Is it fair for Transgenders to compete in sports as who they think they are? No

[yoga-like_abana]

This discussion is getting Tangy.  Speaking of.. how about Jerome Tang!

[DQ12]

that she isn't winning every race doesn't prove that she doesn't have an (arguably unfair) advantage -- although i'm not close to well-versed enough in the biology or her situation to articulate whether she (in particular) has one, or what that advantage would be other than "men tend to be better athletes than women."

['taterblast]

that she isn't winning every race doesn't prove that she doesn't have an (arguably unfair) advantage -- although i'm not close to well-versed enough in the biology or her situation to articulate whether she (in particular) has one, or what that advantage would be other than "men tend to be better athletes than women."

yeah the "see she only finished 8th in this other race" talking point doesn't really resonate with me.

[michigancat]

that she isn't winning every race doesn't prove that she doesn't have an (arguably unfair) advantage -- although i'm not close to well-versed enough in the biology or her situation to articulate whether she (in particular) has one, or what that advantage would be other than "men tend to be better athletes than women."

I was directly replying to the assumption in the post below. I don't know that anyone has made the case that she absolutely has no biological advantages or if that's just the strawman people are fighting?

5th in the 200
8th in the 100

Weird that the supposed biological advantage over all the other swimmers was only applicable in one very specific distance, not a single distance shorter or longer, weird.

Mens hearts and lungs are bigger than a females so lia winning the distance one would make sense


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[yoga-like_abana]

that she isn't winning every race doesn't prove that she doesn't have an (arguably unfair) advantage -- although i'm not close to well-versed enough in the biology or her situation to articulate whether she (in particular) has one, or what that advantage would be other than "men tend to be better athletes than women."

I was directly replying to the assumption in the post below. I don't know that anyone has made the case that she absolutely has no biological advantages or if that's just the strawman people are fighting?

5th in the 200
8th in the 100

Weird that the supposed biological advantage over all the other swimmers was only applicable in one very specific distance, not a single distance shorter or longer, weird.

Mens hearts and lungs are bigger than a females so lia winning the distance one would make sense


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Assumption that biologically mens hearts and lungs are bigger?

[DQ12]

that she isn't winning every race doesn't prove that she doesn't have an (arguably unfair) advantage -- although i'm not close to well-versed enough in the biology or her situation to articulate whether she (in particular) has one, or what that advantage would be other than "men tend to be better athletes than women."

I was directly replying to the assumption in the post below. I don't know that anyone has made the case that she absolutely has no biological advantages or if that's just the strawman people are fighting?

Fair enough...Quite a bit of noise in this thread so a little hard to keep track.

[catastrophe]

I definitely think it’s fair to say that biological males naturally develop in a way that makes them able to swim faster than biological females on average. Just comparing the relative times of the top competitors in the same event is compelling evidence of that.

I also think you have to grant that some small number of biological females naturally develop such that they have a biological advantage over like 95% of other female swimmers in ways similar to the advantage an average male would have over the same females.

So the question, to me, is (1) whether we care about regulating ALL the athletes with this type of “unfair” biological advantage (which has to be quantified somehow), or (2) whether we ONLY accept those few biological females who won the gene pool lottery and not the extremely small number of biological males who transitioned to women.

The first option is obviously very difficult to do, but I’m personally uncomfortable with the second option because it boils down—not to taking exception with a purely biological advantage—but to saying that whether the biological advantage is acceptable depends purely on whether your sex at birth matches your gender. 

I might me more comfortable with that type of judgment if athletic competitions were getting flooded with transitioning males, but we all know that’s not the case. Just like we know there isn’t some cohort breeding superhuman female swimmers to dominate the event.

[MakeItRain]

that she isn't winning every race doesn't prove that she doesn't have an (arguably unfair) advantage -- although i'm not close to well-versed enough in the biology or her situation to articulate whether she (in particular) has one, or what that advantage would be other than "men tend to be better athletes than women."

I was directly replying to the assumption in the post below. I don't know that anyone has made the case that she absolutely has no biological advantages or if that's just the strawman people are fighting?

