Support NeoGAF

[Bucca]

Also, you know what is awesome ?

Density means something is heavier based on the same space that it fits.

So basicaly weight class already takes care of bone density

I hope this is a joke post.

 

[witchedwiz]

Do you want a discussion or do you want an echo chamber?

I'd say the second..
every post in gaf regarding transgender rights in sports ends up this way:
1) are you pro integration? "cool man, you're a bro!!!"
2) are you against integration? "you're a dinosaur"
3) are you trying to mediate stating that at the moment a direct integration is not possible? "you're a dinosaur"

and these reply by pashmilla "hurr durr blabla"..
@pashmilla: mate, this is not about slanting each other or riduculing people..
this is about having a constructive discussion..
You can try to discuss with someone without acting like an internet manchild, you know?

 

[mieumieu]

I am sorry for the arrogance I showed to people in this thread and I have much to learn. The differences between transwomen and ciswomen athletes are probably not significant enough to show in competition results.

I just dont think an attitude of 'let them win' is right, and felt triggered by it. I know I sounded like some of those bathroom bill defenders but for sports there are sheer amounts of monetary and political interests involved that if a loophole is there, it is far more likely to be abused. The current situation may just go to show that there is no such loophole.

I have to state that I know trans people are at stake in this particular topic so I feel much more conflicted personally too. And I know every other possible loopholes are probably tried and used by athletes ever so thats kind of a moot point.

 

[Ketkat]

Sure, but then a pre-XX competing against post-XX seems unfair based on this graph.

Yes. I agree. Transmen should be competiting against men. Just as transwomen should be competiting against women.

Unless you think that post-XX means transwoman? Because it doesn't.

 

[ScatheZombie]

But it literally doesn't still remain. Transwomen are literally within range of pre-HRT transmen muscle mass. I get that you're saying that their could be someone super strong who is an outlier, but why does that even matter? The average transwoman is only as strong as the average woman.

Because we're not talking about averages. I said as much in my post. I'm not pedantic enough to argue that the the bottom 5% of M-F is still above the average F, even though it is. The average M-F is still going to be stronger than the average F. But there's a much more significant overlap than between M and F, so I'll give you that one.

However, the top 5% of M-F is clearly above the top 5% of F. And we're discussing the impact of transitioning among Olympic-level athletes, all of which are within that percentile.

I don't know the solution, nor do I care to comment on one, but they clearly have a measurable advantage at that level of competition as supported by your own citation.

To be fair, they also have a measurable disadvantage against M competitors. So there's that.

 

[King Gilga]

This is a complicated issue and I don't really think I'm informed enough to really say if this is fair or not.

There should be some studies done or something.

 

[Ketkat]

The average M-F is still going to be stronger than the average F.

Why? I gave you a scientific study that shows the average transwoman has the same amount of muscle mass as ciswomen. Why are they stronger?

This is a complicated issue and I don't really think I'm informed enough to really say if this is fair or not.

There should be some studies done or something.

Last page, dude

 

[besada]

A transwoman with those genetic advantages and the advantage of a formerly male skeletal structure, bone density and increased muscle mass will never be attainable by a ciswoman though, no matter if she hits the genetic lottery or not.

That's not actually necessarily true, though. And it doesn't address the point that the system is already unfair, based on genetic makeup. You have to argue why this particular genetic difference is a bigger factor, and there's very little evidence that it is, unlike, say hyperandrogenism, which is much more prevalent in Olympic women competitors than it is in the general population, and which literally increases female testosterone naturally.

It's why the Olympics tests for testosterone levels and has a set of acceptable testosterone levels, because women's sports is already filled with competitors that have abnormally high testosterone levels.

 

[Platy]

I hope this is a joke post.

As much as people going "but bone density" -> "should compete with men"

That's not actually necessarily true, though. And it doesn't address the point that the system is already unfair, based on genetic makeup. You have to argue why this particular genetic difference is a bigger factor, and there's very little evidence that it is, unlike, say hyperandrogenism, which is much more prevalent in Olympic women competitors than it is in the general population, and which literally increases female testosterone naturally.

