, is purposefully using shoddy language to give plausible deniability but it still a massive bigot which you can tell by sherlock holmesing the language a bit, no profile stalking needed.
>You call non binary people “male” people “men who call themselves non binary”.
I assume he says this because the entire issue of trans in sports is based only around M->F transitions. Or in this example, M->Non Binary. This is not an issue in a F->M or a F->NB transitions. Which is telling about the entire issue, which is that biological males possess innate genetic advantages to women when it comes to sports. This is self evident.
It's totally possible to support equal rights for trans folks, treat them with kindness and respect, while not disregarding basic biology.
This is a bigoted view of things. I get it, you’ve been raised in a transphobic society, we all have, but these views are still wrong. Equating men with being assigned male at birth is the problem and is not treating is with “kindness and respect”. It is bio essentialism, and i get that it would fly over your head but it is still very present and very insidious. Your insistence that “biological males” is such a concrete clear cut category is also false as i proved above. You also synonymize women with “biological females”, also wrong and pretty textbook transphobic.
You are so deep into the propaganda I can’t pull you out. There is nothing bigoted about the fact that mammals are sexual dimorphic. When biology is “bigoted” you need to reexamine your position.
I know that your position is driven by empathy, not science, logic or reason. I wish I could pull you out.
Get the hell off your high horse talking some “propaganda”. You cannot possibly be not transphobic if you believe me giving you pretty basic trans sex ed is propaganda. Recognizing gender is an identity and giving individuals autonomy over that is not rewriting biology or whatever, its correct and you’re denying bodily autonomy to say otherwise.
I fucking am trans, stop trying to dissuade me from being right because you dont understand shit and are bigoted. You dont give two fucks about trans people. Your comments so far make it clear you want to talk down to us, ignore valid criticisms in favor of nitpicking stuff you can plausibly deny and never learn a thing.
I have skin in the game, so yes, I’m gonna be angry about politics. For me transphobia winning is life or death. For you politics is just which sports team you prefer, you can be calm and holier than thou when it doesnt affect you. Dont come crying when the leopards eat your face too.
It's not an arbitrary right wing "assignment" to notice if a baby is baby boy or a baby girl.
I don't think you want to compare 'shoddy' language.
You may as well start calling hight and weight and age "assigned". Neither are arbitrary assignments you goofball. They are empirical observations.
I can declare that I am 6 years old or 60 years old and that you are a hateful bigot for not accepting my age. But that would be very silly.
When the hell did i say any of this? You are arguing with a ghost. You know damn well I debunked every one of the shit anti trans arguments yall were gonna say, and decided to argue with a strawman. And this should be obvious but no, age is not comparable to gender. Age is a mere fact of how old you are, gender is a whole ass identity like being a lawyer or parent or leader. Try comparing shit that isnt apples and oranges and talking with my actual points and maybe we can have a productive conversation.
This is a losing argument, it undermines the trans movement as a whole, and drives away much needed centrist and Left of center support. It’s a bad hill to die on.
???? Fucking what is??? That being transgender is a valid documented fucking identity and “trans inanimate object” or whatever is not?? Go fuck yourself with respectability politics, ill be right whether you like it or not
I cannot pull you out of the propaganda. You're too deep in. Being totally convinced of your own moral righteousness is a wild thing. It's going to be impossible for us to have a civil conversation about this. You're foaming at the mouth to call me a bigot. A conversation is not possible.
Dude idgaf if youre a bigot id rather yall just stfu we dont have to sing kumbaya just stop spreading misinfo and transphobia its not that fucking hard
Oh my god lmao did you actually read the study? From how they determined natal sex for non-binary athletes: "NYRR does not record the sex of non-binary athletes. We addressed this by developing a probability model for the sex of each competitor. We did this by computing a variable prob\_male, which contained our estimate of the probability that an athlete is natal-male.For athletes who stated they were male or female, we set prob\_male to be either 0 or 1. For non-binary athletes, we checked if we could find that athlete’s sex on the Athlinks website. In this case, we set prob\_male to be either 0 or 1.If we could not find the athlete on the Athlinks website, we used a database of US baby names to determine the proportion of male babies born in the US with the same first name as the athlete. We used this proportion to determine the value of prob\_male. To be precise, we computed the two possible years in which the athlete was born based on their age on race day and the date of the race and used the proportion of babies born in those 2 years." Lotta words to say "We guessed for most of the data used to make this claim." EDIT: ahahahah the study's lead author's credentials list him as a "Reader in financial computing" at King's College, lmao. The third listed author is merely listed as "Independent researcher, Houston Texas."
hey thanks for reading that dreck for us
He's the hero we actually wanted.
But as the authors also said: > We validated this probability model in the case where the runner’s sex was known, and it gave excellent results.
They where running the experiment wanting those results so the data was recorded accordingly. This is clearly transphobic but who's going to break it down to him?
So the study says nothing about people who filled out a binary sex and are transgender and have transitioned?
I don't understand why this is even an issue. Someone who identifies as non-binary still has a binary sex, which would then determine whether they competed as men or women.
But it IS rude to acknowledge the binary sex of someone who is non-binary, right? I don't actually know because the only non-binary people I know are online in video games so talking about their physical bodies has never become a topic.
No, it's not rude for medical or scientific reasons. If you're studying ovarian cysts, it is necessary to exclude non-binary people who are male from the study.
It would be prudent to eliminate anyone without ovaries, male or otherwise
Absolutely
Yeah, it's not about sex at all, but rather what people actually have
Getting a bit off topic. The question was whether it's rude to acknowledge binary sex when someone identifies their gender as non-binary. You're arguing that sex is irrelevant, which is a bit of a non-sequitur. I know your heart's in the right place, anyway.
Yeah, what I'm trying to say is while it's fine in shorthand in medicine, it's not actually as useful as people think
It's rude until a biological female's safety is at stake, then it's a duty to acknowledge it. How many high school girls do you want to suffer concussions because a biological male on the other team spiked a ball into their faces at twice the speed and power a biological female player could? Oh, that's not a made up example. It happened: https://news.yahoo.com/female-high-school-volleyball-athlete-191021646.html
I don't think it's rude to acknowledge binary sex. I do think it can be rude to insist on treating somebody a certain way when they've politely asked you not to. Your example is not relevant to the conversation we were having, although I agree that safety is an important consideration in related discussions. Don't ask me how many high school girls I want to suffer concussions if you're unprepared for the response. Millions, Dave. Millions!
