Yeah, I am not personally knowledgable about the biology but the impression I get from posts #19, #59, #101 (and its cite*), #133, etcetera, is that male development plus normal/good training trumps elite training. I could use more understanding on this matter, and it is directly related to the topic.
~Max
* From the cite in post #101,
[…] from puberty onward a clear sex difference in athletic performance emerges as circulating testosterone concentrations rise in men because testes produce 30 times more testosterone than before puberty with circulating testosterone exceeding 15-fold that of women at any age. There is a wide sex difference in circulating testosterone concentrations and a reproducible dose-response relationship between circulating testosterone and muscle mass and strength as well as circulating hemoglobin in both men and women. These dichotomies largely account for the sex differences in muscle mass and strength and circulating hemoglobin levels that result in at least an 8% to 12% ergogenic advantage in men.
Then thinking back to hemoglobin and hemocrit levels and what I’ve read about the Armstrong doping scandal, I seem to remember the levels have a direct relationship with physical endurance. But I might have misremembered on that.
Which has nothing to do with my post, which was just addressing the idea of “dominating” Someone who’s “dominating” isn’t only barely winning sometimes and plain being beaten at other times.
“Fair” is a different, much more subjective matter that I didn’t discuss, and I’m just going to say that I disagree with your subjective take, laugh aloud at the idea that there is an “objective sense” to fairness at all, and leave it at that.
My opinion is that fairly standard quality training of a talented, unmodified XX athlete is highly unlikely to negate their overall biological benefit and that athlete would most likely win in any field of unmodified but elite highly trained XY athletes.
Unless you are talking about virtually zero training v elite training then it seems like a bit of a red herring.
In any case, better training is something that is theoretically open to anyone, inherent biological advantage through birth sex is not and as such it seems like a reasonable category by which to segregates sport.
At which point in life we choose to do this and by what means we look to mitigate such advantage (and so allow a balance of inclusion, safety and fairness) is central to the thread.
If the numbers of trans people increases, the numbers of trans athletes will increase and there may come a point where the population is large enough to make a difference even though the overall number remains relatively small.
Waiting to see if and when that happens seems like a reasonable strategy but I think it is highly likely to come to pass and so it is sensible to any time we have to collect the evidence and prepare to act if necessary.
I guess my issue with this idea is that I don’t think that it’s OK for any cis-girl to miss out in order to provide a benefit to a transgirl. Why is what the transgirl wants more important than what the cis-girl wants? Two girls try out for an open spot on the team, one is cis and one is trans. They both have put in a lot of work and preparation, they both want it badly, and they both will benefit from playing high-school sports. In that scenario, the transgirl is going to get the spot on the team the vast majority of the time. Why is that OK? I don’t think it is because the transgirl could play on the open team (formerly called the boys’ team.) So, the only one who has the ability to competitively play high-school sports, but won’t get to play high-school sports is the cis-girl. And I don’t see how that’s OK just so long as it happens a low percentage of the time. If the trans-girl played on the open team, both girls in the above scenario get to play. But the desire of the transgirl to play on the girls’ team is deemed to be more important than the cis-girls’ desire to play high-school sports. That prioritization of the wants of transgirls over the wants of cis-girls’ isn’t justified IMO.
There was a lot talk earlier in thread about the lack of fairness in sports, I don’t necessarily agree, but if we accept the idea that unfairness in high-school sports is inevitable and unpreventable, why shouldn’t that unfairness in girls’ high-school sports not be biased towards females? Why shouldn’t females have the advantage over males in girls’ high-school sports?
Obviously, the objective should be to make high-school sports as fair as possible (which is the purpose of segregating sports by sex) but if the best we can do is mostly-fair-but-also-sometimes-completely-unfair, why shouldn’t those unfair moments in girls’ high-school sports not be in favor of and benefit females?
Two girls try out for an open spot on the team, one is wealthy and has a private trainer and the other does not. They both have put in a lot of work and preparation, they both want it badly, and they both will benefit from playing high-school sports. In that scenario, the wealthy girl is going to get the spot on the team the vast majority of the time. Why is that OK?
Two girls try out for an open spot on the basketball team, one is tall and one is short. They both have put in a lot of work and preparation, they both want it badly, and they both will benefit from playing high-school sports. In that scenario, the tall girl is going to get the spot on the team the vast majority of the time. Why is that OK?
If you want to make these sports fair, you’ve got a lot of work to do with actual, existing inequities before we start with this bugbear.
If you want to further marginalize trans girls, though, keeping them off the girls’ team is the right move.
In this scenario, why is the trans girl forcing a cis girl off the team if she plays in the girl’s league, but isn’t forcing a cis boy off the team if she plays in the boy’s league?