It's why the Olympics tests for testosterone levels and has a set of acceptable testosterone levels, because women's sports is already filled with competitors that have abnormally high testosterone levels.

Not only have, but also had during puberty, which is where those "genetic advantages" appear

 

[ScatheZombie]

Why? I gave you a scientific study that shows the average transwoman has the same amount of muscle mass as ciswomen. Why are they stronger?

Because that's what the graph says.

A rough estimation based on the image shows that the bottom 40% of F is below the zero point for M-F.

The mid-point for M-F is literally about the 70% for F. That means an average M-F is as strong as the top 30% of F. They are not equal.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Why? I gave you a scientific study that shows the average transwoman has the same amount of muscle mass as ciswomen. Why are they stronger?

It doesn't though. See the posts by me (and others) disputing your interpretation of what is shown in the study

 

[bionic77]

Things like this will take time to figure out.

They will be figured out but there will be a little chaos and uncertainty at the start.

My only concern is with MMA and boxing. In a sport like this where the other competitors cannot be harmed I say let all contestants compete until someone figures out a solution that makes sense (maybe separate events, maybe better testing, etc).

 

[Ethelwulf]

Yes. I agree. Transmen should be competiting against men. Just as transwomen should be competiting against women.

Unless you think that post-XX means transwoman? Because it doesn't.

Then I'm totally fine with this as long as this is always the case. If an athlete has been a trans woman for 1 month then this is not fair, but if this study (and many more to follow) show that after a long period of time muscle mass is the same then I'm fine. Do we agree?

 

[Platy]

It doesn't though. See the posts by me (and others) disputing your interpretation of what is shown in the study

How cute people thinking that average has anything to do with sports

 

[Sarcastic Poster]

Are you sure? I just gave you literal proof that muscle mass is possible. Are you saying that all ciswomen have the same skeletal structures and bone density? Are you sure of that?

I'm not saying there's not differences, I'm saying that the elite athletic advantages that top-level male athletes possess cannot be replicated in female genetics, no matter how lucky they are.

Transitioning and retaining even a small amount of those unattainable attributes is therefore unfair to the other women athletes.

It's a horrible situation with no perfect answers of course and I feel for the trans athletes who just want to compete.

 

[besada]

If people are truly upset about genetic advantages conferring competitive ones, I'm not sure why people aren't more upset of this:

Mäntyranta carries a rare genetic mutation. His DNA has an anomaly that causes his bone marrow to overproduce red blood cells. That accounts for the color of his skin, and also for his extraordinary career as a competitive cross-country skier. In cross-country skiing, athletes propel themselves over distances of ten and twenty miles—a physical challenge that places intense demands on the ability of their red blood cells to deliver oxygen to their muscles. Mäntyranta, by virtue of his unique physiology, had something like sixty-five per cent more red blood cells than the normal adult male. In the 1960, 1964, and 1968 Winter Olympic Games, he won a total of seven medals—three golds, two silvers, and two bronzes—and in the same period he also won two world-championship victories in the thirty-kilometre race. In the 1964 Olympics, he beat his closest competitor in the fifteen-kilometre race by forty seconds, a margin of victory, Epstein says, ”never equaled in that event at the Olympics before or since."

or this:

Epstein tells the story of Donald Thomas, who on the seventh high jump of his life cleared 7' 3.25″—practically a world-class height. The next year, after a grand total of eight months of training, Thomas won the world championships. How did he do it? He was blessed, among other things, with unusually long legs and a strikingly long Achilles tendon—ten and a quarter inches in length—which acted as a kind of spring, catapulting him high into the air when he planted his foot for a jump. (Kangaroos have long tendons as well, Epstein tells us, which is what gives them their special hop.)

