ADVERTISEMENT

Amid protests, Penn swimmer Lia Thomas becomes first known transgender athlete to win Division I national championship

It’s comical that they are researching this. So effing obvious it’s an unfair advantage. You are witnessing the left try to divide by 0. Can’t please two oppressed groups at the same time.
"Just look at it" is not scientific data. In fact, the data from the article seems to support the opposite of what you are guessing at. If you are going to deny opportunities to people, then you need evidence to back it up. Right now, that doesn't exist. Although, I wouldn't say there is enough evidence to say that it isn't the case either. You should be demanding more research, not less.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: abby97
"Just look at it" is not scientific data. In fact, the data from the article seems to support the opposite of what you are guessing at. If you are going to deny opportunities to people, then you need evidence to back it up. Right now, that doesn't exist. Although, I wouldn't say there is enough evidence to say that it isn't the case either. You should be demanding more research, not less.
Why do we have men's and women's sports? What study was used to create this separation?
 
Why do we have men's and women's sports? What study was used to create this separation?
Why do you think trans-women are the same as men? What evidence do you have to say they are?

Look, if there is a difference then I fully support keeping them separate. But what little data that exists suggests there isn't any difference. Hell, my gut reaction is the same as yours, that they shouldn't be allowed. However I just want some actual data to support that.
 
Why do you think trans-women are the same as men? What evidence do you have to say they are?

Look, if there is a difference then I fully support keeping them separate. But what little data that exists suggests there isn't any difference. Hell, my gut reaction is the same as yours, that they shouldn't be allowed. However I just want some actual data to support that.
How about we start with this, as a man Lia was ranked 462 and as a women she is ranked #1. Does that mean anything to you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCHawk5
I'm not. What evidence do you have of me saying that?
Well, that was the most obvious connection you were trying to make by asking that question, that men and women are physically different from each other. So you were implying that trans-women are significantly different than biological women. I'm just saying we can't just assume that and need actual data that shows that. After all, they have been taking medications to change their physical attributes.
 
How about we start with this, as a man Lia was ranked 462 and as a women she is ranked #1. Does that mean anything to you?
It's something, but it's not much really. You would need to look at a sample size of more than 1 to really get anything meaningful. By the way, she got destroyed in her other events so it's not like she's an all out dominating force out there. She's not Katy Ledecky winning gold in 9 different events or whatever. If you let trans athletes participate, eventually one of them is going to win.

And because it keeps getting lost on people, asking for more evidence doesn't mean I automatically support the integrated policy. It just means I want to make sure it is fair and not leave it to political biases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gohawks50
Well, that was the most obvious connection you were trying to make by asking that question, that men and women are physically different from each other. So you were implying that trans-women are significantly different than biological women. I'm just saying we can't just assume that and need actual data that shows that. After all, they have been taking medications to change their physical attributes.
Nope. I am asking was there a study done to determine that men had an advantage before declaring two separate classes. If you have been accepting of Men's and Women's sports without a study being done about it, why now are you in such need of a study?

It's obvious that Lia Thomas has a huge advantage over women and was average against men. But you want a study done to prove that, while at the same time in this post telling me about "obvious connections". Seems very inconsistent.
 
"Just look at it" is not scientific data. In fact, the data from the article seems to support the opposite of what you are guessing at. If you are going to deny opportunities to people, then you need evidence to back it up. Right now, that doesn't exist. Although, I wouldn't say there is enough evidence to say that it isn't the case either. You should be demanding more research, not less.

Why do you think trans-women are the same as men? What evidence do you have to say they are?

Look, if there is a difference then I fully support keeping them separate. But what little data that exists suggests there isn't any difference. Hell, my gut reaction is the same as yours, that they shouldn't be allowed. However I just want some actual data to support that.

Well, that was the most obvious connection you were trying to make by asking that question, that men and women are physically different from each other. So you were implying that trans-women are significantly different than biological women. I'm just saying we can't just assume that and need actual data that shows that. After all, they have been taking medications to change their physical attributes.

It's something, but it's not much really. You would need to look at a sample size of more than 1 to really get anything meaningful. By the way, she got destroyed in her other events so it's not like she's an all out dominating force out there. She's not Katy Ledecky winning gold in 9 different events or whatever. If you let trans athletes participate, eventually one of them is going to win.

And because it keeps getting lost on people, asking for more evidence doesn't mean I automatically support the integrated policy. It just means I want to make sure it is fair and not leave it to political biases.
Might as well post this for the 14th time I guess.


https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3

"Longitudinal studies examining the effects of testosterone suppression on muscle mass and strength in transgender women consistently show very modest changes, where the loss of lean body mass, muscle area and strength typically amounts to approximately 5% after 12 months of treatment. Thus, the muscular advantage enjoyed by transgender women is only minimally reduced when testosterone is suppressed. Sports organizations should consider this evidence when reassessing current policies regarding participation of transgender women in the female category of sport.

