Transgender women in competitive sport

Remove this Banner Ad

Brett C said:
The old living in a democratic society/free speech chestnut, some people believe Hitler was a good guy as well. It's great you've got an opinion, just a shame it's a completely uninformed moronic one.
Click to expand...
Using an example of Hitler's popularity when discussing the validity of a person's opinion on transgender participation in sport is drawing a seriously long bow. Then resorting to name calling is more of an indictment on you frankly.

Given Transgender participation in mainstream sport is relatively new comparatively speaking, I don't think it is unreasonable to say that there will be a lot to play out in this space. I have no doubt that a lot of work has gone in to trying to ensure a level playing field based on what is considered sound biological science, but that doesn't mean there isn't at least the capacity for this to change in the future. The beauty of science is that it doesn't stop, it will continue to evolve, and as the sample size of transgender participation increases, so will the body of knowledge associated with that participation. This knowledge will then be used to inform future direction, whichever direction that may be.
 
WA Lion said:
Given Transgender participation in mainstream sport is relatively new comparatively speaking, I don't think it is unreasonable to say that there will be a lot to play out in this space. I have no doubt that a lot of work has gone in to trying to ensure a level playing field based on what is considered sound biological science, but that doesn't mean there isn't at least the capacity for this to change in the future. The beauty of science is that it doesn't stop, it will continue to evolve, and as the sample size of transgender participation increases, so will the body of knowledge associated with that participation. This knowledge will then be used to inform future direction, whichever direction that may be.
Click to expand...
So it basically becomes reverse doping.
Science intervening to keep them at a level at or below a woman's standard.
That does not sit comfortably with me.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Billy Puller said:
I'd be pissed off, it's a huge advantage. It's like a female athlete doing steroids without doing steroids.

As well as stuff like bone density, body fat etc where men have the advantages. Also stuff like babies and what not that these athletes would never have to worry about. I agree I don't think it's bigoted to say that.

Unless you let all the women in sport beef up their testosterone it's inherently unfair.
Click to expand...
Increased lung and heart sizes, haemoglobin % increases, improved hip structure and centre of mass for physical activity, increased femur length, increased bone density... none of that changes once the body is hit with testosterone during puberty and that's not even considering genetic predisposition between males and females when born nor cultural and environmental differences between the majority of male and females during developmental years where certain skills are refined by each sex.
 
Sex is a lot more complicated than just xx/xy. Should all intersex people be banned from competing? How about women who are xx but have a heightened sensitivity to testosterone that gives them an advantage? Pretty much every great athlete has some genetic advantage that puts them above their peers and one piece of anecdotal evidence doesn't go against what studies have shown in that there is no significant advantage that comes just from being a transgender woman and there are enough disadvantages to even it out. That's what the scientists have determined. There are a lot of transgender athletes that don't behave exceptionally but every time one does kinda alright there is a bigoted outcry.
 
James North said:
Serena Williams could probably crush all of your sculls with her biceps - ban her from tennis?
Click to expand...
Serana and Venus both lost to Karsten who was the furtherst you could get from peak male performance. I dunno if it's legend or truth but apparently he'd spend the day on the green and had had a few drinks.
 
Dlions said:
I dont think there is any doubt she is a woman considering she has just had her first child.
Click to expand...

Just basing it on her clear physical advantage, which seems to be the main issue.

Billy Puller said:
I dunno if it's legend or truth but apparently he'd spend the day on the green and had had a few drinks
Click to expand...

Sounds irrefutably scientific.

I've no doubt that men can beat women at the same sport (especially one-on-one) but I reckon the balance will be right at some point, and it will be genuinely possible for these athletes to have a shot at being their best selves and play the sport that they love.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Where does one draw the line on fairness?
I see an advantage in strength, but the person in question came second, to an Olympic bronze medallist.
She has a genetic advantage, but I would argue that Eddie Betts has a genetic advantage over Josh Green, and Gary Ablett an advantage over Eddie Betts.
People are drawing this arbitrary line of fairness or equivalency based on traditionally accepted definitions or values.

Then there are those who actually think failed male athletes will suddenly become transgender women in the pursuit of greatness. Yes someone actually raised the possibility, even in regard to Hannah Mouncey’s tilt at joining the AFLW.
 
Scientifically it seems females have an advantage when it comes to extreme endurance events such as ultra marathons eg. 300km events. While the peak females don't outperform the peak males they have a better completion rate. Say 50 males and 50 females started the same event you would get 10 males finishing while 20 females would. It has a lot to do from the body compositions of each sex with females mostly having a lower body surface area to weight ratio, shorter legs, lower body weight and increased body fat.
 
Last edited:
They also live longer per average but according to my Grandad that's because they all nag their husbands to death well before they cark it
 
Brett C said:
She just couldn't beat a male tennis player ranked 200 in the world :) who smoked a pack a day lol
Click to expand...

Players in the men's top 200 often beat players in the top 20 ... rankings aren't as linear as you may think.

Also, whilst he was ranked 200 at the time ... he was ranked 38 a few years prior ... and at the time he was 30 and they were 16/17.