If you want to assert that the genetic differences involved here make sports unfair, it seems to me you need to show any fairness in the first place. It's a system that now has begun genetic testing of children to identify high-performers. The industry knows that the people performing are basically all genetic outliers, and it's leaning into that. The issue with trans competitors is one of many issues of genetic unfairness in competitive sports. And until we can acknowledge these realities, I don't think we're having an honest conversation on the issue.

Edit: The quotes are pulled from this interesting article about doping: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/09/09/man-and-superman There are plenty of other examples.

 

[Ketkat]

Because that's what the graph says.

A rough estimation based on the image shows that the bottom 40% of F is below the zero point for M-F.

The mid-point for M-F is literally about the 70% for F. That means an average M-F is as strong as the top 30% of F. They are not equal.

They're not stronger than women though. They are literally within the ranges for average ciswomen. On top of that, this is about the Olympics/competitive sports. You should be looking at the upper ends of this.

It doesn't though. See the posts by me (and others) disputing your interpretation of what is shown in the study

Ah yes, your great idea. "There's a slight difference between transwomen and ciswomen, so they can't compete. But there's a slight difference between transmen and cismen so they should compete!"

Then I'm totally fine with this as long as this is always the case. If an athlete has been a trans woman for 1 month then this is not fair, but if this study (and many more to follow) show that after a long period of time muscle mass is the same then I'm fine. Do we agree?

That's why you're required to have been transitioning for so long in these competitive programs.

 

[Audioboxer]

Things like this will take time to figure out.

They will be figured out but there will be a little chaos and uncertainty at the start.

My only concern is with MMA and boxing. In a sport like this where the other competitors cannot be harmed I say let all contestants compete until someone figures out a solution that makes sense (maybe separate events, maybe better testing, etc).

Separate events would be daft. In time drugs and the field of medicine and science will probably improve further, and it likely be the case many will transition at earlier ages as education and science gets better.

Right now the best solution is without a doubt let her compete with women, and as above I don't think that should ever change (separate events really aren't the way to go). The only thing I thought about was the weight bracket, meaning if it can be tested beyond doubt her body still has benefits from developing as male, she might need to be bumped up a weight rank as a female. However, the over-90kg division might be the top band, right? If it is the highest band/category and she is lifting 20kg more than the next best, that in part plays into why debates come about here. Coupled with transitioning at a late age.

As you've also pointed out I think the even more contentious area of debate is in things like UFC/MMA where it is a contact sport. As above considering the tiny % of transgender people, let alone transgender atheletes, I think as time goes on science, medicine and education will naturally solve a lot of these debates.

 

[Platy]

I'm not saying there's not differences, I'm saying that the elite athletic advantages that top-level male athletes possess cannot be replicated in female genetics, no matter how lucky they are.

Transitioning and retaining even a small amount of those unattainable attributes is therefore unfair to the other women athletes.

It's a horrible situation with no perfect answers of course and I feel for the trans athletes who just want to compete.

I'm not saying there's not differences, I'm saying that the elite athletic advantages that top-level Phelps athletes possess cannot be replicated in average male genetics, no matter how lucky they are.

Being born Phelps and retaining even a small amount of those unattainable attributes is therefore unfair to the other men athletes.

It's a horrible situation with no perfect answers of course and I feel for the Phelps athletes who just want to compete

 

[ScatheZombie]

How cute people thinking that average has anything to do with sports

I've repeatedly pointed this fallacy out.

Regardless, both the average AND the top percentile give the advantage to M-F over F.

So, technically people arguing both the top percentile perspective and average perspective are correct.

According to the posted research, the top percentile of M-F is above the top percentile of F and the average point for M-F is above the average point for F. There's a measurable advantage for both top percentile athletes and average people.

What's disputable is whether or not those differences warrant segregation; not whether or not those differences exist.

They're not stronger than women though. They are literally within the ranges for average ciswomen. On top of that, this is about the Olympics/competitive sports. You should be looking at the upper ends of this.

That's not how 'within the ranges' works. The graph clearly indicates everything I've posted above.

Also, I was talking about top 5 percentiles in both of my original posts. You brought up averages when I mentioned I wasn't going to talk about them.