The pioneer work by Gooren and colleagues, published in part in 1999 [61] and in full in 2004 [62], reported the effects of 1 and 3 years of testosterone suppression and estrogen supplementation in 19 transgender women (age 18–37 years). After the first year of therapy, testosterone levels were reduced to 1 nmol/L, well within typical female reference ranges, and remained low throughout the study course. As determined by MRI, thigh muscle area had decreased by − 9% from baseline measurement. After 3 years, thigh muscle area had decreased by a further − 3% from baseline measurement (total loss of − 12% over 3 years of treatment). However, when compared with the baseline measurement of thigh muscle area in transgender men (who are born female and experience female puberty), transgender women retained significantly higher thigh muscle size. The final thigh muscle area, after three years of testosterone suppression, was 13% larger in transwomen than in the transmen at baseline (p < 0.05). The authors concluded that testosterone suppression in transgender women does not reverse muscle size to female levels.

We have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant."

And another study that looks at physiological differences that originate at puberty.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cen.13350

"Given its importance for the general health of the transgender population, there are multiple studies of bone health, and reviews of these data. To summarise, transgender women often have low baseline (pre-intervention) bone mineral density (BMD), attributed to low levels of physical activity, especially weight-bearing exercise, and low vitamin D levels [52, 53]. However, transgender women generally maintain bone mass over the course of at least 24 months of testosterone suppression. There may even be small but significant increases in BMD at the lumbar spine [54, 55]. Some retrieved studies present data pertaining to maintained BMD in transgender women after many years of testosterone suppression. One such study concluded that “BMD is preserved over a median of 12.5 years” [56]. In support, no increase in fracture rates was observed over 12 months of testosterone suppression [54]. Current advice, including that from the International Society for Clinical Densitometry, is that transgender women, in the absence of other risk factors, do not require monitoring of BMD [52, 57]. This is explicable under current standard treatment regimes, given the established positive effect of estrogen, rather than testosterone, on bone turnover in males [58].

Given the maintenance of BMD and the lack of a plausible biological mechanism by which testosterone suppression might affect skeletal measurements such as bone length and hip width, we conclude that height and skeletal parameters remain unaltered in transgender women, and that sporting advantage conferred by skeletal size and bone density would be retained despite testosterone reductions compliant with the IOC’s current guidelines. This is of particular relevance to sports where height, limb length and handspan are key (e.g. basketball, volleyball, handball) and where high movement efficiency is advantageous. Male bone geometry and density may also provide protection against some sport-related injuries—for example, males have a lower incidence of knee injuries, often attributed to low quadriceps (Q) angle conferred by a narrow pelvic girdle [59, 60]."
 
"Just look at it" is not scientific data. In fact, the data from the article seems to support the opposite of what you are guessing at. If you are going to deny opportunities to people, then you need evidence to back it up. Right now, that doesn't exist. Although, I wouldn't say there is enough evidence to say that it isn't the case either. You should be demanding more research, not less.
Do you think someone with a dick should win an ncaa womens sporting event? Yes or no answer please.
 
The common sense thought process to "are trans women really different than cis women" would be:

Why do we keep having these examples of male to female trans athletes winning women's sports, and so far no example (that I've ever seen or that anyone has produced for me) of a single female to male trans athlete winning big at men's sports?
 
Do you think someone with a dick should win an ncaa womens sporting event? Yes or no answer please.
I'm sorry my responses are too complex for you to wrap your head around and understand, but it is impossible to narrow that response down to a one word answer. It is a shame that is all you are capable of handling, but it does explain a lot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gohawks50
I'm sorry my responses are too complex for you to wrap your head around and understand, but it is impossible to narrow that response down to a one word answer. It is a shame that is all you are capable of handling, but it does explain a lot.
Lol you’re trying to complicate something that isn’t complicated. Dicks don’t belong in womens athletics. You can show me all the studies you want, I won’t change my opinion.
 
Might as well post this for the 14th time I guess.


https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3

"Longitudinal studies examining the effects of testosterone suppression on muscle mass and strength in transgender women consistently show very modest changes, where the loss of lean body mass, muscle area and strength typically amounts to approximately 5% after 12 months of treatment. Thus, the muscular advantage enjoyed by transgender women is only minimally reduced when testosterone is suppressed. Sports organizations should consider this evidence when reassessing current policies regarding participation of transgender women in the female category of sport.

The pioneer work by Gooren and colleagues, published in part in 1999 [61] and in full in 2004 [62], reported the effects of 1 and 3 years of testosterone suppression and estrogen supplementation in 19 transgender women (age 18–37 years). After the first year of therapy, testosterone levels were reduced to 1 nmol/L, well within typical female reference ranges, and remained low throughout the study course. As determined by MRI, thigh muscle area had decreased by − 9% from baseline measurement. After 3 years, thigh muscle area had decreased by a further − 3% from baseline measurement (total loss of − 12% over 3 years of treatment). However, when compared with the baseline measurement of thigh muscle area in transgender men (who are born female and experience female puberty), transgender women retained significantly higher thigh muscle size. The final thigh muscle area, after three years of testosterone suppression, was 13% larger in transwomen than in the transmen at baseline (p < 0.05). The authors concluded that testosterone suppression in transgender women does not reverse muscle size to female levels.