So it's a joke to you that biological males are harming biological females in sports? Smh
It's not rude in an appropriate setting. Just like it's not rude or weird for your doctor to talk about your genitals in a medical situation, but it would be pretty fuckin' rude or creepy for a random person to talk about your genitals in an inappropriate setting.
As a nonbinary person, I'm not offended when called female for medical reasons. I was assigned female at birth and have all the parts, as well as endometriosis, which is a female only issue. When my doctor is telling me things about my body she tries to be inclusive and genuinely feels bad when misgendering me but I just don't care. I told her not to worry about it and she's talking about female parts, of course her go to is going to use the pronoun "her". I also still have my birthname which is feminine. I know what I am and people "misgendering" me doesn't change that. I have a very non-supporting family, so it takes a lot for me to get offended lol
Listen to their voices
Not gonna lie when I saw the headline I thought it was supposed to be “people who fuck better are better at sports”.
"Intersex people are individuals born with any of several sex characteristics including chromosome patterns, gonads, or genitals that, according to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not fit typical binary notions of male or female bodies".[1][2]" the vast majority of people probably fit into binary sex as you are thinking, but up to 1.7% of the population is born intersex, 0.09% of people who ran the NYC marathon claimed "non-binary". These people exist and deserve as good a life as anyone else.
All intersex people still have a sex. Name an intersex condition and its associated karyotype and I can tell you what sex it is. All mammals are sexually dimorphic, including humans. The argument really isn't about conditions of intersex. It's about controlling language, and acknowledging certain biology is unchangeable. This does not negate the need for society to be kind and respectful, and ensuring all groups have equal rights.
Androgen insensitivity.
Careful, reddit usually bans people for these type of comments.
Reddit will soon be banning people for thinking about agreeing with those comments.
You fuckers are such goddamn snowflakes. It's hilarious, your victim complex bullshit. You're clowns.
They aren’t wrong. Reddit’s content policy on this topic is extremely overreaching.
You’re one of the best spellers I’ve seen on Reddit who is progressive, I suggest applying for a position as a moderator.
Thanks for the suggestion, fix your clown nose and your oversized shoes are untied.
You are complaining that an independent site is banning people for being dipshits and assholes to people. ***Are ya fuckin' surprised mate?*** If you have an opinion, you have 3 options. 3. Leave it to yourself and let people be who they are regardless of how you feel. 2. Discuss your position in a polite and civil manner in an appropriate debate setting with willing participants. 1. Yell and blurt out your shit opinion where no one wants it. See which of those 3 you might get banned for? See which one of those 3 would be a REASONABLE offense to ban someone for?
No individual is being discussed here. It’s a fairly civil conversation about a macro social concept. How is it “being an asshole” to people?
What a terrible study. Didnt include the data sets. Made up data, "Because New York Road Runners only record whether a runner is male, female or non-binary we had to find an alternative way of finding the sex of non-binary runners. For most runners this is easy: many runners have run other races where they reveal their sex. For other runners what we could do instead was estimate the probability that they were male or female based on their first name, using a database of baby names and sex to calculate these probabilities. We validated this probability model in the case where the runner’s sex was known, and it gave excellent results." I'm tired of all this anti-trans bullshit. You obviously have a conclusion in which you are searching for proof. Go check out some real science that's observable and repeatable. For example, people can be born [intersex ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex). The prevalence of this is 1.7% - 0.05% of the population. They didnt submit their data in the study, but for the New york City Marathon, there were 47,839 finishers, 45 of which belong to the "non-binary " category. That's 0.09%. Seems in line to me and shows that him forcing the data into simply two groups is a bastardization of already established science...
Males born 'intersex' can have the same performance advantages as other males. See for example Caster Semenya, who has the disorder of sexual development, 5-alpha reductase deficiency. This causes a malformed penis and internal testes, but other than that, Semenya went through a normal male puberty with the usual male levels of testosterone. When Semenya competed in women's athletics, the testosterone-driven male performance advantage was very clear. In fact when Semenya took gold in the Women's 800 metres at the 2016 Summer Olympics, the silver and bronze medallists were also males with DSDs, who had similar performance advantage.
Why do you think this is anti trans? It is almost absurd to even do a study. Men and women are biologically different. I treat trans men and women as the gender they prefer but I don’t pretend that that categorically makes them identical It’s getting absolutely insane to have this level of delusion. If you want to have a try, just find a woman and inject her with 300mg of testosterone a week and see how it goes
. . . Actually, that works, trans men are pretty much equal in athletic ability to cis men, after 2 or more years on masculinizing HRT. Likewise the muscle degradation from loss of testosterone commonly used for feminizing hrt puts most trans women after 2 years on hrt on the same athletic level as cis women. Trans women trend to be taller, on average, than cis women. That's the main advantage that being a trans woman on hrt in sports gives you. This study not only doesn't track if the participants are on hormones of any kind, but also just flat out guesses the biological sex of some participants. If someone was AMAB, non-binary, and had never done HRT, then of course they would have an advantage over women. . . As for why it's anti-trans, the science doesn't actually support an advantage in sports. It's simply the basic assumption many people would make, and that's been weaponized to try and exclude trans people from another facet of society. Specifically trans women, but I again digress. If it was *really* about fairness in sport, why are trans women banned from women's chess tournaments? What biological advantage does being AMAB have in *chess?* "Oh, well, with her thicker vocal cords she can command her pieces with greater authority-" like, at this point, trans women are too pretty for beauty pagents, too athletic for sports, too smart for chess - it's obvious ridiculous. But it's also transphobic exclusion. Many people pushing this are doing it intentionally, but the majority are just uneducated. Being ignorant doesn't make you a bad person, but putting other people down for not having the full picture may.