 

[Ethelwulf]

That's why you're required to have been transitioning for so long in these competitive programs.

Cool. Time will tell then.

 

[Platy]

If people are truly upset about genetic advantages conferring competitive ones, I'm not sure why people aren't more upset of this:


or this:


If you want to assert that the genetic differences involved here make sports unfair, it seems to me you need to show any fairness in the first place. It's a system that now has begun genetic testing of children to identify high-performers. The industry knows that the people performing are basically all genetic outliers, and it's leaning into that. The issue with trans competitors is one of many issues of genetic unfairness in competitive sports. And until we can acknowledge these realities, I don't think we're having an honest conversation on the issue.

Edit: The quotes are pulled from this interesting article about doping: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/09/09/man-and-superman There are plenty of other examples.

 

[Ethelwulf]

If people are truly upset about genetic advantages conferring competitive ones, I'm not sure why people aren't more upset of this:


or this:


If you want to assert that the genetic differences involved here make sports unfair, it seems to me you need to show any fairness in the first place. It's a system that now has begun genetic testing of children to identify high-performers. The industry knows that the people performing are basically all genetic outliers, and it's leaning into that. The issue with trans competitors is one of many issues of genetic unfairness in competitive sports. And until we can acknowledge these realities, I don't think we're having an honest conversation on the issue.

Edit: The quotes are pulled from this interesting article about doping: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/09/09/man-and-superman There are plenty of other examples.

Fair point but, it is not the same. I think. Male outliers will on average be stronger than female outliers, no? So gender does matter.

 

[Ketkat]

I've repeatedly pointed this fallacy out.

Regardless, both the average AND the top percentile give the advantage to M-F over F.

So, technically people arguing both the top percentile perspective and average perspective are correct.

According to the posted research, the top percentile of M-F is above the top percentile of F and the average point for M-F is above the average point for F. There's a measurable advantage for both top percentile athletes and average people.

What's disputable is whether or not those differences warrant segregation; not whether or not those differences exist.

You're making a very big deal about what amounts to 1 - 2 cm^2 of muscle in difference for the top percentile.

 

[Platy]

Fair point but, it is not the same. I think. Male outliers will on average be stronger than female outliers, no? So gender does matter.

And ?

A person with more red blood cells AND bigger aquiles tendon will also be stronger than a person with just red blood cells.

But if the person was born with both, they DESERVE to get all the medals because HOLY SHIT they are lucky

 

[hydrophilic attack]

How cute people thinking that average has anything to do with sports

Sure.

But you realize that this argument could be used to dismiss the whole study, right, since subjects were not exclusively athletes? Just having one semi-athlete among the F group and none in the M-F could produce the results they got, and interpreting the results based on such an outlier is worthless

Ah yes, your great idea. "There's a slight difference between transwomen and ciswomen, so they can't compete. But there's a slight difference between transmen and cismen so they should compete!"

Do you even science/statistics

A statistically significant difference is not the same as a non-statistically significant difference.

 

[Sarcastic Poster]

If people are truly upset about genetic advantages conferring competitive ones, I'm not sure why people aren't more upset of this:


or this:


If you want to assert that the genetic differences involved here make sports unfair, it seems to me you need to show any fairness in the first place. It's a system that now has begun genetic testing of children to identify high-performers. The industry knows that the people performing are basically all genetic outliers, and it's leaning into that. The issue with trans competitors is one of many issues of genetic unfairness in competitive sports. And until we can acknowledge these realities, I don't think we're having an honest conversation on the issue.

Of course it's a field of outliers, as everything ever is at the top level. I just believe that a good male athlete transitioning past the age of bone development will not have a distinct advantage over pretty much every woman ever. A top 250-500 (probably top 2500 tbh) male athlete in any sport transitioning and going through HRT is likely to obliterate the record books, and will never be beaten by a cis woman.