5th in the 200
8th in the 100

Weird that the supposed biological advantage over all the other swimmers was only applicable in one very specific distance, not a single distance shorter or longer, weird.

Mens hearts and lungs are bigger than a females so lia winning the distance one would make sense


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Assumption that biologically mens hearts and lungs are bigger?

In most cases, not always.

[yoga-like_abana]

that she isn't winning every race doesn't prove that she doesn't have an (arguably unfair) advantage -- although i'm not close to well-versed enough in the biology or her situation to articulate whether she (in particular) has one, or what that advantage would be other than "men tend to be better athletes than women."

I was directly replying to the assumption in the post below. I don't know that anyone has made the case that she absolutely has no biological advantages or if that's just the strawman people are fighting?

5th in the 200
8th in the 100

Weird that the supposed biological advantage over all the other swimmers was only applicable in one very specific distance, not a single distance shorter or longer, weird.

Mens hearts and lungs are bigger than a females so lia winning the distance one would make sense


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Assumption that biologically mens hearts and lungs are bigger?

In most cases, not always.

Which the same could be said for trans athletes having an advantage. Probably best if it’s just left at that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MakeItRain]

that she isn't winning every race doesn't prove that she doesn't have an (arguably unfair) advantage -- although i'm not close to well-versed enough in the biology or her situation to articulate whether she (in particular) has one, or what that advantage would be other than "men tend to be better athletes than women."

I was directly replying to the assumption in the post below. I don't know that anyone has made the case that she absolutely has no biological advantages or if that's just the strawman people are fighting?

5th in the 200
8th in the 100

Weird that the supposed biological advantage over all the other swimmers was only applicable in one very specific distance, not a single distance shorter or longer, weird.

Mens hearts and lungs are bigger than a females so lia winning the distance one would make sense


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Assumption that biologically mens hearts and lungs are bigger?

In most cases, not always.

Which the same could be said for trans athletes having an advantage. Probably best if it’s just left at that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Have you seen someone arguing otherwise?

[MakeItRain]

The science is out there if you want to do your own research, @michigancat. She's 6'6"!

6'2"

Speaking of doing research. When people put that number up that she was 432nd when she was competing as a man, I am pretty certain that isn't true. What I do know to be factually true is that she, while having started hormone therapy, was the fastest swimmer in the Ivy League at 3 different distances, while she was competing with the men's team, before COVID wiped out the end of the season. She posted her fastest ever time in the 500 in November of 2019, while receiving hormone therapy.

[Kid In the Hall]

If any of you rubes had ever actually had to sit through an Ivy League swimming meet, I can guarantee that you would have begged for a distraction like Thomas to break up the monotony of a 20-minute long 1,650 free race.

Let her compete and figure out the fairest way to administer a new set of rules (regulate hormone levels, must be XXX amount of time since transition, etc.). We want to make it more complicated than it is, but it's actually pretty simple.

And, for anyone saying it's "not fair" - I presume you'll also be demanding that any swimmers who used those LZR suits in the late 00s/early 10s turn in their medals/victories/have their records overturned because they had a massive competitive advantage over all swimmers who didn't have access to those suits (which have since been banned).

[BIG APPLE CAT]

Thanks for proving my point, BAC. Just a bunch of ppl in here trying to accuse ppl of being transphobic, because they have issue of a former D1 male swimmer competing vs females now and winning natty's. You nailed it!