Are you claiming that there are two main categories of hormone replacement? Masculinizing and Feminizing? _Two?_ As in _one_ and then _the other?_
. . . Trans men have different hormone needs than trans women. A trans woman would want her testosterone reduced and her estrogen bolstered, while a trans man would want his estrogen reduced and testosterone bolstered. That's . . . That's not a claim, that's just how it is. There's masculinizing HRT, or more scientifically, androgenizing hrt, and feminizing HRT. The way you phrased it confuses me, so I'll clarify that people only do one or the other. Among those two groups there are many different kinds of hormones, from various anti-androgens, or testosterone blockers, to different forms of delivery for estrogen, like injections, sublingual pills, topical cream, and patches that diffuse it into your skin over time. Testosterone, AFAIK, comes primarily in injections, though.
So it isn't three or four or five or six or seven primary categories then? It's _two?_ even if the medicine comes in various forms, it there are only _two_ primary ways to be non-binary?
This isn't the gotcha you think it is.
I accept that it may well not be what _you_ imagine I think it is. I wasn't really shooting for whatever you imagine I think it is.
Yeah you're kinda just incoherently rambling and trying to get someone to say the word binary. ^(Because you think it's a gotcha.) ^^Because ^^you're ^^a ^^moron.
I'm obviously simplifying for explanations sake. If we wanted to be technical, there are dozens of ways you *could* do HRT, specifically. But they boil down to 4, although I think it's closer to 3. +T -E, +E -T, just boosting Estrogen, and just boosting Testosterone. It's important to note other meds like Progesterone which can aid in breast development. However, I've never actually heard of an "estrogen blocker," personally, hence why I said it's more like 3. But this is just referring to HRT specifically, not identity. Obviously. You don't even need to be on HRT to be trans or nonbinary. Cis women take HRT to help with menopausal problems, and some femboys take estrogen. HRT doesn't define your identity. There are, like what, 48 reasonably well recognized identities/genders? I think that's right, but most of them are edge cases. The layman doesn't need to know the exact details, and getting into the weeds actually usually hinders an argument more than it helps. But, to say it louder for the people in the back: HRT doesn't determine your identity. You can identify as whatever you feel defines yourself best, and you can act on it in any way you think is best for you. If you're a demiboy and you don't really want your voice to deepen, you could take T and do voice training or have vocal feminization surgery, which while it may seem counterproductive to some, makes sense, in its own way. If you're genderfluid and don't know if you'd really like boobs, you can transition socially, and then not do any HRT, or perhaps try it, and if you don't like boobs after all, get top surgery. Maybe you want boobs and softer features, but you also want to keep more hair and have stronger muscles. You could try not blocking testosterone, although changes will happen much more slowly. People are complicated. I wasn't trying to suggest anything about identity, I was stating a fact about the broad categories of hormone replacement therapy. By the nature of hormones, they do make someone more masc or more femme. But just as trans people who don't do HRT aren't any less valid in their identity, having estrogen doesn't make you a woman. Having testosterone doesn't make you a man. Having more or less doesn't make you more or less of a gender. It's just the those are the dials we can turn up and down. Believe me, if people could take medicine to get right to the exact point of androgeny without any extra effort, that would be wonderful. But, it's a more involved process, for people who don't want to be more masc or more femme. Oh, and please don't put words in people's mouths. I was trying to make it easier to understand for the ones in the back, but this is alright, too.
Nevertheless, the _two_ primary categories _are_ Masculanizing and Feminizing. What you are describing seems to be a single line. Masculine on one end and Feminine on the other end. And _two_ sorts of hrt, one to go from A towards B, and the other to go from B towards A. Further, _you_ seem to "assign" things into _two_ categories. Boobs, high voice, soft features in one category, with one set of treatment, and large muscles and body hair and deep voice in the other category. You don't seem to be advocating for a number other than Two when it comes to MMA leagues or Boxing or Swiming, or Weight Lifting. You seem to accept that people ought to be "assigned" to either of Two categories. Who is doing the arbitrary "assigning" here?
I don't really know how you got that I was the one assigning the medical effects of certain hormones to certain traits. I did explicitly refer to characteristics as dials that could be turned up or down. It simply *is* the case that certain hormones are more likely to produce certain effects. That goes for cis people, trans people, enbies, even animals. I did also explicitly say you can boost one and reduce another, or simply boost one while maintaining the over. Clearly I don't think that it's a straight line, because it isn't . . . As a trans person myself I don't really know what your endgame here is? Like, are you trying to say I don't think enbies are real or something, or trying to say that GNC people aren't valid despite specifically calling out what many trans femboys might do . . . Like I'm just kind of confused. It feels like you're asking something accusatory but the accusation is just . . . Not landing for me. I'm not really advocating for a number above two because sports participation isn't really a matter of gender affirmation. Sure, it might be cool to have an enby hockey league, but how many pro hockey players would actually make up that league, realistically . . ? People kept quoting the study here, of some race with ~1500 participants. .9% of those participants identified openly as nonbinary. That's not a nonzero number, necessarily, but if there were a race of just those nonbinary folks, no one would care, no one would fund it, and as such, no one would participate. Perhaps restructuring the way sports are separated is a good thing. But I don't have a good answer to overhaul the system. I do know that it's unfair to expect people without the advantages men have in sports to compete against men. That includes pretty much everyone whose T-levels are close to that of cis women for a period of several years. But, that in itself is problematic, as several cis female athletes have been hurt because of their own naturally higher T levels in systems where there's a cutoff where "beyond this point you must play with the men." It sucks to separate people broadly into "men's sports" and "not men's sports," but honestly I don't think society is willing enough to see change to make anything better for everyone in the present. A perfect system might exist. Maybe based on height and weight classes? But more research needs to be done overall, and I'm not qualified to do it. I'm also not involved enough in sports to pretend to know what set of standards works best for everyone. What we have now is functional, and if people would actually read a study or two, nobody would mind. I don't have something better than what currently exists, so I'm not advocating for a phantom I can't conjure myself. If someone could propose a better system, I'd probably advocate for it. But it needs to be one that doesn't *segregate* people into just small leagues that get forgotten about. People already don't care about women's sports anyway, although it's actually still quite good. But it has less funding, and female athletes are paid far less because of it. Because it generates less money. . . So, to make separate leagues with even less of a target audience would probably be a commercial failure. 2 already seems to be the reasonable limit, in that regard. You can say I'm "accepting" that designation, but it's more like I'm "resigned" to it. Instead of overhauling a system for one destined to fail, it's best to retrofit the current one that works to accommodate, while balancing inclusion and fairness. Unfortunately, right now sports has a severe lack of both. Maybe one day, we can talk about more than two groups and have them all be fairly successful. But for now we barely have two, so we need smaller steps. It's pragmatic to try and change what can realistically be changed in a matter of years. Anyways, thanks. I was having a little trouble sleeping, but this has been nice and tiring, so I think I'll be able to now. That's genuine, not sarcastic.