A benchwarmer for the worst professional football side in the world would walk into the US women's football team.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Then I'm totally fine with this as long as this is always the case. If an athlete has been a trans woman for 1 month then this is not fair, but if this study (and many more to follow) show that after a long period of time muscle mass is the same then I'm fine. Do we agree?

IOC has specific rules of 2+ years of HRT and a lot of other things in place before a trans woman can compete

 

[witchedwiz]

That's not actually necessarily true, though. And it doesn't address the point that the system is already unfair, based on genetic makeup. You have to argue why this particular genetic difference is a bigger factor, and there's very little evidence that it is, unlike, say hyperandrogenism, which is much more prevalent in Olympic women competitors than it is in the general population, and which literally increases female testosterone naturally.

It's why the Olympics tests for testosterone levels and has a set of acceptable testosterone levels, because women's sports is already filled with competitors that have abnormally high testosterone levels.

yeah, besada, but athletes with high testosterone are not banned per-se, unless that can be linked to the usage of external medication//prescription....
if you know for a fact that I'm wrong, I'll accept it, but I'm under the impression that if they can prove that the higher level of testosterone is due to the athelete metabolism (the androgenism and hyperandrogenism are usually the main offender) they are not prevented from competing...

 

[Ketkat]

Sure.

But you realize that this argument could be used to dismiss the whole study, right, since subjects were not exclusively athletes. Just having one semi-athlete among the F group and none in the M-F could produce the results they got, and the study would be worthless.

Do you even science?

A statistically significant difference is not the same as a non-statistically different difference.

Maybe you should read the study.

 

[APF]

This is the part where things get weird for me. What we're talking about is punishing people for having a genetic advantage. But there are genetic advantages in nearly every sport, whether it's the gene combo that allows them to utilize more of the oxygen they take in, or the gene combo that codes for more fast-twitch muscle, or the gene combo that produced Michael Phelps's abnormally flexible shoulders. There are hundreds of genetic variations, maybe thousands, that give individual competitors an advantage.

Are we going to start checking for all of those? Does each one get its own division? Competitors with ACE I/D competing in a different category from those without?

I think people have some weird illusion that Olympic athletes are there solely because of dedication and practice, rather than usually being a mixture of that and a collection of beneficial genetic advantages.

Weightlifters in particular don't all share the same proportions, it's pretty dependent on the weight class AFAIK*. So even here if eg long limb lengths led to a benefit at [x]kg class, it's not necessarily the case that this will lead to a benefit at say 15-20kg lighter. Or it might be the opposite of course, it's possible that being lanky and light is the right proportions, while being stubby and heavy are also the right proportions (I haven't really looked into it), but even there it's all about luck of the draw and not really anything to do about a specific advantage MtF folks have. "Bone density" is also probably more of an issue with super-heavyweights where you're dealing with absolutely massive overhead weights, vs just absurdly big weights, so it's something that again speaks more to luck than anything else. Sure it can't hurt (I don't think), but neither could the recovery ability of women athletes, who generally can pack more training in less time and also feel better the next day (IME).

It's a rich tapestry.


* (I'm not an expert but have some training & I'm even shittier at weightlifting than I am at powerlifting, my body is just not the right structure regardless of my gender)

 

[ahoyhoy]

Seems all those arguing that women who have transitioned is no different than other genetic "outlier" attributes are inadvertently supporting the notion that separating sports by gender should be eliminated as we cannot possibly control for all genetic variations, including sex.

 

[excelsiorlef]

yeah, besada, but athletes with high testosterone are not banned per-se, unless that can be linked to the usage of external medication//prescription....
if you know for a fact that I'm wrong, I'll accept it, but I'm under the impression that if they can prove that the higher level of testosterone is due to the athelete metabolism (the androgenism and hyperandrogenism are usually the main offender) they are not prevented from competing...

And neither are trans athletes...

 

[Zaphrynn]

Fair point but, it is not the same. I think. Male outliers will on average be stronger than female outliers, no? So gender does matter.

