Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
This doesn’t mesh with reality, though. You can’t just declare where the balance of harm lies without actually backing it up. There’s obviously room to find out where the balance is, but you haven’t found it here.
|
Hm I strongly disagree about reality here, and I am not declaring it, this fact you outline below has been corroborated in this very thread, but if you require further evidence, fine (many people have already done this work for us):
https://law.duke.edu/sports/sex-spor...c-performance/
- Duke puts the difference between elite female to male athletes at 12-14% increased performance.
Quote:
Just in the single year 2017, Olympic, World, and U.S. Champion Tori Bowie's 100 meters lifetime best of 10.78 was beaten 15,000 times by men and boys. (Yes, that’s the right number of zeros.)
The same is true of Olympic, World, and U.S. Champion Allyson Felix’s 400 meters lifetime best of 49.26. Just in the single year 2017, men and boys around the world outperformed her more than 15,000 times.
This differential isn’t the result of boys and men having a male identity, more resources, better training, or superior discipline. It’s because they have an androgenized body.
|
To combat your next flow of statements though, it's not entirely one way. In fact, there is evidence to show that estrogenized bodies (i.e. women) have a greater capacity for long term endurance.
https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-hum...urance-sports/
- there are differences in muscle fiber density between men and women, leading to more fast reaction muscle fibers in men.
- Women are better at burning fat stores for residual energy
- Women seem to have a psychological advantage relative to energy expenditure (unwilling to blow it all immediately)
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
For example, based on your position, it’s be natural to assume that you think all people born biological men are better than all people born biological women in any sport where there is a sex divide. Regardless of age, build/other biological factors, or (in the case of trans people) the time/age of transition, you think all people born physically male have a distinct advantage over all people born physically female?
|
No, I think I showed above that males have specific advantages and females do to. So it may be that specific categories are only needed in specific sports. But it remains clear that (and you admit this yourself later) there are far more athletes within these categories that stand to be harmed by inclusion of an outlying performer than the individual that would benefit arcanely from this sense of inclusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
It also poses the question of how you then balance trans athletes within their category. If nobody born biologically male can complete against someone born biologically female, that means trans women can’t compete against trans men, so you split that as well. But the numbers of athletes with this split is going to be extremely low, are people supposed to compete in leagues comprising 5-6 other people instead of a few hundred? And at what point have you just made the original situation (trans women in cis men categories and trans men in cis women categories) worse for everyone?
|
I think the solution is 2 new categories. and if the competition is small in those categories, maybe that encourages more athletes within those categories to train and elevate themselves to that threshold.
May I ask, what is the benefit to the trans individual to participate in the standard gender category? Is it limited their gained inclusion in that category?