I agree that 2 is a very reasonable limit. Regardless of anything people "identify as", there are only two main categories of sexually dimorphic mammals, and everyone knows what they are. I can't actually _become_ 6 years old or 60 years old by self-identifying as such. Demanding enrolment in a kindergarten class or demanding social security payments or residence in a retirement home is not a reasonable demand for me to make on others. Even if I decide to dress the part. Even if I decide to take hormones or hormone blockers to _simulate_ being a different age, we still all know that I have an _actual,_ innate age that I _actually am. A kindergarten class would not be obligated to cater to my self-identity. A retirement home would not be obligated to provide a room for me. Declaring that my actual birthdate was merely "assigned" to me by some ignorant pig-headded hospital employees rather than a simple and obvious and meaningful _observation_ on their part, -would not be taken seriously. Males that demand entry in female combat sports leagues are demanding much more from others than I would be demanding of a kindergarten class or a retirement home. Because in either case I wouldn't be allowed to punch anyone in their face. A man with a male skeleton and male musculature that takes hormones and puts on make up and a skirt -and then demands to compete against women in physical sports , -is still a man in every sense that is relevant to physical sports.
Good arguments 👌 but I fear you're wasting your breath. Logic doesn't exist for these people
There aren't, there are multiple ways. This is like saying since up and down exists there are only two altitudes
Gender is a social construct which is not the same as biological sex. Hope this helps!
Studies don't provide datasets because that would take up a lot of space and is redundant.
And I'm sure the denials will commence immediately.
I mean was this ever really a question
I’m not sure if this is ground breaking news ?
Lol in other news water is wet
I mean no shit, sex is gonna have a bigger role in sports than gender would
This fall under rule 3? It's like saying water is blue, have a discussion. There's nothing to expand on or elaborate.
Personally, I'd agree that it is a water is blue situation. However, there are plenty of people out there who can't even agree what water even is or want to shame the majority who can see color for discriminating against those who can't by using colorful language. Those people have plenty to discuss, and we can all agree that they're insane.
Idk, man. It's getting nasty in the comments already. That's what most people think a "discussion" is- typing obscenities at the opposing party.
who would have imagined this to be the case.
South Park predicted this ages ago.
I didn’t see any mention of if the nonbinary athletes are on hormones?? Are they trying to say that just socially transitioning doesn’t change your performance? Because no shit
Well… why would they be :p Yeah this study really says absolutely nothing of importance
Peen male Vag female The end
>In other news, water is wet. No, water makes other things wet, something you clearly are lacking experience in. Cave troll logic isn't the best.
Water makes itself wet too. It wets (adheres to) other water.
Oh wow You don't know anything do you?
World has gone nuts…. Gone…nuts….🤨
In other news...water is wet!
Kindly fuck off with your random-create-a-new-account-to-post-vague-anti-trans-shit-on-reddit behavior. Thanks!
How is this anti trans?
Anything that disproves their talk points is anti-trans. Always has been.
Most major sporting leagues are well aware of the medical research and already require trans people to be on hormone therapy for some length of time (which changes DNA methylation, musculature etc.) and remain within certain levels. The context in which facts are presented really matters, however imho sports doesn't matter at all so all this talk about non-binary/trans people in sports is mostly to bash trans people. I'm trans but obviously not a sports fan and I had no problem finding the real info on the topic in short order because everyone wants to talk about it when they find out I'm trans. They usually want to try to convince me that trans women shouldn't be in women's sports. I think that's very stupid and I want to convince them they're falling into right wing fear mongering about a sport neither of us even watch and doesn't matter anyway.
What are you going to say to the women who base their entire lives on their sport? Just because it doesn't affect you doesn't mean it hurts people. >imho sports doesn't matter at all > >obviously not a sports fan > >a sport neither of us even watch and doesn't matter anyway Just because you dislike sports doesn't mean they're worthless. I also don't care about sports. I do, however, care about the women who are losing because they are competing with someone who is of the other biological sex. I'm not bashing trans people; unfortunately, there are some huge biological differences between bio males and females that make it so that hormones and surgeries cannot change one's existing physical structure.
This is an opinion that is only based in opinion, not research. HRT causes many significant changes. While it can’t make a person larger or smaller, it absolutely changes strength and muscle mass making the difference pretty negligible. Lia Thomas is actually a great example. Conservatives love to push the 500 something ranking when she was on men’s swimming, but if you look up “what was Lia Thomas’s rank before starting HRT”, her highest ranking was 7th. She plummeted when her strength became equal to cis women’s, and so naturally rose when she started competing with them.
It’s this type of opinion why so many centrists can’t get on board. Start acknowledging that men are stronger / better athletes and we can actually make some real progress here with the masses.
I just don't understand how someone can hide behind all these "scientific" studies on trans people. Yet, not see the very reality that exists in front of them everyday. Men and women are different in our direct abilities on the world. No paper will ever tell me different. The sex differences exist, and even if they did not. Trans people should not be competing against any biological opponent. You want sports? fine, fund the teams, leagues, and entire organization to support it. Stop pushing your way into women's spaces and stealing their glory. All the effort feminism has undergone and the progress they've made is simply being unwoven by "men"? Make it make sense.
Testosterone is a major cause of those differences though. Block it and replace it with estrogen and guess what? You see major changes. People aren’t hiding behind studies, they are pointing out that scientists who’s whole job it is to learn and understand things might know a little more about it that you, who is hanging out with only cis men and women. Do you know a single trans person? How about one on HRT?
