But the prohibition is not to prevent “cheating” but rather to ensure fairness. It wouldn’t be cheating per se for a man in a wheelchair to play in the NBA, but it would not be allowed.
But the HT and other treatment a transgender person undergoes to make a transition is not a normal human variation. Drugs used to treat a underlying conditions DO often make people ineligible to play sports. There are countless examples of this from athletes being suspended for things like Adderall and weed.
Additionally, your point misses the issue raised by the OP. Is a man who identifies at a woman only considered trans when they begin the process of transitioning through the use of drugs? Because if that is not the case, why can’t a man who self-identifies as a woman compete in female events? If it is, how many drugs must they take, and in what amounts and durations?
Really, this seems like something that should be done on a case-by-case basis. I don’t see any blanket rules applying, except maybe that if a person has played a sport professionally or in college as one sex, it seems a little unfair if they then get to play professionally as the opposite sex.
But there have been instances where an 8-year-old trans girl was kicked off her soccer team because, having been born a male, she was somehow a threat who might hurt the other girls. On the whole I feel 8 is a little young to make the decision, but I also think it is kind of stupid to have single-sex teams and be that strict at age 8. Let her play. And if someone is playing as a girl all the way up, then she gets to compete as a woman when she’s grown.
If you’re talking club tennis ladder or something, who cares? There you play who you want to play.
The thing is, the only people who would be affected by allowing transgender people to compete is…women. They are the ones who would be adversely affected. Not all of them, certainly, but definitely any of them who got beat by a transgendered woman. Soo, since it’s just women who would be affected, who even cares?
Yeah, it’s like a group of transsexual activists got together and tried to come up with the most awful term to describe everyone else:
Granted this didn’t happen. But it sure seems like it did, because when one group coins an apparently derogatory term for another group, there’s probably animosity between them.
But then they changed back again, and made it clear it was solely for the purpose of competing. It’s patently fraudulent, like a politician cheating on a residency requirement or someone claiming to have converted to Catholicism to get a job with the church, and then converting back to something else again.
bengangmo: I can see the use of some formulation to determine the sex at birth vs. the sex now. Cisgender is one. Using “nee” is another, as similarly used for someone’s name before they changed it in marriage. “Formerly” is unwieldy.
That’s actually the point though - if I read it properly (never a given thing) “cisgender” basically means “sex at birth / sex you look like / sex now” are all the same thing
In other words - it’s just taken the word “gender” - which works relatively well, and added “cis” in front…
Ah! I see your point. Yeah, if someone was born female and currently self identifies as female, saying they’re “cisfemale” doesn’t tell us a lot. I guess it only has any value as a negative: a cisfemale is not a transfemale.
Is it offensive if I were to say a transvestite is a female?
Then add the extra information that she’s a transexual, should that explanation be required for anything?
I’m kinda seeing a parallel here to the literary world -
Where you have fiction and non-fiction,
Then you have “historical fiction” and “dramatisation” - male and female work well for most people, for those that it doesn’t couldn’t we use another descriptor?
In other words - I don’t get why we have to rename Female to Cis-Female - couldn’t it be “reserved” for some variation that falls between female and transexual?
It tells you something useful in a discussion about transgenderism, without having to resort to insulting the trans folks by deliberately separating them from the gender they identify with.
Saying “is it fair for a transwoman to compete against a ciswoman?” puts both people on equal footing, and you know exactly the scenario being described.
Saying “Is it fair for a transwoman to compete against a woman?” seems to be fairly insulting to a person who self identifies as a woman, because she doesn’t get to be included in the group “women”.
I don’t think the terms have much use outside of transgender discussions, because the point is to just be women and men.
It’s incorrect. Offensive…I think it depends upon the individual.
Sort of a factual nitpick, but a transvestite is not a transsexual.
I think context is key. I never use the term “cisgender” in any context except when talking about transgender persons. Contextually, it’s a short hand for saying “non-transgender.” I think using “cisgender” outside of the immediate context of trangenderism is unnecessary, and could lead to hurt feelings. Does that make it more acceptable?
How about anyone can compete in the men’s competitions, but only ciswomen can compete in women’s competitions? Maybe just call the men’s competitions unrestricted or something. Separate classes are usually to protect those classes from being dominated by younger men (this all seems so sexist to me, but thinking it through, I guess that’s right). So, you have youth competitions, masters competitions, women’s competitions, disabled competitions, and so on.
You even agreed (I think) that some sports are not appropriate for transwomen – basketball, I think you mentioned, even after treatment.
Regarding testosterone treatment, that would clearly be disallowed for cismen. It seems odd that transmen would be allowed that kind of hormone treatment and be allowed to compete with cismen. Is that really allowed?
Anyway, there are sports where men and women compete against each other – equestrian events, auto racing, darts(?), poker all come quickly to mind. There are probably others. Those would be open to all trans people, of course.
I understand what you’re trying to accomplish, but I feel from past discussions many female athletes would say it smacks of paternalism.
Not quite - I agreed there is more of a problem and possibly an unfair advantage. Whether or not it’s appropriate depends on future precedent, I think.
Of course it is - they are allowed to have testosterone levels in-line with normal human males. Testosterone is not like a magical super potion - in proper doses it does nothing more than satisfy your body’s male development and maintenance. For that point, I believe that cisgender male athletes who suffer from testosterone deficiency are allowed the same.
Transpeople can already compete in most sports under IOC and other regulations. I hate to say this again, but what problem are we trying to solve here? And where is the evidence that since 2002 any transgender athlete has knocked a cisgender female athlete out of a top position?
I agree that it smacks of paternalism, but I don’t know how else to categorize it. I have two daughters and a son and they have participated in gender-segregated sports, and yet it never really occurred to me that one way to describe this segregation is to protect women competitors from men. I never thought about it that way until this thread, really, even though girls can participate in baseball in my town, but boys cannot participate in softball. It just seemed natural to have that separation. This thread is making me think this through more.
I was not aware of this at all. I’ve known only one or two trans people in my life (that I’m aware of), and this just never came up.
Even you, though, would argue that the person has to be on his/her way to the other gender in order to compete. The OP never really specified that. I’m learning more about trans issues from the SDMB (thanks, mostly, to you :)), and one thing I thought I understood was that someone should be treated how they want to be. That is, even if they look like a cisman and have the regular genitalia, they may feel like a woman inside and should be allowed to be treated as a woman, even pre-surgery and pre-medication.
Can we all agree that a man who feels like a woman, but who has done nothing to transition yet, should not be allowed to compete with women? For example, Bruce Jenner in his prime already was a woman inside, but he should not have been allowed to compete in the women’s decathlon, right?
I think that’s one of the things that the OP is trying to solve.
I think that’s your mistake. “Cisgender” means “gender identity has always matched the gender assigned at birth.” A trans person who’s had hormones and surgery and every other procedure to correct their gender would still not identify as cisgendered.