I feel it is the same because to believe otherwise means you don't actually consider trans women to be women. If you view them as women first, then being born with a traditionally male body is just another potential advantage. Like being exceptionally tall with long tendons. If trans women were competing at top levels as a man first, their body was still obviously supplying them with a genetic advantage others don't have.

 

[Ketkat]

Seems all those arguing that women who have transitioned is no different than other genetic "outlier" attributes are inadvertently supporting the notion that separating sports by gender should be eliminated as we cannot possibly control for all genetic variations, including sex.

That's a huge leap and you know it. Transwomen aren't dudes who just decided to identify as a woman and then compete the next day. Transitioning is a real thing, that has real effects, that I've shown multiple times in this thread.

There are large differences between transwomen and cismen.

 

[besada]

Fair point but, it is not the same. I think. Male outliers will on average be stronger than female outliers, no? So gender does matter.

It depends on the factor, really. If you're talking about hyper-oxegenated blood, then no, gender isn't an issue. There are lots of factors that aren't gender speciic, usually having to do with excess red blood cells, or lungs with larger volume than average, or muscles with longer length than average.

And I'm not saying gender doesn't matter at all, but rather that it's one of many factors you could look at to determine fairness. The people who lost to the skier with excess red blood cells had no way to compete with him.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I do know that a lot of responses in the thread haven't considered a whole host of factors and are treating the issue like it's simple. I'm just trying to introduce more information, so that a more reasonable conversation can be had. Gender is a factor, but it's a factor because it confers certain genetic advantages. It's the advantages we're interested in, and yet we allow a whole host of genetic differences to skew fairness in every sport. So the question is why this set of genetic differences is treated so disparately, and why we're not actually addressing the root cause of unfairness, which is genetic advantage.

One way to make things fairer would be to disallow competitors with any known genetic disadvantage. Or to put them in a special group. Another is to focus on things like making sure competitors, at the time of the competition, fall within certain ranges -- which is what we're doing now, and which doesn't necessarily exclude trans athletes.

 

[Platy]

Seems all those arguing that women who have transitioned is no different than other genetic "outlier" attributes are inadvertently supporting the notion that separating sports by gender should be eliminated as we cannot possibly control for all genetic variations, including sex.

We are saying that a small percent of women have a genetic advantage in the same way a small percent of women have a genetic advantage.

PLEASE explain how you went from this to separating sports by gender should be eliminated because unless you say that trans woman are men than I don't see how any of this is in any way related

 

[derder]

Open Question: What is your stance? Can you conceive a situation which you would say "crosses your line"?

 

[excelsiorlef]

Open Question: What is your stance? Can you conceive a situation which you would say "crosses your line"?

Huh?

 

[besada]

yeah, besada, but athletes with high testosterone are not banned per-se, unless that can be linked to the usage of external medication//prescription....
if you know for a fact that I'm wrong, I'll accept it, but I'm under the impression that if they can prove that the higher level of testosterone is due to the athelete metabolism (the androgenism and hyperandrogenism are usually the main offender) they are not prevented from competing...

You're wrong, sadly.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/foru...e-study-in-genetic-sports-advantage-126651125

Based on 2011 guidelines enacted by the International Association of Athletics Federations (I.A.A.C.), Chand can return to competition only after lowering her testosterone levels below the male range via hormone-suppressing drugs or surgery.

In this case, they're requiring her to take drugs to suppress her natural amount of testosterone.

 

[Sarcastic Poster]

I'm not saying there's not differences, I'm saying that the elite athletic advantages that top-level Phelps athletes possess cannot be replicated in average male genetics, no matter how lucky they are.

Being born Phelps and retaining even a small amount of those unattainable attributes is therefore unfair to the other men athletes.

It's a horrible situation with no perfect answers of course and I feel for the Phelps athletes who just want to compete

No, because it's within the realms of possibility for someone to be born with superior genetics to Phelps. In fact it's inevitable. Records are made to be broken and all that. Likewise in any sport.

It's literally impossible for any woman to be born with those advantages and dimensions.

 

[Platy]

Open Question: What is your stance? Can you conceive a situation which you would say "crosses your line"?

