Comment on US Olympic policy change bans transgender women in women's events
webadict@lemmy.world 2 days agoSee, the thing is, I disagree. No one would take the years it takes to transition for the unknown potential advantage. We do not know what amount of advantage or disadvantage transitioning would give, and the evidence we currently have says that there isn’t a statistical advantage.
These policies don’t even protect cis-women. Women born with hormonal abnormalities or genetic advantages are directly impacted. These are seen as beneficial in male competitors (Michael Phelps is a genetic lottery winner and should probably be in his own league), but if a woman happened to benefit by having naturally higher testosterone production, height, or skeletal structure, should she be excluded from competing against women? Then the only difference between that hypothetical trans athlete and cis athlete is… That they are trans.
Most of this issue is really due to how we segregate sports. We arbitrarily use gender/sex because there are genetic and cultural differences that mostly correlate to difference in outcomes. There are better ways to segregate sports (ala weight classes in boxing) that would more fairly match opponents, but we don’t do these. Why? Mostly laziness, somewhat historical systems of oppression.
So, no, I don’t agree. When you can find a trans athlete that transitioned for am advantage, I will acknowledge your point.
fipto@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Let me clarify a bit - that’s exactly what we agree on: that no one transitions for the advantage. Cause that would just be rediculous. So no, I can’t provide you an athlete who transitioned for that reason…
but that doesn’t make my concerns invalid, because it doesn’t all rest on that point. People can have good intentions and still cause a result that is unfair (but not because they wanted it to be unfair). That’s why I see the hypothetical scenario as a strawman/diversion.
I might respond to the rest later, but I wanted to at least get this out for now.
webadict@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Your argument is that these are unfair, but I pointed out the exact scenario you are saying is unfair. You can argue that any biological difference a trans woman has compared to a cis woman is unfair, but does that mean a cis woman who has all of those things is also unfair? And if the answer is no, then… Why is there even a problem?
These aren’t inherently unfair. They are perceived to be unfair because of how we segregate these sports and because we automatically just assume trans women are stronger, better, faster, etc than cis women, which isn’t true. Again, the statistics we have show that cis and trans athletes have a statistical advantage in a wide variety of sports and activities between 7% to -13%.
Like, we see similar outcomes for trans men, and these concerned people do not give a shit about those athletes. You would think trans men would absolutely fail compared to men, given how poor these people think female athletes compare, but they don’t. They do just as well compared to their cis counterparts.
Hell, several sports are starting to have women with results similar to men. Sure, a lot of weight and strength-based sports still see substantial differences, but many stamina- and speed-based sports are becoming quite competitive. This is why cultural differences also matter. A lot of our sports and health science is geared towards male athletes, and we treat female sports and competitors as lesser, from how we fund them to how we train them.