- Joined
- Mar 27, 2011
- Messages
- 16,939
- Reaction score
- 5,320
- Location
- Near the gargoyles
- Website
- www.alessandrakelley.com
IOC: Transgender Athletes Can Compete in the Olympics Without Surgery
- Thread starter Alessandra Kelley
- Start date
It's a good decision.
I wonder how this will go down in countries which are traditionally less, ah, let's say tolerant.
I wonder how this will go down in countries which are traditionally less, ah, let's say tolerant.
I don't think this is necessarily good news. Testosterone below 10? Isn't the average woman's around 3? Just read a very long discussion about this on another forum where the feelings were overwhelmingly negative, given that women will now be competing against people who've grown up with the strength of a man, regardless of whether they are on some drugs now. Their muscles will be different, their pelvis.
I'm just not convinced this is right.
I'm just not convinced this is right.
So, on the one hand, we have the rights and dignity of a much maligned (to put it mildly) minority group. We have an act which is an important step in the right direction to equality and understanding. An act that will hopefully inspire young transgender people.
On the other hand you have the perceived fairness of a running around competition.
I know which side I come down on.
On the other hand you have the perceived fairness of a running around competition.
I know which side I come down on.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 3,711
- Reaction score
- 1,139
- Age
- 56
It's all about how you phrase it, isn't it?
On the one hand you have women who've trained all their lives suddenly having to compete against people who are physically different and stronger/faster and who in every other sport compete separately.
On the other hand you have the perceived fairness of a running around competition.
I'm not saying it's the wrong call by any means but I think it's worthy of a discussion, and I'm not a big fan of people slapping down the prejudice card so dismissively. Obviously.
Plus, I didn't get coffee this morning and am cranky.
It's not just a running around competition though it is?
It's the Olympics. It's entirely based around physical prowess and how well people have done with what they've been given.
You're talking about the 'maligned minority' potentially (if they have lived as men past puberty) being bigger and stronger than the other women, potentially taking all the records and the medals.
I don't think there's an easy answer to it tbh, I just think it bears discussion rather than an outright 'isn't that marvellous'. Absolutely on an individual level I think people should be able to live and identify as they want. Who does it hurt?
But how will this decision impact women's athletics? Because let's face it, ftm aren't going to have (most probably) any impact on men's athletics are they?
What will the countries prone to corruption in athletics do?
It's the Olympics. It's entirely based around physical prowess and how well people have done with what they've been given.
You're talking about the 'maligned minority' potentially (if they have lived as men past puberty) being bigger and stronger than the other women, potentially taking all the records and the medals.
I don't think there's an easy answer to it tbh, I just think it bears discussion rather than an outright 'isn't that marvellous'. Absolutely on an individual level I think people should be able to live and identify as they want. Who does it hurt?
But how will this decision impact women's athletics? Because let's face it, ftm aren't going to have (most probably) any impact on men's athletics are they?
What will the countries prone to corruption in athletics do?
It's a no-win situation for trans people. We can continue to not be allowed to participate in activities everyone else is allowed to participate in, or we can be hated for cheating, because of the perception of physical superiority.
SO, you're double negating women? A trans man isn't good enough to compete because all the 'real' men will be better than them. A trans woman is too good because they're 'male' and brawn is what it's all about in competition? You know, women have been known to outperform against men.
My bad. There are also some throwing stuff competitions and some hitting things competitions. It's still really not that important on the scale of things.
Exactly, what they've been given. Luck of the draw. Sure, intense training is needed to hone what they've been given to its peak, but at the end of the day, any athlete at the Olympics has an 'unfair' advantage over us mere mortals.
And, as Diana says, it's more of a perceived superiority anyway (at least I've not seen anything to suggest it's more than that).
As I say, it's a difficult situation. It's also no-win for women, isn't it? Basically men who are happy being men are okay. I think it's okay for trans people to get inclusion. I think it's okay for women to examine how it impacts on them.
Ennnnnnnnhhhhhhh not exactly. There will always be exceptions and it depends on the sport too. By and large most people who have been born men will be able to outperform most women in most physical sporting things. Lots of generalisations there. Not purposely trying to 'double negate' anything.