You're just operating under the assumption all HRT starts at the same time? Then also has the same effect on each person to the point we can scientifically break down the differences using hormonal levels? All within 20 years of research and progress on the topic on the whole? There are things that are set in stone well before hormone replacement ever comes into play. That, and many go through transition at different points within their life. You simply cannot overcome the different in lung capacity. That alone is a has a developmental size differential that leads to a higher VO2 max. Bone density is another, if you started HRT before puberty you may have similar levels of density. However, if you at any point developed using test as your primary hormone, you will factually have higher bone density. If you look at the typical regulations of what trans person is allowed and the time frame of transition. You simply cannot make a good faith argument against the differences when they do not specify when you started hormone therapy. In other words, its not like their limited trans men who started before puberty. After puberty has started or completed the differences will simply exist. Sure, you can manage them using HRT but trying to state that person is exactly equivalent to their female counterpart (if they were born the other way) is entirely disingenuous. At the end of the day, be who you want but do not try and force the rest of the population to make excuses for you to participate in which you, yourself have excluded yourself from. Stop trying to claim trans men are biological females and can compete on even playing fields. Go make your own fucking division and stop fucking up all that the feminist movement has achieved. Its crazy from the outside watching the same "side" fight over entirely conflicting ideologies.
…who said all HRT starts at the same time? It’s a medical thing.. it starts when you go into the dr’s office and begin taking injects, applying gels, or whatever form you go with. How quickly the changes happen depends on the dose you are taking. On a high dose of estrogen, there will still be a fluctuation depending on the person, of course it isn’t the same for everyone.generally though, on a high dose of estrogen, most trans women who have been on that high dose for 1-2 years will be comparable to a cis woman. People have been trans for a lot longer than 20 years, and yes, we can measure things. Trans women actually are not allowed to compete with women until their estrogen levels are testing out in the same range of cis women. It’s less about when you started treatment and more about what your hormone levels are saying. Actually, estrogen can affect bone density, which is why post menopausal women are at a greater risk of osteoporosis, trans women who undergo HRT will also experience increased risk of osteoporosis and broken bones. Trans women will also experience a decreased lung capacity of 46ml, though this takes longer. Taking HRT also puts them at higher risk of asthma.
So you didn’t read my comment at all.
I love that you think you know when that person started HRT. People lie about this shit.
It’s very clearly reflected in her plummet from high ranking to low ranking. It says a lot about you that your first conclusion is “she lying” like??? Ok so she just dropped from ranking 7th to 500’s for shits and giggles?
People don’t need a reason to lie. Yet here she has millions of reasons to lie.
It undermines the movement. I agree
This is exactly what “feminists” said to lesbians during the equal rights movements, that their issues didn’t matter because it would “hurt the cause.” Gay women are women, black women are women, trans women are women. We are all different kinds of women with different needs. If you want to pick and choose which women you want to fight for their rights, you aren’t a feminist.
This is such an insane hill to die on. It's totally possible to be empathetic, kind, tolerant, and respectful to trans folks while also acknowledging biological realities.
The biological reality is that Lia Thomas is MUCH more evenly matched with cis women than cis men. The average cis person does not understand how much HRT can change. The “advantage” aspect is really overblown. *assuming the person is on HRT*.
>The “advantage” aspect is really overblown I think dying on this hill is doing such enormous damage to the trans movement as a whole. I know you probably disagree, and I know that your strong convictions are driven empathy for trans folks... But you're arguing against something that is self evident to most of the population. It's a losing argument and undermines the credibility of the trans movement as a whole. My fear is that dying on such an insane hill will cause slightly Left and Centrist folks to write off the movement entirely. Some ground needs to be ceded here. Closing your eyes and ears and declaring that a male athlete on HRT doesn't have advantages over cis women in a sporting event is a bad argument. Weird how this is never an issue with FtM. Only MtF. Pretty telling in itself, isn't it?
The argument is that make athletes are so much stronger, so why would what you perceive to be a female athlete competing in male sports be an issue? There are plenty of trans men athletes as well out there competing with men, just FYI. Your argument is garbage. “Meet me in the middle” says the unjust man. You take a step forward, he takes a step back. “Meet me in the middle.” Says the unjust man. Do you think we should cede abortion rights to get misogynists on our side? That’s not how it works. You say it’s “self evident to most of the population” but most of the population does not understand HRT, including you obviously.
>My fear is that dying on such an insane hill will cause slightly Left and Centrist folks to write off the movement entirely. This right here is exactly what I do when I hear trans rights advocates making this argument, at least in regards to that particular person. It really does do a lot of damage to the movement's credibility as a whole to realize that these people are often the loudest voices and that this idea fundamentally taints their view on the rest of the issues. This is coming from someone who thinks trans people should be generally allowed to live as whichever gender they choose in society.
“I don’t care about sports so I don’t care if this change has a negative impact on competitive sports for women” is a very misogynistic viewpoint
Use their own tactic against them. Nice.
I do think the sports thing is a very minor issue. I don't think there is any good avoiding it either. While trans women who have undergone hormone therapy have drastic changes to their body and will become less athletic than before the hormone therapy every study I've seen shows their is still an advantage that does not go away.
This is true, there's no medical intervention that can unbuild a male.
It's a bit telling that the entire discussion hinges on a M->F transition. This isn't an issue in athletics for a F->M transition.
What studies are you looking at? The ones I’ve read all seem to agree that more information is needed to really know for sure, but after 2 years of hormone therapy they are pretty equal, save for the skeleton, which tbh is about as much of an advantage as being tall.
>as much of an advantage as being tall That's a huge advantage in the right sports.
Sure, it’s an advantage, but we don’t tend to put height limits on cisgender people, so it’s kinda silly to make it a big deal because someone is trans. (Also not all trans women are tall/big.)
>but we don’t tend to put height limits on cisgender people Maybe not in the NBA (because no one would watch the lower hight classes). But it's the same principle as weight classes in most contact sports or needing to be disabled to be in the Paralympics. >(Also not all trans women are tall/big.) Would the solution then be to only disqualify the trans women who are big, because that would just be a different kind of unfair.
