Does anyone else have any concerns at all about this? I’m 100% behind transgenders in their goal to lead full lives in the sex they feel should have been theirs from birth as long as that does not impinge on the rights of others. But if it means that women born as women are going to be put at a disadvantage and begin to find it very difficult to compete with transgenders then I wonder whether perhaps we need to think very hard about female sports in which bodily strength is important.
Although I admit I could be wrong here. Do males transgendering to females retain some male characteristics which would give them an unfair advantage over women born as such?
On the surface of things, it would seem there would be an advantage in some sports, particularly weight lifting, but I’ll wait for someone who knows more about these things to chime in.
The individual in this case is still biologically male even after transitioning, and therefore does retain male testosterone body characteristics even if he’s currently taking medicine to suppress it now that he’s transitioned to female. So yeah, doesn’t look like a fair go.
Indeed. If Hubbard hadn’t been competing, the (new) first place lifter would still be 20kg ahead of second place. So unless we’re also alleging something about Sipaia, declaring transgenderism the reason for Hubbard’s win doesn’t necessarily follow.
Well, if sharing a public restroom with someone transgendered didn’t instill the proper level of fear into the populace, maybe the “sanctity” of sports will have an effect. Remember all those men’s competitions Bruce Jenner won? How is that fair?
(sarcasm alert in case it didn’t show.)
How long has it been since she transitioned? It matters, because the muscle tissue that developed when she had male levels of testosterone begin to break down; however, it takes some time before she is equivalent to a women who has always had female levels of androgens.
I’m sure there is research on this. Probably enough to make a rule that someone who has transitioned needs to wait a certain amount of time from the time she began taking full-spectrum female hormones, along with anything that might have been necessary to suppress testosterone (IANA endocrinologist, so I don’t know exactly what is prescribed for someone transitioning and pre-operative).
For Americans who didn’t do the math, 20kg is 9lbs. I don’t think that’s a lot in the world of weightlifting, and probably is a lot less than the difference between the women’s winner, and the men’s winner. In other words, I think the winner is much, much closer to the second place woman that she is to the first place man. (Albeit, they both can probably lift a lot more than a typical man.) If the first place woman had lifted in the top men’s range, that would be more telling.
That said, she is a lot taller than the other women. I’m not sure if that confers an advantage or not.
Ultimately you could go deeper and say that even within strict gender/sex categories part of success is inevitably attributable to the genetic lottery. The only way for sports to truly be fair is to have people download into identical clones before they start training. Even then, maybe they have some kind of mental unfair class advantage.
Maybe it is time to start championing cooperative rather than competitive sports…
True, but there is much debate about whether or not the IOC rules are appropriate. Testosterone levels have to be lower than 10 nanomoles per liter of blood for at least 12 months for female athletes to compete. However, while 10 is on the low end for a typical male, a typical female is under 3. Of course, not everyone is typical. That makes it difficult to set regulations.
Laurel Hubbard competed in the women’s over 90kg (body weight) division. Her weight is listed as 131kg, making her the heaviest competitor in that division. There were a couple of men of similar size competing that day, and they both lifted more total weight than Hubbard:
LAUITITI LUI (131kg) - 371kg total
PHILIP WOOD (130kg) - 323kg
Men weighing less than Hubbard also had higher overall totals:
Malki’s total weight score was the lowest of all in his category, and he still would have beat Hubbard in direct competition.
Men who had total weight lifts similar to Hubbard are all *considerably *lighter than her:
CAMERON URGERT (85kg) - 268kg total
JOEL GREGSON (83kg) - 266kg
JASON JENKINS (84kg) - 245kg
TOBY FERRUCCI (84kg) - 242kg
Hubbard’s overall performance is more in line with other female competitors in her weight division than it is with male competitors of similar size. Most of the men would have beaten her handily. She was the heaviest woman competing. It seems to me that any competitive advantage is due to her size rather than to lingering effects of testosterone.
Correct, and I would acknowledge that Laurel Hubbard competed, and prevailed, within the rules. She did everything that could be expected of her and I don’t think she acted unethically. But that doesn’t mean the rules are without controversy.
Well, the way I see it, MtF athletes cannot win. Because if they do win, others will cite their unfair advantage, and there may in fact be an advantage. And if they don’t win, no comment.
But if transgender women begin consistently winning athletic contests I think that confirms that there is an advantage. I have no idea if it’s important, because the other competitors who are at or near the top also have genetic advantages, to start out with.
This is likely to become a major battleground for female sports. There is evidence that steroid use can conferperformance benefits for decades after an athlete stops taking them. Is a MtF athlete likely to have those same benefits as well? Is their body structure likely to have been beneficially affected by those years of testosterone? Will the switch to female hormones nullify all those benefits?
There’s no suggestion that this athlete broke any rules but I’m sure this will raise its head many times in years to come.