I'm not saying this shouldn't happen, I just feel cautious about it. I'm still educating myself on this topic, so perhaps I will go and read some more before contributing further.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2011
- Messages
- 411
- Reaction score
- 11
I don't know if you intended it or not, but I find this to be demeaning to the people who spend the majority of their lives just to get to the Olympics. Just because it's not important to you doesn't mean its not to them.
It's not a perceived superiority. If biology won't convince you, all you have to do is to examine the average times in any given race for men and women to see there is a stark difference.
I'm wondering, would you also advocate women and men competing against each other in all sports? You know, since it all comes down to is the luck of the draw.
Writing novels is important to me, but I wouldn't expect anyone to discriminate against a bunch of other writers on my behalf.
I'm not saying it's not important to them, but when compared to transgender rights, I think a bit of sport is of negligible importance.
To be honest, I don't really care if men and women compete together. You may have noticed a slight apathy on the subject of sportsing competitions from me.
But, the point is, we aren't talking about men and women competing together. That's not the subject of this thread at all.
Well. yeah, it is. There aren't mens' muscles and women's muscles. There are just muscles. If a MtF athlete has been on T-blockers and Estrogen for a few years...their formerly "male" muscles will be "female". Height won't change. But, you do have some extremely tall genetic women. After a few years, of taking hormones (with T-blockers), an MtF is a woman for all practical physical matters. Personally, I have almost no testosterone, as a post-op trans woman, so most genetic women have far more Testosterone than I do.
Yowza, I'm surprised they actually came down on this side of the argument.
Incidentally, genetic testing has always been a practice in inequality. It's only performed on female participants (for fear that Soviet bloc nations were sneaking in male athletes as women). They had to qualify for a "certificate of femininity," or basically they needed a doctor's note saying they're girl enough to play with the girls. The practice was halted at the end of the last millennium, with the provision that the IOC could still demand a test if they suspected that a woman wasn't a woman.
This led to DNA testing, rather than a medical exam, but it ran into the complication of chimerism, with XXY or XYY individuals ringing the test's bells that something was "wrong." It's not all that uncommon for someone with this particular kind of genetic make-up to become an elite athlete.
When screening by DNA caused more of an uproar, they switched to the hormone-level tests. I doubt they'll be able to hang onto these tests for long, either.
They're sexist, as they're applied to both male and female athletes, and they're potentially humiliating. Not only because they single out athletes who may or may not be transgender, but the very idea that a woman is "too good" at her sport, so she must be a man is downright insulting to every competitor on the field, regardless of their gender.
Incidentally, genetic testing has always been a practice in inequality. It's only performed on female participants (for fear that Soviet bloc nations were sneaking in male athletes as women). They had to qualify for a "certificate of femininity," or basically they needed a doctor's note saying they're girl enough to play with the girls. The practice was halted at the end of the last millennium, with the provision that the IOC could still demand a test if they suspected that a woman wasn't a woman.
This led to DNA testing, rather than a medical exam, but it ran into the complication of chimerism, with XXY or XYY individuals ringing the test's bells that something was "wrong." It's not all that uncommon for someone with this particular kind of genetic make-up to become an elite athlete.
When screening by DNA caused more of an uproar, they switched to the hormone-level tests. I doubt they'll be able to hang onto these tests for long, either.
They're sexist, as they're applied to both male and female athletes, and they're potentially humiliating. Not only because they single out athletes who may or may not be transgender, but the very idea that a woman is "too good" at her sport, so she must be a man is downright insulting to every competitor on the field, regardless of their gender.
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2014
- Messages
- 5,313
- Reaction score
- 569
- Location
- MA
- Website
- eclecticlittledork.wordpress.com
Sure. But does that mean cis-women shouldn't discuss how it would potentially effect them does it? I don't think it does. I'm glad that Trans women will be allowed to participate. I'm also pro cis-women discussing it amongst themselves because it can lead to them acknowledging transwomen as women in their own minds, which in turn will eventually lead to things being easier for transwomen in pro and olympic level sports with enough support. It's the same thing as needed to happen with Gay and Lesbian rights or Civil Rights, a microcosmic version of things which happened on a larger scale compared to this one thing. Oppressed group sees issue and begins to organize against said issue, they accumulate allies from outside the group willing to work towards the group's goals, those allies help them spread their message and by their own stance, shame more members of the majority to changing their ways, eventually the issue becomes much less contetious than it was due to the effort of people from both inside and outside the group. It's not quite that liniear of course, but that's the basic progression.