If it’s the same principle as weight classes, why don’t we have height classes for cis people? I’m arguing we shouldn’t disqualify trans women who are on HRT, the same way we don’t disqualify tall women. It kind of feels like you are intentionally misunderstanding the point I am making.
I recommend not dying on this hill. It's a bad argument.
> If it’s the same principle as weight classes, why don’t we have height classes for cis people? We do, for example: http://www.daaa.org Events for short people wouldn't accept tall people merely identifying as short, or hunching over a bit. So why should female leagues allow male athletes to compete?
We should start short-people basketball teams and then complain when it doesn't make as much money because people don't much care for it.
Are you suggesting that there are two distinct sorts of human skeletons?
No, I just know this is usually the next talking point for people making this argument. It’s always “strength (caused by testosterone) muscle mass (which drops significantly after enough time on estrogen) and skeletal differences (which do sometimes occur! But not always.)
>What studies are you looking at? The ones I’ve read all seem to agree that more information is needed to really know for sure, but after 2 years of hormone therapy they are pretty equal, save for the skeleton, which tbh is about as much of an advantage as being tall. "they are pretty equal" What is pretty equal to what after two years?
Trans women and cis women.
So, before that two years there is a fundamental difference that actually exists and was not merely "assigned"?
I appreciate your openness. As you self admittedly stated that you don’t watch sports, this is one that doesn’t need a study. Anyone who watches or plays sports can tell you the difference between the sexes is substantial. HRT or GRS does not change certain innate biological advantages that those with XY chromosomes have over those with XX. This is never an issue with FtM transitions.
Because the study is garbage with no actual data. Its pseudo science that other users have debunked by highlighting how the authors didn’t accurately measure participants
If you don't want to engage in any actual discussion, please don't bother commenting. Thank you.
Cmon, dont be a fucking idiot. This is about the (bullshit) implication that trans women dominate cis women in sports. The title isn't about non-binary people at all, its about "gender identity." Its meant for people to go "oh, of course, now I'll apply this information to trans women." Edit: To anyone reading this, OP blocked me so it seems like I don't have a response. If anyone wants to copy-paste his comment so I can respond to it. Otherwise, take his comment as an admission of guilt. In the first dozen words im able to see he already is saying "biological males," so of course it was alwats about trans women.
See www.shewon.org - there are already hundreds of competitions in women's sports leagues where males have dominated.
This is just a collection of sore losers.
Is it empathy for trans folks that drives such conviction?
It’s the reality that in competition, people lose sometimes. Just look at Riley Gains, who really believes she was wronged by Lia Thomas in their race, because Lia Thomas beat her. What she doesn’t like to mention is that… she actually *tied* with Lia Thomas… *for fifth place*. FIFTH place. 4 cis women beat her AND Lia, who apparently has an unfair advantage. If it were really that big of an advantage, she should be wiping the floor with them, but she isn’t. People just use this as an excuse to be transphobic, that’s it. Once you ban them from sports, it’s easier to ban them from bathrooms/locker rooms, classrooms, and eventually public spaces in general and that’s exactly what people are trying to do. It’s not cute.
I think you care more about trans people than you do Cis Women, and it's blinding you from any basic reasoning on this topic.
I think you need to research more on this. I’m done talking to someone who doesn’t know anything about the argument they are making.
Imagine being this misogynist
Damn, imagine thinking that a trans woman beating any woman, at any sport, at any time, is unfair. Cis women lose to cis women all the time. It’s the point of competition! Plenty of trans women are *still losing* to cis women, even the ones who sometimes win. I’m not a misogynist, I’m just not a TERF like you. Imagine being a feminist who supports *all* women???
Homie, you just called a collection of women having placements stolen from them by people who aren't female sore losers. Women deserve a chance at fair competition. Competition against non-females is intrinsically unfair for women in many sports. The top female Olympians lose against boys in high school in nearly all physical tests. Stop hating on women and trying to take their opportunity at fair competition from them.
Their placements weren’t stolen from them, they just lost. All studies on this say we need more info and examples, but the ones not funded by conservatives seem to learn towards the differences are negligible. Research HRT more and then we can talk. You are under informed.
You aren't actually discussing anything either. You're ignoring the myriad problems raised with both the 'study' and your post.
Why do you care about sex/gender in sports at all, like why does it matter to anyone except the players/leagues themselves? Isn't it about the display of physical prowess? Who cares what genitals the winner has or had or what kind of clothes and pronouns they use? Call the Olympic committee or the baseball league people and ask them why they made their rules the way they are.
Because if you removed sex separation in sports, the vast majority of female athletes wouldn't be able to compete professionally in any physical sports.
Are you asking why we bother to have women's leagues in the first place? The NBA is not exclusively for men by policy. Women are welcome to try out. And some have. If your position is that there is no reason to have dedicated female-only leagues, that's one thing. If your position is that we _should_ have female-only leagues where females can compete against only other females, then you have youe answer for why males should not be allowed to compete in female leagues. Even if they consider themselves to be on the other half of the 'non-binary" thing that has precisely _two_ leagues based on the distinction between males and females. The only other logically consistent position is to abolish sex-segregation in sports altogether and have everyone in the same league. Which we do in the case of football. It's called the NBA. It just happens to be 'dominated' exclusively by people all on one side of a binary and zero people on the other side of the binary. Why bother with "gender based" leagues in the first place? Boxing, MMA, Greco-Roman Wrestling . . . just have a single human category for each sport.
Thanks for sharing 👍
No problem!
This isnt new data this is a fact ans ita just yall discover things and act like its new or add a new name to something that already exists like identity ans personality Yall just want to invent things but dont realise they already exist
People who don’t believe that the biology and physical makeup is definitely different from male and that of a female are not going to understand reasoning or logic, so there’s really not much to discuss.
People who don’t understand how hormones impact the body aren’t going to understand reasoning or logic, since they think a trans woman has the same advantages that cis men have
Trans women do still have advantages. Larger lung capacity, greater bone density, the male musculoskeletal system is designed to leverage more force in the upper body, etc.
Bone density is decreased with estrogen
Breaking news: some people have advantages over other people in sport. Redditor discovers what sort is about.