Ya know wackster it occurs to me that there's a degree of irony in me calling you out and holding you to account for your terrible takes. The truth is, not that long ago maybe 5-10 years...I was a lot like you and shared many of the same beliefs you hold today. And the way i evolved my thinking was not because some lib bashed me over the head repeatedly, it was through allowing myself to become exposed to ideas that were different than my own and actually giving those ideas some oxygen and evaluating those ideas on their merits instead of just saying meh libs gon lib and dismissing it. In fact I'm pretty sure if i did have some lib beating me over the head with their ideas then i would have dug in my heels and been a million times more resistant to it. 

fwiw wacky, although i don't really know you all that well and have only interacted with you outside of this blogsite a handful of times, i do think that at your core you are a good person with a good heart and that you sincerely want what is best, not only for yourself and your family, but for the world in general. I also think that your worldview is - understandably - insular in nature, and has some major blind spots. And I don't say that to be insulting...when i look back at how i used to view the world I realize i held that view because I had the, for lack of better term, privilege? luxury? of not being exposed to other walks of life and for that reason i just sort of accepted the world around me as the way things are without ever seeking out alternative viewpoints.

Anyway i don't really know what point i was trying to make in those last 2 paragraphs other than to say wacky i hope that someday you will have a similar arc as i did. By no means do I think I have this world and this life figured out, and by no means do i consider myself the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong b/c lawd knows i'm wrong about crap on a pretty much daily basis...but what i guess i can say is that these days I probably feel like I am on the "right side of history" as much as i did 10 years ago, but with a lot less cognitive dissonance to get there.

[420seriouscat69]

Fair enough, friend. I appreciate your well thought out civil response. 

[Kat Kid]

I think a lot of people watched the South Park episode where cartman pretends to be Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) to compete in the Special Olympics and haven’t been the same since.

[Rage Against the McKee]

If any of you rubes had ever actually had to sit through an Ivy League swimming meet, I can guarantee that you would have begged for a distraction like Thomas to break up the monotony of a 20-minute long 1,650 free race.

Let her compete and figure out the fairest way to administer a new set of rules (regulate hormone levels, must be XXX amount of time since transition, etc.). We want to make it more complicated than it is, but it's actually pretty simple.

And, for anyone saying it's "not fair" - I presume you'll also be demanding that any swimmers who used those LZR suits in the late 00s/early 10s turn in their medals/victories/have their records overturned because they had a massive competitive advantage over all swimmers who didn't have access to those suits (which have since been banned).

That example doesn't really work, since the suits were, in fact, banned.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Why ban anything, though?

[Kid In the Hall]

Why ban anything, though?

It's a long story, but the short version is that those suits were so aerodynamic that they essentially made borderline good swimmers into elite swimmers who started breaking all sorts of records (and the existing elite swimmers started posting times that were far beyond what anyone thought would ever be possible). It was an enormous competitive advantage because not all swimmers had access to those suits. So, after a few years, they were banned. But, any records that were set by people wearing those suits remain to this day (as do any victories/medals for people who were wearing those suits while competing against people who weren't wearing those suits).

It's not a perfect comparison to the Thomas situation, but it's in the same ballpark.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Yeah, but I mean, why ban anything? Make it one big free for all.

[catastrophe]

Yeah, but I mean, why ban anything? Make it one big free for all.

I like this question. I think there are probably two main reasons, although maybe not thought of in these terms.

First, there are those who want a sport to be as competitive as possible. Kind of like how boxing, wrestling, and MMA have really narrow weight divisions (all of which also happen to have very strict equipment requirements). The idea is for the contestants to stay relatively tightly grouped which makes for more excitement in competition. The more allowance in how people are allowed to compete, the greater likelihood that a clear top tier will separate itself from others.

Second, you have people who only want to see a very particular competition with as few variables as possible. In that case the focus isn’t so much on how competitive the events are but purely on crowning the best at a specific event within a specific class.

['taterblast]

see, this? this crap is rough ridin' stupid

https://twitter.com/EvanDonovan/status/1506295784043696131

[steve dave]

Desantis is a massive chud and hatemonger obviously. What good comes from that though in his mind? Just acquiring MAGA votes?

[catastrophe]

100 percent.

Although maybe there’s also an element of the “steroids in baseball” congressional hearing situation, which to this day I still have no idea why that happened.

['taterblast]

it would make the tiniest sliver of sense if the runner up swimmer was from a florida school (still stupid tho) but yeah this is for MAGA votes

[star seed 7]

Maga is pretty big on deciding second place was the actual winner because of "fraud"