Transgender - Part 2

Remove this Banner Ad

Please be aware that the tolerance of anti-trans language on BF is at an all-time low. Jokes and insults that are trans-related, as well as anti-trans and bigoted rhetoric will be met with infractions, threadbans etc as required. It's a sensitive (and important) topic, so behave like well-mannered adults when discussing it, PARTICULARLY when disagreeing. This equally applies across the whole site.
 
While GAHT cannot shrink bones, suppressed testosterone does result in reduced muscle mass over time and inhibits the ability to build as much muscle as those who have high concentrations of testosterone. Testosterone suppression also greatly reduces hemoglobin concentrations to cisgender female levels, while estrogen supplementation greatly increases the total body fat percentage in trans women.

This results in what we call reduced fat-free mass. Fat provides resistance for movement, as opposed to a muscle, which provides torque for movement. Consequently, the more fat-free mass someone has, the better athlete they are likely to be — independent of skill level.

A relatively unknown study from 2021 took strength data from eight trans women and eight matched cisgender males and females. It found that the measured strength of trans women was not as low as cis women, but nowhere near as high as cis men.

But when the strength of cis men and women was divided by their fat-free mass, they were equal. Conversely, when trans women's strength was divided by their fat-free mass, they were around 19% weaker, kilogram for kilogram, than cis men and women. A worthy avenue of exploration.


Also, Alvares et al (2022) found TW lose all their strength advantage.Alvares & colleagues noted TW had a lower VO2 peak/lean mass index,& lower mean strength/lean mass index than both CW & CM, trans women produce less force per gram of muscle than both CM & CW


Couple this with the reduction of the oxygen-carrying hemoglobin in blood to cisgender female levels after around three months of GAHT, and a trans woman's body will be significantly underpowered after a considerable period of such treatment. Less delivery of oxygen to the working muscles produces a higher rate of metabolites and consequently results in muscle fatigue, a second worth avenue of exploration.

Based on this data, a cisgender male and a trans woman cannot be equated.

Trans women are physiologically different from even before the onset of GAHT, and there are additional social as well as physical factors at play here, hence I believe the basis of any blanket ban policy is flawed.

I firmly believe testosterone suppression coupled with estrogen supplementation is the best way to make decisions for the eligibility of the female category of sport.

I believe it's ultimately a question of how long that treatment should be for each sport; however, data must do the talking for me.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
Existing research suggests that pre-GAHT transgender women do not equate to XY men in either physiological or performance terms.

While GAHT cannot shrink bones, suppressed T does result in reduced muscle mass over time and inhibits the ability to build as much muscle as those who have their normal or high concentrations of T.

Testosterone suppression also greatly reduces hemoglobin concentrations to cisgender female levels, while estrogen supplementation greatly increases the total body fat percentage in trans women.

This results in what we call reduced fat-free mass. Fat provides resistance for movement, as opposed to a muscle, which provides torque for movement. Consequently, the more fat-free mass someone has, the better athlete they are likely to be — independent of skill level.

A relatively unknown study from 2021 took strength data from eight trans women and eight matched cisgender males and females. It found that the measured strength of trans women was not as low as cis women, but nowhere near as high as cis men.

But when the strength of cis men and women was divided by their fat-free mass, they were equal. Conversely, when trans women's strength was divided by their fat-free mass, they were around 19% weaker, kilogram for kilogram, than cis men and women.

https://academic.oup.com/jes/article/5/Supplement_1/A792/6241278

Also, Alvares et al (2022) found TW lose all their strength advantage.Alvares & colleagues noted TW had a lower VO2 peak/lean mass index,& lower mean strength/lean mass index than both CW & CM, trans women produce less force per gram of muscle than both CM & CW


Couple this with the reduction of the oxygen-carrying hemoglobin in blood to cisgender female levels after around three months of GAHT, and a trans woman's body will be significantly underpowered after a considerable period of such treatment. Less delivery of oxygen to the working muscles produces a higher rate of metabolites and consequently results in muscle fatigue.

Existing research suggests that transgender women do not equate to cisgender men in either physiological or performance terms. In terms of physiology, the work of Wiik et al. demonstrated that mean trans women’s muscle volumes are already below the mean muscle volumes of cis- gender men at baseline, with a similar outcome displayed in isometric torque levels. Furthermore, Van Caenegem et al. showed that the lean mass was 6.8% less in pre- GAHT trans women compared with control cis men (57.4 ± 8.7 kg versus 61.3 ± 6.8 kg). With physical performance measures, Roberts et al. (2020) found trans women in the military had pre-GAHT upper body strength measures that were 12% lower (− 6 push ups, 95% CI − 20 to − 12) [30] than cis male controls, in comparison with sedentary transgender women who had pre- GAHT strength measures 15% lower (42 ± 9 versus 49 ± 6 N/kg) than cisgender male controls Van Caenegem et al.

Based on this data, a cisgender male and even pre GAHT trans woman cannot be equated.

The data clearly shows that it is erroneous to assume TW & CM are synonymous. the basis of any blanket ban policy which is flawed.

