Should a man who self-identifies as a woman be allowed to compete in Female Olympic categories?

Great Debates
141

No it doesn’t. Paternalism is not inclusive of all rules of eligibility; particularly since the rules in this case are largely not for the benefit of those bound by said rules.

Really? Why else did you think they do this? And as you noted, girls/women can often compete in boy’s/men’s sports, but the opposite is usually not true.

It largely is natural (and cultural). There are almost no sports or competitions at the elite level where women could compete with men. Not chess, not basketball, not running nor fighting. The disparities in some places are so great that professional women could be beaten by teenage boys. The boys HS 100m record is 10.0s, and the Women’s record is 10.46s. The USWNT for soccer gets beat by teenage boys all the time. The fact is that an unsegregated league would be almost 1005 men in nearly every sport.

Why not? That is part of the issue here. You cannot say a man who intellectually feels he has a female brain and soul is a man until he starts taking hormones and steps to live as a woman. What sense does that make?

By acknowledging that the current Bruce Jenner (for example) would not be able to compete with women, you are tacitly admitting that his maleness gives him a unfair advantage against women regardless of his actual skill or expertise. Additionally, when you say a future Bruce Jenner who has had years of HT can compete with women, you are outlining a process by which a man can “weaken” himself and mitigate those advantages he formally had.

Given the above, the issue is less of gender identity, which is not based on HT (AFAICT), but rather that sufficient doping can completely mitigate any advantage conferred based on one being born male. So why bother figuring out if some person who wants to compete with the opposite gender really wants to transition so long as they take steps to mitigate the advantage they had due to their being the opposite gender.

142

Well, I agree at least.

143

What could possibly be wrong with allowing the best athletes to compete? I would opine that allowing them to compete cannot harm and can only help make the Olympics a truer measure of the greatest talent, which is as it should be.

Nor is there anything ennobling about the economic sacrifice of amateurism- it is pathetic to be subjected to such hardship, and unfair to be deprived of compensation for (very) marketable talent.

144

Then share the relevant ones in this venue.

Again, this forum is for discussing stuff here. Maybe I should just replace all my posts with links to a personal blog of mine going forward?

I’ve made an argument to which you’ve had no response, and you’ve made no argument here at all.

I read cites associated with salient points made here. I have some cites too, Wikipedia.org, that page has billions of citations, have at them.

Do you think I made up the current Olympic weightlifting records? If you do just check that Wikipedia cite I just shared.

Cool.

145

Women should have a space where they can compete against other women. Y-chromosomes need not apply.

146

That makes it both clearer, but begs more questions -

Essentially - why is it even needed then?
Why do we need to differentiate cisgender from transexual this way?

Isn’t it just making life more difficult without adding anything to the discussion?

147

I may still be confused, but it seems to be a “not.” A negative category. A ciswoman is a woman who is not a transwoman. We have the trans category, and this is just a way of saying “Not in that category.” The point is that it’s clumsy to say, “She’s a woman who was not born male.” Most women are…but in this new world, there are some who aren’t.

It serves some use, and that’s why it was coined in the first place.

148

Ok, for a more radical viewpoint, it shouldn’t be that people with cartain body characteristics be allowed into male or female competitions, it that there shouldn’t BE male and female categories of competitions. One set of competitions per sport, open to all.

I’m trying to imagine sports where the sex of the participants would make for irreconcilable differences. and all I can come up with are things related to childbirth, and long-distance pissing contests. Call me when somebody proposes these things as Olympic sports.

149

Man, I’m going to clean up in next year’s Pop Warner. Those MITES aren’t going feel so MITEY after I get through with 'em.

On a more serious note, what is the purpose of sport and competition in the first place? Because, and I’m not trying to be mean here, it actually doesn’t matter in the slightest who can run 100m the fastest, serve a tennis ball the best, or put a ball through a hoop better than anyone else. It is truly, deeply, totally irrelevant to any meaningful human endeavor.

Sport exists for two reasons. Entertainment is one, people like watching sport. Sports are more interesting to watch when the competition is leveled, even if some levels are lesser (in pure athletics) than others. Open competition is great, but it is not the only type of competition that is entertaining to watch.

The other reason for sport is to engage the competitors. Give people a reason to exercise, and compete, to strive for greatness, better themselves. If you can’t restrict competition to specific types of competitors, for anyone not at the top of the game, the competition itself is no longer engaging. The top of the game, for almost every sport in existence, is dominated (by virtue of genetics) by adult men. Opening up leagues to “all” really just turns them into Adult Men’s leagues, leaving the others by the wayside.

150

In fact, it turns them into Young Adult Men’s leagues, as damn few men over 40 will have a realistic chance of outperforming their younger male competitors in most sports.

151

This is a horrendously naive opinion. As others have already said, a gender neutral league looks exactly the same as men’s league in 99.9% of cases. All you would do is ensure that almost all women never play professional sports.

Further, you ignore the fact that most professional men’s leagues don’t explicitly prohibit women from playing. There is no reason beyond lack of skill that a women couldn’t play professional baseball or basketball or most other sports.

