Just out of curiosity, why do you feel this way? Is someone who doesn’t desire to take HT not worthy of being considered their desired gender? Are you stating this as a generality of just in sports?
Okay, but doesn’t this imply that HT is the means of smoothing the physical differences between men and women, and if that is the case, what is a fair means to determine if those differences have in fact been effectively mitigated in a way to make competition far?
I don’t see why that’s confusing. Gender delineation between sports is based on average differences between the sexes. Hormone therapy is the way we physically shift people into their “real” gender. Should we let a guy compete in the para-Olympics today because he’ll likely lose his leg to cancer next year?
You have a point in that if someone does not follow their hormone regimen they could have an artificial advantage - if GRS is not also a requirement. This could be problematic for the case of youth athletes, where they would be expected to be on their proper hormone regimen and not “cheating.” Unless hormone testing is done, this cheating would be difficult to detect, but if testing is done it would be quite simple to detect.
However, the IOS (and those adopting its standards) requires removal of the gonads via surgery. Failing to take estradiol while producing very, very little testosterone would result in some rather poor impacts to the body. And the reverse would be true of a transgender man who produced little to no estrogen and didn’t take their testosterone. Now a real problem could be a transgender man who took excess testosterone, but testing can very simply be done to ensure that hormone levels are within normal genetic bounds. Indeed, I think page 4 mentions that point with respect to monitoring of intersex athletes.
No system is perfect. Cisgender athletes cheat right here and now (Lance Armstrong being the most notable recent example).
Now if you are going to dismiss my article completely, I’d like you to address the factual points in it as well, not just the tone. So where are your citations dismissing my facts?
Right. I did read the article and nowhere do I see it give a pass to a case of, say, Tiger Woods merely plonking a wig on his head and putting on a shirt that buttons the wrong way tomorrow, declaring himself “Tigress” and having to be allowed to just walk into the LPGA next week no further questions allowed. Trangensder does not work that way IRL – that is a* caricatured* version, based perhaps on the discourse of gender identity politics, about how we should* talk about *gender identities.
Because I do not deny reality. A transgender man who has had no surgery to impact their hormone levels, or no chemical/hormone treatment, is likely to be competing unfairly with cisgender women. My research never asserts otherwise.
The IOC rules are a good guideline for verification, although proof of sustained hormone levels over 1-2 years would be the equivalent substitute for all practical purposes.
I haven’t read this whole thread but the answer seems simple to me.
Take a genetic test. If you have XX chromosomes you can compete as a woman. If you are XY you compete as a man.
Anything else seems absurd. I don’t care if you “feel” you are a woman trapped in a man’s body (or vice versa) as regards competing in sports. If you are genetically male you have male genetic advantages and disadvantages. You get to compete against the same group.
Right, and I feel part of the problem is that “transgender” is such a broad umbrella. When the term transsexual was more commonly used, there was much less room for confusion (although pre-ops are/were sometimes termed “transsexual”).
Because hormones mean nothing. :smack:
What if I said I was neither XX nor XY. Where do I compete? You have only two choices; pick one.
Nowhere. Sucks to be you.
That there are some very few people in this group sucks for them but I see no reason that the Olympics need to figure this out.
Why should they?
The “Olympics” (the IOC, actually) have already “figure(d) it out” with respect to both transsexuals and intersex persons. I suggest you visit their website and read up on the subject should you ever wish to learn further.
Where has that fact been substantiated given that many physical attributes are set prior to transitioning? Moreover, how do you measure when those changes are complete or sufficient for competition? For example, why would 1 year of HT diminish the performance of a male athlete to that of a woman athlete? What is the science or logic behind that?
The para Olympics are based on having a disability whereas people argue sex is based on brain chemistry (AFAICT). This is why, for example, Bruce Jenner doesn’t become a woman only when/if he decides to take hormones or change his genetalia, right? Feel free to correct me if I am off base on that.
Assuming I’m not, why is it fair to tell a trans-person they can only compete as their correct gender if they dope? In short, can you be trans without wanting to take active steps to correct your gender?
I think they are wrong but I guess in the interests of being PC they have decided:
Seems ridiculous to me but they get to make the rules for their organization so up to them in the end.
A link was posted which contains citations within it. However it is true that 1 year may or may not be enough. Two years seems to be acceptable to the IOC et al.
What empirical or statistical evidence is any of that based on? Where is the evidence that HT erases any or all of the advantages men have in competition?
Just to use another example, is grandmaster Magnus Carlsen gonna be able to compete fairly against women because he received HT?
Listen, I actually read your article, but I am not about to chase down your citations to address their applicability. You’ve been called on this a few times already in this thread, but your attitude on the issue of citing yourself by just linking to a long, rambling, largely irrelevant article is not really helping your case.
If you think you have some study that proves your point, quote it or link to it rather than making people wade through a bunch of other stuff to get to what you are vaguely referencing.
Oh; I honestly misunderstood. I do not have evidence with respect to mental sports such as chess.
It is unfortunate that many questions don’t have simple, 1-paragraph answers. If you are looking for such you won’t find it. However, I have failed to see posted in this thread such a simple answer which proves that transgender persons should not compete and have a proven, scientific advantage not impacted by hormone therapy or surgery. What I have seen are people making cackhanded insults towards the one article which has been linked to and trying to goad me.
Eve was right.
Question (honest one):
Will two years of hormone therapy “nerf” a male physically in a way that “he” (formerly “he”) is on par with human female physical prowess?
For instance, I have heard it said that the very best female tennis players can’t beat the 100th ranked male tennis player (Bobby Riggs aside).
Where is the evidence for this in any sport? For example, why should we accept that a 21-year old Shaquille O’Neal with 2 years of HT would be as equally skilled as a hypothetical 21-year-old O’Neal who was born a woman?
I have never seen any evidence that many forms of doping or surgery (largely separate issues I admit) confer a proven scientific advantage in many sports. Smoking weed gets you banned in almost every professional sports league in the US, yet it’s unlikely it improves performance. Why should the burden of proof be on the league and only be subject to imperfect impact calculations?