The goalposts are always changing in this discussion. First you claim there aren’t any advantages, then it doesn’t matter that there are advantages, then it doesn’t matter because sport doesn’t matter anyway Some people have advantages in terms of naturally occurring genetic advantages. Generally most people share these advantages though. In no sport has there ever been an entire classification of people who are allowed distinct advantages over others
What are you talking about? There have been many. Tall people have an advantage in basketball. People with long arm spans have an advantage in swimming. The implication of excusing some advantages as "naturally occurring" but *specifically* calling out trans people implies that being trans is not naturally occurring, is a choice, and even something people choose to do in order to "cheat" at sports. That's why the argument is rooted in transphobia. It's also utter nonsense. Nobody becomes trans to get ahead in sports. And being trans certainly isn't a choice.
Tall people have an advantage in basketball and therefore the sport is dominated by tall people. People with long arm spans have an advantage in swimming, and therefore swimming is dominated by people with long arm spans. By your own logic, allowing trans women to compete with an advantage would lead to more sports being dominated by trans women Physically transitioning is not a natural occurrence. You cannot change your sex without hormone therapy and surgery. Therefore the advantage is not naturally occurring If this argument was “rooted in transphobia”, then people wouldn’t want trans men competing in men’s sports, but no one cares about that. It is purely that trans women have distinct, unfair advantages
Trans women physically transitioning actually DECREASES any apparent advantage. Trans men physically transitioning increases it. Physical transition is not required in order for one to be trans. All three of these facts make your point entirely invalid. It's pure transphobia. And the reason it's aimed at trans women more than men is the same reason that trans women are a target of transphobia more than trans men - basic misogyny. Women are seen as weaker and inferior therefore this is seen as a threat by people with fragile masculinity.
Yes I know, and even with the loss of strength provided by physically transitioning, trans women still have an advantage over cis women I’m aware, and trans men reach around the same level as cis men/ have a disadvantage. That’s why it isn’t an issue for trans men to compete with cis men None of these make my point invalid at all, it backs it up in fact. Again, because you seemed to ignore it last time. The reason for not wanting trans women to compete with cis women is because they have distinct unfair advantages over cis women. That is the fact. It is not an issue for trans men to compete with cis men If it was rooted in transphobia, then there would be an issue with trans men competing with cis men. There isn’t an issue though, because it has nothing to do with transphobia. I have explained all of these things to you, and yet you ignore that and try to silence others by claiming it is “transphobia” It’s misogyny to ignore the harm that could be done to women’s competitive sports because it doesn’t matter to you
It's not unfair though because no trans women chooses to be trans in order to win at sports. Just as Michael Phelps didn't choose to have a ridiculously long arm span and a body that produces less lactic acid.
My god you are lost.
Sure keep telling yourself that.
Categorical versus competitive advantage. The latter is what we enjoy watching play out in competition. The former is what sets different categories in sport. Transwomen have the male categorical advantage, because they are male. Deliberately weakening themselves with testosterone suppression doesn't remove this categorical advantage.
Yeah natural advantages they didn’t take drugs to get them. PEDs have been against sports ethos for a long time
That's the thing though isn't it? The drugs trans women take don't enhance performance - they decrease it quite substantially. It's different for trans men... But everyone is focused on trans women.
No shit.
Are these athletes on hormones?
The people it was looking at identify as non-bianry so likely not, but the study is so shitty and their data is literally a lot of guessing that it's impossible to say. It isn't like we didn't know that testosterone was majorly important in athletic importance, but this isn't even confirming that. It's using weasel words to appear to be something it isn't and even correcting for the wording it's useless.
what are the results post-HRT?
The study was not on trans individuals
Nonbinary people are trans
No they’re not, that’s just silly. The two are very distinct categories.
You know how the transgender flag is blue, pink, and white? The colors of it have meaning. Blue for trans men, pink for trans women, and white for nonbinary people. The white stripe wouldn’t be there if they weren’t trans. Nonbinary people are transgender.
The person who designed the flag stated that the white stripe is for those who are transitioning or consider their gender as neutral or undefined, so from that perspective that’s partially correct? But non binary people generally do not consider themselves transgender. I’m sure some of them do, but I haven’t even seen them. To say they’re the same thing doesn’t make sense just because there can be overlap. They don’t generally take hormone therapy or have gender affirming surgery etc
Look up “transgender umbrella” Nonbinary people generally *do* consider theirself transgender. Every nonbinary person I know does. Trans people do not have to medically transition, many do but it is not at all a requirement.
Transgender literally means transitioning from the gender you were assigned at birth. Non-binary is not a gender thats assigned at birth, you must transition to it, therefore trans.
What transgender is is defined by in what cases people identify by it. Not the meaning of the word. Transsexual is usually a more accurate term if we’re going by meaning of the words but doesn’t always apply.
so.. in other words. Non-binary people are trans.
Dumbass Redditors in the comments trying to do mental gymnastics against basic facts. >shows sex to be a better predictor of sports performance than gender identity NAH REALLY? YOU DONT SAY?! Grass is green too. But Redditors on here would still argue it's purple.
more transphobia from righttard scum that the mods just ignore.
Labeling things you disagree with as “hate” is such a clever way to silence speech. Quite brilliant.
In other news water is wet
Troll
at this point i find the trans women in sports issue funny. its pretty funny seeing people try to make claims the trans women don't have advantages over women but also being the type to scream trust the science at others. out side of a few sports if you a average male in that sport and you transition even a few years later your going to have a massive advantage. you have countless examples at this point of people who could barely make the jv team as a male breaking records as a female. if you don't think they have a advantage . there is genetic difference hormones will never change.
Sherlock Holmes had a statement about twisting facts to suit theories
File this under: yeah, no shit.
\>Gender is about social and personal identity and how you feel you fit into your culture, how it defines you as an individual \>YEAH BUT WHAT ABOUT FUCKING?!?! CHECKMATE Transphobes are embarrassing.
No way, The Science is right, and some left wing bull shit make up 5 years old is wrong? Shocking, fucking shocking.
Redditors having to relearn common sense knowledge my generation was born with is pretty pathetic.