152

Is it more feminist to argue that men and women should compete separately, or to argue that men and women should *not *compete separately?

153

IIRC, it’s feminist to argue that women who want to compete separately should be allowed to, and women who want to compete against men should be allowed to.

154

Exactly. We don’t get much pleasure out of blow-outs and stampedes. We go to a lot of effort to balance the competition. The NFL draft system is an example. High school leagues are also carefully balanced.

When a sport shows signs of being unbalanced, we alter it. The distance from the pitcher’s mound to home plate has been changed once or twice. (Twice; I just looked it up.)

This is why there are women’s athletics in the first place. Something that undermines this would end up being changed.

155

In what sport are transsexual athletes blowing out the competition? I’ve only found a single case where there appeared to be a bias leading to a transsexual athlete dominating a specific, small subgroup of woman’s sports (senior veteran’s epee) in a way which seems unusual.

We can talk in conceptual terms about this, but what has been the real, quantifiable impact thus far?

156

Did you miss this?

Perfect explanation. And as Una said, it’s only a mostly helpful term during discussions of trans issues. Outside of that, is it really that much of a problem with it being too widely used?

157

I suspect I’m not really understanding your questions, here, because the answers seem really obviously self-evident. The terms are needed when you want to distinguish between one group of women (those who were born with a disconnect between their physical gender and their mental gender) and a different group of women (those who were NOT born with a disconnect between their physical gender and their mental gender). And “cisgender” is a lot easier than typing out “women who were not born with a disconnect between their physical gender and their mental gender.”

I’m not seeing how the two terms make anything “more difficult” for anyone. On the contrary, once I learned the term “cisgender,” it became vastly easier to write about trans issues with tying myself in knots avoiding loaded language like “normal” or “natural” or (god forbid) “real” women. What about it makes you think it’s making things more difficult?

158

None, yet. But there is some wisdom in looking ahead and trying to assess future harm, rather than simply waiting for it to happen and only addressing it then.

Some would call it “looking for trouble,” but others would call it “due diligence.”

159

So, in the first 70 years cisgender women have dodged the bullet, but sometime in the next 70, trouble could be coming? Therefore, I should be banned from competing against others of my gender.

160

Anybody who can’t deal with “cis” as the opposite of “trans” never took high school chemistry. Or biology. :dubious:

Statements similar to this have cropped up a couple of times in this thread, and I want to make sure that people actually understand what this means. Men’s greater (average) athletic capability is due to different patterns of hormone secretion, not to differences in genes for muscle development or anything like that.

The differences between the female-format and male-format body plans is instructed by hormones produced by the gonads, first during specific phases of embryonic development (when they instruct the formation of the urogenital system and some other areas), and again after puberty. The body’s cells respond to these hormones by changing their gene expression (which genes are active and when), which leads to the various downstream developmental differences.

Interestingly, both XX and XY cells are capable of responding appropriately to either set of signals, which can lead to some very interesting abnormalities. If the gonad, for some reason, ends up with a different sex-chromosome complement than the rest of the body, or if the hormone signals that the embryo is exposed to, or its ability to respond to those signals, are altered, this can override the XX or XY status of the body’s cells and result in the development of the opposite-sex body plan (as in androgen insensitivity syndrome, mentioned upthread).

The genetic difference necessary to spark off these different hormonal programs, on the other hand, is miniscule: one gene. The Y chromosome is, to put it bluntly, a piddly little bit of nothing that has around 50 genes on it, about half of which are shared with the X (which, by contrast, is one of the larger chromosomes in humans and carries ~850 genes); men have maybe 20 genes that women don’t (out of around 20,000), and most of them are mainly involved in sperm formation.

The only Y-chromosome gene that is necessary to form an anatomically normal male is the SRY gene (although without the other Y-specific genes the resulting man will be sterile). If you take two genetically identical single-cell XX embryos and artificially add the SRY gene to one, at the end of development you will end up with one female and one (sterile) male, who despite having identical genetic material (except for that one added gene) will show typical sex-specific differences in hip width, muscle mass, etc.

So there is no “genetic” component to greater male athletic performance aside from the SRY gene itself. Men and women have a ~99.9% identical gene complement (although men have to deal with being haploid for about 5% of them), and there are no significant differences in overall allelic variation. Furthermore, both sexes will at some point use pretty much every gene; the differences are in how and when each gene is active, not in which genes or alleles each sex possesses.

Since most of the size / strength / shape differences that are relevant to this discussion are a result of pubertal hormone exposure, a person who transitions in childhood and receives hormone replacement treatment such that they are never exposed to the pubertal hormonal program of their biological sex could end up well within the normal range of the sex corresponding to their gender identity* on pretty much every metric. Even if you believe that trans women who transition in adulthood or do not undergo hormone replacement have an unfair athletic advantage, there’s no comparable reason to ban trans girls who have undergone hormone replacement throughout puberty. Currently very few trans children have the opportunity to receive such treatment, but that will probably change over time.

  • Is there any compact term for “the biological sex corresponding to a person’s gender identity”? Because that’s a really clunky phrase…