I think you might have been reading my intent incorrectly. Or maybe I was communicating it incorrectly. The major divide isn’t trans women vs. cis women. It’s men vs. women. The trans vs. cis women comes into play as one aspect of that. Politically it’s obviously a big issue. But when it comes to sporting issues rather than political issues, the primary issue is men vs. women, not trans women vs. cis women. Obviously the latter is an issue, but it isn’t the main reason the division even exists.
I don’t really know what part of my post that disagrees with so I’ll just go ahead and say “I agree”. It doesn’t really impact my point at all though.
That gets into a whole discussion about transmedicalism that’s definitely political but I don’t really see what that has to do with anything in my post either. I don’t think it contradicts what I said above.
I certainly didn’t move the goalposts. I was about to quote what I thought was my first post in this thread, but I realize it’s actually my first post in the thread this was spun off from, so I’ll quote it here again:
I guess it was confusing because of the move from one thread to another but I always argued male puberty was a good line to draw.
Then I kinda think you’re shadow boxing because I never made that argument.
My disagreement is that “trans women vs. cis women” is an aspect of “men vs. women.” It’s the smushing of the two ideas together that’s leading to the insanity.
Here’s what’s happening:
-
Men vs. women in sports is a major issue: if we combine the leagues, women will never win.
-
Trans women vs. cis women is a non-issue: if we allow trans women to compete against cis women, cis women will still win most of the time.
-
If we pretend that #2 has the same effects as #1, we can make it a huge issue.
-
Then we can win elections!
It’s crucial that we recognize that #2 isn’t the same thing as #1, most especially in terms of its impact.
I didn’t realize there was a prior thread.
But your entire thesis depends on there being a fixed, well defined gender binary that we know.
Thank you, you made the points i was trying to make more clearly and succinctly than i did.
As others have noted, the reason it is possibly a non-issue is because cis women significantly outnumber trans women. But lets’s consider a different hypothetical. Let’s say instead of trans women, we were talking about a very small subset of cis men being possibly allowed to compete in women’s sports. Maybe only men who have only five letters in their last name, with the first letter being J, the third letter being M, and the last letter S. If we did that, would women still dominate the WNBA? Yes, because of sheer numbers. Would it be unfair if LeBron James decided to compete in the WNBA? Yes as well. The question is whether or not letting trans women compete against cis women is the same as letting a very small subset of cis men to compete against women. Now it is most likely the case that the answer to those questions is going to be different, but the questions are both of the same type, and the thought exercise at least demonstrates why the question at least needs to be asked.
No thanks!
It’s not a “different” hypothetical, it’s a hypothetical. Trans women are a reality, and I see no reason to engage our imaginations in this regard, when we can instead examine the facts of the case.
I think we simply haven’t had enough trans women competing in the major elite sports to say that we have enough facts / data to come to a definitive conclusion. The biggest two team sports for women are soccer and basketball. Who are the trans women who have competed at the highest level in those sports that we can compare against cis women to help form a conclusion? As far as I’m aware there aren’t any. The same goes for the most popular individual sports like tennis and golf. As far as I know, we haven’t had trans women competing in the major women’s professional golf or tennis tours.
Renee Richards was mentioned upthread, but she played professional tennis almost 50 years ago now.
And, as I noted, Richards was already in her 40s when she began playing on the women’s tennis tour; she did not dominate the sport, but she did pretty well (was once ranked #20), given that (a) she was apparently an excellent amateur player against men before transitioning, but at the level of “elite amateur,” not a pro*, and (b) she was decades past her athletic prime, playing against women 20 years younger than her, and she was still able to be competitive.
Had Richards transitioned at age 20 or 25, rather than in her early 40s, and played professional tennis at that age, she might well have been among the top female players. We’ll never actually know.
*- As a male, Richards (then named Richard Raskin) competed in the U.S. Open, as an amateur, five times from 1953-1960. She twice won her first round-robin match, before losing the second, and in the other three Opens, she lost in her first match.
It seems most reasonable to me to use “went through male puberty” as the dividing line, but I see that as problematic. My assumption is that such a standard would immediately result in regulators trying to ban puberty blockers.
Also, the argument that even if trans women do have an unfair advantage, it doesn’t matter because there’s not very many of them so cis women will still win the majority of the time isn’t just uncompelling, it essentially concedes the entire argument to the opposition. The fact that in reality, trans women do not appear to have a clear advantage is far more compelling.
And more importantly, women will still win 100% of the time.
Those would be men competing, not women. That’s actually an important difference here.
Richards herself has more recently voiced an opinion contrary to what you’re asserting: Renée Richards - Wikipedia
Richards has since expressed ambivalence about her legacy, and came to believe her past as a man provided her with advantages over her competitors,[27] saying “Having lived for the past 30 years, I know if I’d had surgery at the age of 22, and then at 24 went on the tour, no genetic woman in the world would have been able to come close to me. And so I’ve reconsidered my opinion.”[28][29]
It’s generally ignored for the reasons that Velocity described. There can be no legitimate claim of inherent unfairness due to physical advantages for the trans man competing in men’s sports (as opposed to trans women competing in women’s divisions) but also, it’s extraordinarily rare for trans men to compete in men’s sports at anything above recreational levels, so there is no real visibility of it happening.
No, it’s ignored because one of the goals is to use trans women athletes as an excuse to control and humiliate women athletes in general. Which they have, whenever possible. This issue has very little to do with sports.
Patricio Manuel is a trans male boxer who formerly boxed in women’s leagues but now boxes successfully in men’s leagues. Fortunately, boxing is apparently a sport where any physical disadvantages due to growing to adulthood as a woman are not determinative of success.
In terms of gender, yes. But in this particular case, it’s possible that biological sex really does provide an unfair advantage. I don’t know for sure that it does, but I also don’t know for sure that it doesn’t, and the fact that biological males have an inherent advantage over biological females in the vast majority of sports makes it, I think, more likely than not that trans women could have an advantage over cis women.
I’m going to suggest, yet again, that trans women aren’t just men who have decided to live as women. They are people with a profound sense of being women. Their bodies and hormones, throughout their life, are probably different (on average) from those of cis men. In most cases, i believe they are a type of intersex, just a type that looks like a boy as a baby.
And while the top male athletes are better than the top female athletes in most sports, there’s a lot of overlap. The top 5% of women are often better than the bottom 20% of men. No, not amount professionals, who are all in the top few percent. But among “all people”. Like at that company picnic where everyone plays softball or basketball together. Some of the best players are always women. Some of the clumsy bad players are always men.
The hypothesis that trans women are going to have the same distribution of athletic ability as cis men is extremely unlikely. Judging them as it’s they were men is really unfair in lots of ways.
Manuel boxes in a weight class (“super featherweight”) in which boxers are quite light in weight (from 126 to 130 pounds). I am not an expert in boxing, but I might suspect that that low weight class might lessen the athletic advantage that men typically have over women (and, by extension, AFAB men), due to body and muscle mass and height.
It’s worth noting that when Fallon Fox, a transgender MtF, fought Tamikka Brents in an MMA match (Brents is cis-woman,) Fox inflicted serious damage, including fractures and a concussion, and Brents later said, “I’ve fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night. I can’t answer whether it’s because she was born a man or not because I’m not a doctor. I can only say, I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right.”