I firmly believe testosterone suppression coupled with estrogen supplementation is the best way to make decisions for the eligibility of the female category of sport.

I believe it's ultimately a question of how long that treatment should be for each sport; however, data must do the talking for me.

Cheung & colleagues suggest, REASONABLE accommodations for the inclusion of TRANS WOMEN are sport specific & COULD be based on the range of competitive ADVANTAGES & ABILITIES that are ALREADY accepted in the CIS FEMALE population.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
But when the strength of cis men and women was divided by their fat-free mass, they were equal. Conversely, when trans women's strength was divided by their fat-free mass, they were around 19% weaker, kilogram for kilogram, than cis men and women. A worthy avenue of exploration.

Interesting, is the implication that for some reason the muscle that is there are not being recruited fully or properly?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Cheung & colleagues suggest, REASONABLE accommodations for the inclusion of TRANS WOMEN are sport specific & COULD be based on the range of competitive ADVANTAGES & ABILITIES that are ALREADY accepted in the CIS FEMALE population.
I think this is a significant point worth exploring further in the context of the study.

Given the findings, where does the gap therefore still remain in performance that requires the assessment of competitive advantages? Is it based on how long the person has been on hormones only, or are there other factors that need to be accounted for in order to negate any innate advantages?
 
Sall Grover's website that decides if you are a woman based on a photo you upload

what could possibly go wrong?

hint ( a lot)
 
Sall Grover's website that decides if you are a woman based on a photo you upload

what could possibly go wrong?

hint ( a lot)
I imagine women might find it a bit of a turn-off to be asked to confirm they don't have a utensil 'n balls during the sign up process.
 

Looks like after a year-long review the NHS want to put the brakes on some medical interventions for minors.

I feel there is so much about this we do not understand, and it is going to take time to get some solid data on what the best practices are. For now, it seems hormonal/surgical approaches for minors are deemed too risky overall. Ostensibly a prudent take - but one wonders how we will ever truly know the pros/cons of gender reassignment in minors if we never have the chance to get data on it.
 
Last edited:

Looks like after a year-long review the NHS want to put the breaks on some medical interventions for minors.

I feel there is so much about this we do not understand, and it is going to take time to get some solid data on what the best practices are. For now, it seems hormonal/surgical approaches for minor are deemed too risky overall. Ostensibly a prudent take - but one wonders how we will every truly know the pros/cons of gender reassignment in minors if we never have the chance to get data on it.

Sunak gets to the very heart of what the issue is not at all about in any way whatsoever:

Britain’s Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has welcomed the recommendations, highlighting the sharp rise in recent years in children, particularly adolescent girls, questioning their gender.​

So what?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sunak gets to the very heart of what the issue is not at all about in any way whatsoever:

Britain’s Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has welcomed the recommendations, highlighting the sharp rise in recent years in children, particularly adolescent girls, questioning their gender.​

So what?
Well he is just pandering to the nuffies of course. Dear me, how dare we have a generation of kids who question things.
 

Looks like after a year-long review the NHS want to put the breaks on some medical interventions for minors.

I feel there is so much about this we do not understand, and it is going to take time to get some solid data on what the best practices are. For now, it seems hormonal/surgical approaches for minor are deemed too risky overall. Ostensibly a prudent take - but one wonders how we will every truly know the pros/cons of gender reassignment in minors if we never have the chance to get data on it.
Wait until the full details come out around this report, stuff is starting to drop now so people can review the full report and references

Also when you look into the groups involved with Cass its looking like a rather corrupt stitch up to give the Torries the justification they need for their already decided position

It promotes conversion therapy over gender affirming treatment based on excluding all the actual good data out there that exists from the last 20 odd years and focusing instead on data provided by the orgs that promote conversion therapy
 
Study of trans athletes concludes blanket sports bans are a mistake.

The lead researcher of a landmark IOC-funded study looking at strength, power & aerobic capacity of trans athletes says “sports federations should consider its findings carefully.”



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
Wait until the full details come out around this report, stuff is starting to drop now so people can review the full report and references

Also when you look into the groups involved with Cass its looking like a rather corrupt stitch up to give the Torries the justification they need for their already decided position

It promotes conversion therapy over gender affirming treatment based on excluding all the actual good data out there that exists from the last 20 odd years and focusing instead on data provided by the orgs that promote conversion therapy

You totally nailed itbtw not a single trans person was involved in this. Imagine if this was about women's health & no women were included.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
This is not science



This statement shows no understanding of biology and we're getting sporting policy like this because of the political pressure


Given youre a scientist, can you have a level of testosterone without it having a biological effect? And is any biological effect unrelated to abilities important in sports?
 
Given youre a scientist, can you have a level of testosterone without it having a biological effect?
You get that women naturally produce testosterone also yeah?
They experience biological effects of testosterone as well.

And is any biological effect unrelated to abilities important in sports?
Does facial hair make you better at sport?
 
You get that women naturally produce testosterone also yeah?
They experience biological effects of testosterone as well.


Does facial hair make you better at sport?

No. That is my point, thanks.

I assume someone has read the report and not just looked at a Twitter post about it and the report specifies the biological effects of testosterone they are restricting.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top