By and large, sports participation isn’t zero sum. Where it is, maybe the problem is that the school should be creating more teams.
I mean, I’m sure there WILL be a handful of trans girls who didn’t make varsity boys soccer but will qualify for varsity girls soccer.
I don’t see this as any vast tragedy that we need to avert. There will always be someone on the margin who might or might not make the cut for a particular team.
The tragedy is when a whole class of already-marginalized kids are completely excluded from playing. And no, i don’t think throwing some trans girls onto the boys team is a great option. And forcing trans boys who are taking testosterone to compete in the girl’s team is even worse.
If they weren’t good enough to play at that level then they wouldn’t make the team anyway. If they are good enough then where is the harm?
The debate when I was a kid was always that, if you were a good enough player as a girl then you earn the right to play at the higher level.
Sports at the high school level isn’t just about developing skills and winning. It’s also about identity and friendship.
If some girl who was marginal at the varsity level gets bumped to junior varsity by a transgirl, I see no harm.
But if a transgirl, who is likely struggling with her gender identity anyway, gets forced to play with the boys, and isn’t allowed to join a girls team, that seems like obvious harm to her social development and mental health.
And, as I mentioned above, if a transboy is forced to play with the girls, not only are his social options stunted, there is also a good chance that he WILL damage the competitiveness of the group, because he is likely taking testosterone and building masculine musculature.
Are you proposing that all trans students be restricted to the boys’ teams?
I think playing with a group that is your equivalent in ability is probably the way to go. If that happens to be boys or girls I’m not sure what harm follows from that.
This presupposes that we are talking about people who are taking medical interventions. If so I tend to agree that there is much less likely to be any major issues. That of course opens a whole other can of worms seeing as the risk/benefit analysis of such medical interventions in young people is far from settled.
If no medical interventions are taken for trans girls then I refer you to your last sentence on competitiveness above. That transgirl with unmoderated testosterone and masculine body will present the same challenge to competitiveness, or even moreso.
In high school, a large fraction of “out” trans kids are using hormonal medical intervention – often just drugs to block puberty, but sometimes drugs to force the puberty matching their gender.
And I refer you to the actual data from states that have allowed trans kids to play on the teams that match their gender. No significant issues have arisen so far.
This shows that WA, OR, CA, NV, CO, MN, NY, VT, NH, MA, CT, RI, NJ, MD, and maybe FL allow transgender high school students to play on the team that matches their gender. That’s a pretty large experiment.
Reading down…
California: Jan 2014
Colorado: 2014
Connecticut: 2011
Florida 2019 ish, so maybe no data
Maryland: linked document says "revised 7/2/2014
Massachusetts: July 2012
Michigan 2016 provided guidance to let trans kids play with their gender
Minnesota: 2014
Nevada: 2014, updated 2016
New Hampshire: no date given
New Jersey: Nov 2017
New York: March 2014
Oregon: 2019
Rhode Island: 2019-2020
South Dakota: 2019-2020
Vermont: June 2014
Washington State: 2019-20
Washington DC: 2013
I don’t think that “just” is warranted there, Blocking puberty is no small intervention. But that’s a topic for another thread.
I don’t think you can have your cake and eat it here.
If forcing a testosterone taking transboy to play on the girls team will, in your words, “damage the competitiveness of the group” then I don’t see how you can brush off the competitive damage arising from a transgirl who is not undergoing any medical treatment, competing with the girls.
Surely the same risk applies?
Yes, really. However good you are you play with your competitive peers. The more we move away from gender segregation in sports the better. It certainly solves all the problems related to the trans issue.
I refer again to the actual outcomes of the many states which have allowed this. (which I updated as you posted) There are some cases of transgirls competing among the top players. There are none of transgirls dominating the playing field in a way that harms competition. In contrast, there’s a transboy in Texas who is forced to compete with the girls and who IS problematic.
Well I don’t know what the situation is regarding any of those states. For all I know all the transgirls involved are taking medical treatment or the numbers may be low enough at the moment that issues are likely to remain rare. If so, then no problem.
I note you take the example of a single transboy as evidence for your argument, would you equally take a single instance of a problematic transgirl as evidence against?
I mean, so far the total sum of evidence of any disruption seems to be 2 trans girls and one trans boy?
I don’t actually think that one or two kids proves anything.
Personally, I think that “trans kids have been allowed for several years in dozens of states, and we’ve barely noticed” is pretty good evidence that it’s not a problem. Perhaps at some point in the future a problem will develop, and we should consider other polices. As I said above, it’s not as if we can never change these polices. But here we are, with a pretty good track record of “not a problem”. So I am in favor of continuing to allow transgender kids to compete with their gender.