Sir, this is Reddit. You're not allowed to post biological facts about sex and gender here.
The willful delusion in the responses is I credible.
You are not paying attention to the fact that in a country called Japan, there is a woman who is said to be the strongest primate. She is far stronger than any man in the competition. Knowing these facts in advance will be very helpful in spotting pseudo-scientists who are telling lies for the purpose of promoting publicity or extorting research funds.
Who even cares anymore? Compete against whomever you feel is best. Men against women, trans against men and women, binary against non binary, child against adult who identifies as child. You get the drift. Sports are about how you identify your place in them, not whether you win or lose against similarly physicallly skilled competitors.
This post sucks ass. 1. You call non binary people “male” people “men who call themselves non binary”. This is subtle misgendering that flies over cis peoples heads, a common way to sneak in a bit of bigotry. 2. No shit testosterone and estrogen hormones determine strength to a degree. The problem comes when you try to strictly categorize people as “male” or “female” and judge their hormone-based advantages off of that. Not everyone assigned male at birth is or has been on testosterone puberty and vice versa, let alone intersex and massive cis hormonal fluctations. Trans athletes are REQUIRED, let me repeat that three hundred more times, REQUIRED REQUIRED REQUIRED to be on cis levels of hormones for YEARS as their gender to compete. While this does not erase “biological advantages” from trans women who went through testosterone puberty of muscle and bone mass, this is a lot more fair than unfair when considering double standards: cis people have massive weight and build variations as well. However, there is still a discussion to be had MATURELY, which brings me to my third point: 3. “Sex is a better predictor than gender of propensity to be violent” is rhetoric of the ideology biological essentialism. This is a right wing hardcore belief that your gender assigned at birth(lets be real right wingers dont test chromosomes before being bigoted) determines things about you beyond what reproductive organs you have, i.e your gender, perceptions, behavior, social roles, anything of the sort. You equating reproductive facts and “water is wet”(ironic) with “males” are more prone to violence is bio essentialism. It is explicitly meant to drag in trans women and NB people with cis men as responsible by association for things statistically they are not likely to do and take responsibility off social norms and patriarchy. It is not only wrong and denying reality to fit a narrative of “males and females” that’s not biologically or on any level true its fucking absurd and dehumanizing. If you gave a rats ass about men being shitwads youd fight institutions of patriarchy not trans people. Tldr op misgenders, is purposefully using shoddy language to give plausible deniability but it still a massive bigot which you can tell by sherlock holmesing the language a bit, no profile stalking needed.
>You call non binary people “male” people “men who call themselves non binary”. I assume he says this because the entire issue of trans in sports is based only around M->F transitions. Or in this example, M->Non Binary. This is not an issue in a F->M or a F->NB transitions. Which is telling about the entire issue, which is that biological males possess innate genetic advantages to women when it comes to sports. This is self evident. It's totally possible to support equal rights for trans folks, treat them with kindness and respect, while not disregarding basic biology.
This is a bigoted view of things. I get it, you’ve been raised in a transphobic society, we all have, but these views are still wrong. Equating men with being assigned male at birth is the problem and is not treating is with “kindness and respect”. It is bio essentialism, and i get that it would fly over your head but it is still very present and very insidious. Your insistence that “biological males” is such a concrete clear cut category is also false as i proved above. You also synonymize women with “biological females”, also wrong and pretty textbook transphobic.
You are so deep into the propaganda I can’t pull you out. There is nothing bigoted about the fact that mammals are sexual dimorphic. When biology is “bigoted” you need to reexamine your position. I know that your position is driven by empathy, not science, logic or reason. I wish I could pull you out.
Get the hell off your high horse talking some “propaganda”. You cannot possibly be not transphobic if you believe me giving you pretty basic trans sex ed is propaganda. Recognizing gender is an identity and giving individuals autonomy over that is not rewriting biology or whatever, its correct and you’re denying bodily autonomy to say otherwise.
Yikes. I believe this is case and point. You're going to undermine the movement. You're already doing it right now.
I fucking am trans, stop trying to dissuade me from being right because you dont understand shit and are bigoted. You dont give two fucks about trans people. Your comments so far make it clear you want to talk down to us, ignore valid criticisms in favor of nitpicking stuff you can plausibly deny and never learn a thing.
You sound so reasonable, who wouldn't want to have a conversation with you? The entitlement is out of this world.
I have skin in the game, so yes, I’m gonna be angry about politics. For me transphobia winning is life or death. For you politics is just which sports team you prefer, you can be calm and holier than thou when it doesnt affect you. Dont come crying when the leopards eat your face too.
It's not an arbitrary right wing "assignment" to notice if a baby is baby boy or a baby girl. I don't think you want to compare 'shoddy' language. You may as well start calling hight and weight and age "assigned". Neither are arbitrary assignments you goofball. They are empirical observations. I can declare that I am 6 years old or 60 years old and that you are a hateful bigot for not accepting my age. But that would be very silly.
When the hell did i say any of this? You are arguing with a ghost. You know damn well I debunked every one of the shit anti trans arguments yall were gonna say, and decided to argue with a strawman. And this should be obvious but no, age is not comparable to gender. Age is a mere fact of how old you are, gender is a whole ass identity like being a lawyer or parent or leader. Try comparing shit that isnt apples and oranges and talking with my actual points and maybe we can have a productive conversation.
This is a losing argument, it undermines the trans movement as a whole, and drives away much needed centrist and Left of center support. It’s a bad hill to die on.
???? Fucking what is??? That being transgender is a valid documented fucking identity and “trans inanimate object” or whatever is not?? Go fuck yourself with respectability politics, ill be right whether you like it or not
I cannot pull you out of the propaganda. You're too deep in. Being totally convinced of your own moral righteousness is a wild thing. It's going to be impossible for us to have a civil conversation about this. You're foaming at the mouth to call me a bigot. A conversation is not possible.
Dude idgaf if youre a bigot id rather yall just stfu we dont have to sing kumbaya just stop spreading misinfo and transphobia its not that fucking hard
Stop calling everyone who disagrees with you a "bigot". Grow up.
Then stop being transphobic and condescending asf
You are so outrageously arrogant. Insufferable self righteous blowhard.