My instance is that women should compete with women if they are within aceptable testosterone ranges and men should compete with men if they are within aceptable testosterone ranges.

I don't care if the person was born with fucking WINGS so their record on jumping is "still haven't landed yet"

No, because it's within the realms of possibility for someone to be born with superior genetics to Phelps. In fact it's inevitable. Records are made to be broken and all that. Likewise in any sport.

It's literally impossible for any woman to be born with those advantages and dimensions.

Hello, nice to meet you.

I am a woman born with those advantages and dimensions

 

[Vincent Grayson]

Fair point but, it is not the same. I think. Male outliers will on average be stronger than female outliers, no? So gender does matter.

But these super strong transwomen are then outliers among outliers. It's not like there's going to be a rush on strength-related sports for women where we suddenly have 50% trans athletes.

The point is that all physical competition is inherently unfair. There is no such thing as everyone competing at the same level, and this particular issue is just another small thing.

 

[excelsiorlef]

No, because it's within the realms of possibility for someone to be born with superior genetics to Phelps. In fact it's inevitable. Records are made to be broken and all that. Likewise in any sport.

It's literally impossible for any woman to be born with those advantages and dimensions.

This woman that this thread is about isn't even good enough to win an Olympic Medal let alone smash records...

Also trans women are women.

 

[AmFreak]

She doesn't have an advantage?
As others pointed out she would be at 8th place in the olympics 2016 or 5th at the olympics 2012.
Meaning she would be able to compete with women in their absolute prime.
While herself being 39!
The oldest woman at the olympics 2012 was 30 and lifted 37kg less at place 13.
The official IWF Masters (organization for Weightlifters 35(+)) Woman World Record for 35(+) is 220kg, for 40(+) 179kg.

Show me a single cis-woman who lifted 268kg at the age of 39(+).

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Maybe you should read the study.

Maybe you should?

Average +/- s.d for muscle area in M-F three years after transitioning is 271 +/- 39

Average +/- s.d. for muscle area in XX before transition to male is 239 +/- 33

That is a big difference

 

[psychowave]

This woman that this thread is about isn't even good enough to win an Olympic Medal let alone smash records...

Read the OP.

 

[Ethelwulf]

It depends on the factor, really. If you're talking about hyper-oxegenated blood, then no, gender isn't an issue. There are lots of factors that aren't gender speciic, usually having to do with excess red blood cells, or lungs with larger volume than average, or muscles with longer length than average.

And I'm not saying gender doesn't matter at all, but rather that it's one of many factors you could look at to determine fairness. The people who lost to the skier with excess red blood cells had no way to compete with him.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I do know that a lot of responses in the thread haven't considered a whole host of factors and are treating the issue like it's simple. I'm just trying to introduce more information, so that a more reasonable conversation can be had. Gender is a factor, but it's a factor because it confers certain genetic advantages. It's the advantages we're interested in, and yet we allow a whole host of genetic differences to skew fairness in every sport. So the question is why this set of genetic differences is treated so disparately, and why we're not actually addressing the root cause of unfairness, which is genetic advantage.

One way to make things fairer would be to disallow competitors with any known genetic disadvantage. Or to put them in a special group. Another is to focus on things like making sure competitors, at the time of the competition, fall within certain ranges -- which is what we're doing now, and which doesn't necessarily exclude trans athletes.

Very true. This might be a reasonable option to follow in many sports. I think that a key point is that advantages should never be gender-tied. If we truly achieve that then whatever, point is having competition.

 

[Ketkat]

Maybe you should?

95% confidence interval for muscle area in M-F three years after transitioning is 271 +/- 39

95% confidence interval for muscle area in XX before transition to male is 239 +/- 33

That is a huge difference

If we just look at data and read whatever we want from it, we're no better than climate deniers.

You do realize those are the averages, right? The big dots on the graph? They're still completely within transmen before transition ranges.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Read the OP.

I was speaking toward Olympic records. She's a big fish in a small pawn here...