Of course, and if their discussions are full of harmful untruths or prejudice, they should be called out for such.
As Diana points out, after a year or so of hormone replacement therapy, there is very little difference between trans and cis people in terms of musculature and physical capabilities. That a trans woman may have grown up faster and stronger doesn't change the fact that a year or so of T blockers and estrogen takes all that away.
As someone who loves running road races, one of my worries was whether I'd always have to enter as a male, or if I could race fairly as a female. I read blogs by other trans women runners, who talked about how much slower they got, how much more difficult it was to retain muscle and strength and speed, and how they often performed worse against other women now than they did against other men when they were physically male. I have no more worries now.
The major change this makes is that surgery is no longer required. Surgery is a major expensive procedure that not all trans people choose to have. What's between your legs makes absolutely no difference to competition. Hormones is what makes the difference, and trans women who've had both hormones and surgery have already been competing with cis women without issue. The difference now is they don't have to spend $20,000 on a neovagina first.
Trans women are not men, and after HRT, they do not perform like men. Those comparing the performance capabilities of trans women to men would be advised to do some research before stating their opinions.
As someone who loves running road races, one of my worries was whether I'd always have to enter as a male, or if I could race fairly as a female. I read blogs by other trans women runners, who talked about how much slower they got, how much more difficult it was to retain muscle and strength and speed, and how they often performed worse against other women now than they did against other men when they were physically male. I have no more worries now.
The major change this makes is that surgery is no longer required. Surgery is a major expensive procedure that not all trans people choose to have. What's between your legs makes absolutely no difference to competition. Hormones is what makes the difference, and trans women who've had both hormones and surgery have already been competing with cis women without issue. The difference now is they don't have to spend $20,000 on a neovagina first.
Trans women are not men, and after HRT, they do not perform like men. Those comparing the performance capabilities of trans women to men would be advised to do some research before stating their opinions.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2014
- Messages
- 5,313
- Reaction score
- 569
- Location
- MA
- Website
- eclecticlittledork.wordpress.com
I agree with you and Diana, Kuwi. My point is that just because the worry is a false one, that doesn't mean cis-women shouldn't talk about it. The most effective way to enact social change is a bottom up aproach instead of a two directional one. And part of that bottom up approach is allowing people to discover what others already know, so that they can help if they choose. Allowing trans women to compete as women is a big step, but it is far from the only one that needs to be taken to make things better for trans women in sports.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,130
- Reaction score
- 10,902
- Location
- Where faults collide
- Website
- doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
I think this new rule is a step in the right direction, and it represents a more inclusive and compassionate approach to gender. I also get that cis-woman athletes might be concerned about how any residual effects of testosterone on the musculo-skeletal system of transgender women who transitioned after puberty might play out, but I don't see how this is any different for women who haven't had reassignment surgery and women who have (a group that is already eligible to compete with cis-women, I believe).
The thing about rules is that if they don't work as intended, they can be changed or modified again. If transgender women come to dominate certain sports, then it might be good to modify the policy. But we're just speculating about what might happen at this point.
The thing about rules is that if they don't work as intended, they can be changed or modified again. If transgender women come to dominate certain sports, then it might be good to modify the policy. But we're just speculating about what might happen at this point.
I don't think either of us said they shouldn't. But I do think they should do their research first.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 3,711
- Reaction score
- 1,139
- Age
- 56
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2014
- Messages
- 5,313
- Reaction score
- 569
- Location
- MA
- Website
- eclecticlittledork.wordpress.com
Again, I agree. However, I do think the people who know it to be false can't fault the people with those views for not knowing what they do. This isn't exactly common knowledge, and a lot of trans people aren't aware of it at all until they themselves experience it after being on hormones. Not everyone is as well informed as others might be.
The only time we should fault someone with a faulty view is when that person continues to assert the false view as true after being presented with evidence to the contrary. Calling out continued hate and willful ignorance is the name of the game in this type of situation after all.
Liosse de Velishaf
Banned
I never knew any of that about being on hormones. It's definitely good info to know. Hopefully, at least people learn a little something from the discussions on this rule change. I'm not gonna say anything about the how, but I do agree it's good for people to get called on their ignorance. At least then they had a chance to learn the truth, and they can't pretend they didn't later.