THE ANFIELD NOISE

Banning Transgender Athletes From Women's Sports

Deserves its own topic.

1 Like

I agree wholeheartedly with the stance taken by FINA.

Keep the existing categories but also have an open category for transgender women who have the legacy of physiological advantages derived from going through male puberty.

4 Likes

seconded.

Sorry not sorry Lia.

1 Like

I am uneasy with it.

It’s effectively a ban on all transgender athletes. To say the age of 12 is the cut off point is not aligned with medical/social/legal norms.

We don’t live in a society where gender reassignment is normal as a child. In many countries you would probably struggle to find a doctor. From what I understand in the UK it’s 2 years wait list before you can see a doctor which is then followed by a long time (years) of physiological assessment.

It’s not till puberty that for many they realise a problem exists. Ignoring that’s it’s illegal to be transgendered in many countries, the number of countries where they allow you to do this as a child is I imagine much smaller.

1 Like

It’s not really though, is it?

It’s just saying that transgender women can’t compete against females where their original gender has given them an advantage because that is creating an uneven playing field male athletes don’t have to suffer.

Transgender athletes can continue to practise their particular sport just not in female competitive events where their physiology gives them an advantage.

6 Likes

louder for the people in the back, pls. Sorry not sorry, Lia

1 Like

This is actually far from certain though. While I understand the precautionary principle, where people might think it is dependent on advocates of female trans athletes to demonstrate they do not have an advantage, the current weight of the evidence, as scant as it is, suggests they dont. Or if they do it is in limited cases.

The argument is that elevated testosterone provides lasting physical advantages long after the levels have normalized. We see this in athletes of both genders who have used anabolic steroids. But this is not a good analogy for trans women relative to their cis women competition because 1) we’re talking about much lower levels of T that dont have anything like the same effect, and 2) what positive benefit there might be are significantly counter balanced by the other hormonal treatments given to medically transitioned women.

Wanting fairness is great, but fairness for whom? Thinking it’s unfair to allow competitors with real physiological advantages compete is reasonable, but understand the gap between what people assume is true of trans female athletes and what we have actually demonstrated.

That is why anecdote is a pretty terrible form of evidence.

Lia was a successful male swimmer at one point and then went through a period of wildly fluctuating performances associated with the period around the beginning of her transition. Now she has fully transitioned, her performances relative to her competitors are not out of line with where she was at her best as male.

the difference of physiology between male and female physique is very noticable when you put them next to each other.

Right, but you know these arent just men who tuck their dick between their legs to pretend to be women. Right?

That 400M video isn’t an example of anything other than the very uneven level of competition you can get at D2 level in US college. To be clear, these are not remotely elite athletes. Not the women being beaten, nor the woman running to a comfortable win. Her best times are well off those of the best college cis women in D1 (4-5 seconds) and so while she might be better suited to that level of competition she would not be winning at that level. So her videos are not an example of a trans women exhibiting a major advantage over the best cis women. It is an example of a women who probably should be running in D1 (and wouldnt be winning at that level) beating a bunch of fairly run of the mill athletes.

2 Likes

it’s not an anecdote. it’s video footage of the physical disparity between a former man, and women competing in the same even. that 400M video is not a joke. the formerly-male competitor is 188cm (6’2") which is huge for a female and has a distinct advantage at that kind of competition. competing as an ADULT male in 2017, was in the top 400 in that race in NCAA div2. in 2019 competing as a female, was in top 50 and eventually won the 400m.

the hurdles are dropped to 30" for females, “CeCe” can basically stride over them at “her” height. that’s not an anecdotal advantage, that’s physical.

3 Likes

Further, it doesn’t matter if the advantage is lost at the upper/elite echelons of female competition (and it’s often not). The ability to compete at ALL levels is unfair to female competitors at those levels.

3 Likes

:see_no_evil:

To reiterate, Cece Telfer, despite all the attention drawn to her by Trump, is not close to being an elite female athlete. She competed at the D2 level and that is not elite. If she ran in D1 she would be utterly unnoteworthy for her times, buried way back in the pack

and if you want to look at the issue of Lia competing in NCAA Div1 swimming, “she’s” 185CM which is 6’1" and has the broad-shouldered physique of a man. gives a swimmer distinct advantage of stroke-rate and how hard “she” has to work compared to the rest of the women in the field.

I highly doubt the rest of the field in Div2 really care about how ‘she’ would compete in Div1. ‘She’ is competing in Div2.

2 Likes

And Katie Ledecky (a 6’1 ripped 160 lbs cis female) would royally fuck you up. Elite swimmers are simply physical specimens. Again, it is anecdote not data.

Somebody gets it.

1 Like

now that’s an anecdote. and no, she wouldn’t.

Again, this presumes it is true that women have an advantage over cis women after they’ve transitioned. You have seemingly ignored the statement that the presumption is not supported by the evidence.

The way this conversation typically goes is someone states that assumption as fact and when challenged on it then present anecdotes, which in addition to being a terrible form of evidence, don’t actually demonstrate the thing they think they are showing.

I am sympathetic to the idea that until strong evidence is presented of a lack of advantage then the presumption should carry and cis women should not have to compete against trans women. I don’t fully agree with it, but am sympathetic to it. But that at least acknowledges that the position is only a presumption and one not borne out by what we’ve able to tease out of the data that isn’t easy to make sense of.