He'd be a much wiser player than them generally at that time.
 
James North said:
Players in the men's top 200 often beat players in the top 20 ... rankings aren't as linear as you may think.

Also, whilst he was ranked 200 at the time ... he was ranked 38 a few years prior ... and at the time he was 30 and they were 16/17.

He'd be a much wiser player than them generally at that time.
Click to expand...
She would whip his ass now!
In more ways than 1.
 
James North said:
Players in the men's top 200 often beat players in the top 20 ... rankings aren't as linear as you may think.

Also, whilst he was ranked 200 at the time ... he was ranked 38 a few years prior ... and at the time he was 30 and they were 16/17.

He'd be a much wiser player than them generally at that time.
Click to expand...

He was ranked 38 almost 4 years earlier and by that logic he was ranked 1348 3 years later. In fact he dropped to 350 within a couple of months of the game.

Sort of missed the point that despite a lot of noise women athletes outside of very rare examples and sports will never beat a mens player. I'd would still have backed the 200th or even 500th ranked mens player in the world to beat the Williams sisters at their peak. In fact I'd probably have backed Federer or Nadal to have beaten them 1 against 2.
 
Last edited:
James North said:
Players in the men's top 200 often beat players in the top 20 ... rankings aren't as linear as you may think.

Also, whilst he was ranked 200 at the time ... he was ranked 38 a few years prior ... and at the time he was 30 and they were 16/17.

He'd be a much wiser player than them generally at that time.
Click to expand...
We're still talking arguably the greatest female athletes of all time up against a bloke far from peak physical performance.


The genetic advantages are huge. It's gonna be very interesting to see as women's sport grows and how gender theory is going how the AFL and all major codes deal with it.
 
Brett C said:
Sort of missed the point that despite a lot of noise women athletes outside of very rare examples and sports will never beat a mens player.
Click to expand...

Literally said this above:

James North said:
I've no doubt that men can beat women at the same sport (especially one-on-one) but I reckon the balance will be right at some point, and it will be genuinely possible for these athletes to have a shot at being their best selves and play the sport that they love.
Click to expand...

All I'm getting at is that I don't think the 'physical differences' thing is really that big of a deal as there are always athletes with advantages because of simply having more appropriate DNA (Usain Bolt?) for that sport.

It's particularly not that big of a deal with team sports. You are right BP, it will be interesting to see how major codes deal with it.

Importantly - there is no brush to paint everyone with ... all circumstances will require individual attention.
 
IMG_0555.jpg IMG_0145.JPG IMG_0502.jpg IMG_0094.JPG IMG_0384.JPG The participation of transgender and gender diverse people in sport are works in progress. I am a post operative transwoman and I have shared some pictures of myself to show Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) does dramatically alter the physique of a male to female trans person.

As a former male international athlete in two sports and transitioned female Australian Rules Football and soccer player I suggest that the current trans inclusion policy adopted by the International Olympic Committee and many major sporting organisations including the AFL has tipped the balance of fairness in the favour of the trans athletes.

The current policy of the IOC was introduced just prior to the 2016 Rio Games. This policy was an amendment to the original 2003 IOC Trans Policy which was developed following recommendations from the Stockholm Consensus. The Stockholm Consensus Recommendations requires male to female athletes to have undergone permanent gender confirmation surgery and be a minimum of two years post operative. Trans athletes also were required to have had their gender markers including amended birth certificates altered to female.

The 2016 amended IOC Policy removed the requirement of gender surgery and amended birth certificate as a pre requisite to compete also the two year time frame was halved to 12 months of reduced testosterone limits.

I was recently asked to comment on the AFL's decision to delay Hannah Mounceys' AFLW Draft nomination.I have linked a recent interview I did explaining why I supported the AFL's decision in delaying Hannah's application to play.

https://omny.fm/shows/sportsday/transgender-athlete-kirsty-miller

I am happy to share my personal journey and answer questions as I stated trans participation in sport is a work in progress and it needs far more research, policy development and education as the acceptance on the sporting fields I suggest is the greatest challenge for the trans and gender diverse communities.
 
So apparently in some places you can just 'identify' as a female to be allowed to compete without any other elements being required (http://www.courant.com/sports/hc-jacobs-column-yearwood-transgender-0531-20170530-column.html).

On the other hand there is some anecdotal support for the same person's ability to compete being changed by going on and then off testosterone blockers (http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/03/heres-what-the-2018-olympic-gender-regulations-look-like/)

Earlier (the article I saw was in August) the IOC said "The statement issued by IOC officials announced that athletes will no longer be required to compete in categories according to their natural sex at birth – as gender or sex testing will not be administered prior to the games." (<-- which includes not testing the T levels).

If that stance stays the same would that make the Olympics more like the first article and less like the second?

Is there any likelihood that the testosterone limit will be reinstated prior (and you would think that they would have rules about how far out from an event they can change the rules (eg if they found that eating meat was an advantage over vegetarians in athletic performance and banned anyone who had eaten meat in the last year but only applied it 3 months prior to the games would seem to be ... unethical) and what their time limit is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top