We have shown that under testosterone suppression regimes typically used in clinical settings, and which comfortably exceed the requirements of sports federations for inclusion of transgender women in female sports categories by reducing testosterone levels to well below the upper tolerated limit, evidence for loss of the male performance advantage, established by testosterone at puberty and translating in elite athletes to a 10–50% performance advantage, is lacking. Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant."

And another study that looks at physiological differences that originate at puberty.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cen.13350

"Given its importance for the general health of the transgender population, there are multiple studies of bone health, and reviews of these data. To summarise, transgender women often have low baseline (pre-intervention) bone mineral density (BMD), attributed to low levels of physical activity, especially weight-bearing exercise, and low vitamin D levels [52, 53]. However, transgender women generally maintain bone mass over the course of at least 24 months of testosterone suppression. There may even be small but significant increases in BMD at the lumbar spine [54, 55]. Some retrieved studies present data pertaining to maintained BMD in transgender women after many years of testosterone suppression. One such study concluded that “BMD is preserved over a median of 12.5 years” [56]. In support, no increase in fracture rates was observed over 12 months of testosterone suppression [54]. Current advice, including that from the International Society for Clinical Densitometry, is that transgender women, in the absence of other risk factors, do not require monitoring of BMD [52, 57]. This is explicable under current standard treatment regimes, given the established positive effect of estrogen, rather than testosterone, on bone turnover in males [58].

Given the maintenance of BMD and the lack of a plausible biological mechanism by which testosterone suppression might affect skeletal measurements such as bone length and hip width, we conclude that height and skeletal parameters remain unaltered in transgender women, and that sporting advantage conferred by skeletal size and bone density would be retained despite testosterone reductions compliant with the IOC’s current guidelines. This is of particular relevance to sports where height, limb length and handspan are key (e.g. basketball, volleyball, handball) and where high movement efficiency is advantageous. Male bone geometry and density may also provide protection against some sport-related injuries—for example, males have a lower incidence of knee injuries, often attributed to low quadriceps (Q) angle conferred by a narrow pelvic girdle [59, 60]."
This is the first I have seen this and it seems to fit in line with the "Must be undergoing changes for at least two years" part of the rule. But one study doesn't make a consensus and I am not a consensus. Need more data and more research.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: NorthDSMHawk
Lol you’re trying to complicate something that isn’t complicated. Dicks don’t belong in womens athletics. You can show me all the studies you want, I won’t change my opinion.
It is complicated and that's what you refuse to accept. I can't help you with that.
 
This is the first I have seen this and it seems to fit in line with the "Must be undergoing changes for at least two years" part of the rule. But one study doesn't make a consensus and I am not a consensus. Need more data and more research.
Do you not know how to read scientific papers? Both published papers are shitting all over the idea of "undergo two years of transition" because they implicitly state that advantages are gained while undergoing puberty which are minimally affected, if not unaltered, after transition.

Be honest, did you actually read them or just not understand them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCHawk5
When people make slippery slope arguements, I always point out that we are capable of creating a line. This is the line in my opinion. We shouldnt be giving this male at birth a medal for beating biological women. Its pretty ridiculous.
 
I made them all similar in size so we can all move on from this now.

Getty-Images-1239279539-1024x683.jpg
Still a wood not for me.
 
Stop.

Thinking this is wrong is not transphobic.

This man competed as a man all his life until this year. Decided he was a woman and goes onto win the national championship.

So you are ok with this?

If your daughter got 2nd to Lia, you would be ok with that?

Lia went from not even the top 500 in the men's division to a championship this year.

It's wrong.
It's disgusting.

Be who whoever you want to be, but this is wrong.
Pat Forde was ok with it, his daughter was 2nd. But I think he and his daughter are speaking out of their arse. She has already won in the NCAA and been in the olympics. It is much easier for her to say this.
Speak to the girl that got 4th or didn't make the finals, or didn't make the NCAA's. They have a better argument.
 
Hell, it's pretty clear you don't understand what you are talking about.
Do you understand what a consensus is? Do you understand why scientists rarely ever make policy suggestions based off of one or two pieces of research? I'm not an expert in this and my job isn't to read all the papers. When those people start saying it's a problem, then I'll go with what they are saying.

It is a problem to let them compete and then find out if there are differences. One thing is for sure though, no research was being done on this before. Now it appears there is a lot.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: NorthDSMHawk
Do you understand what a consensus is? Do you understand why scientists rarely ever make policy suggestions based off of one or two pieces of research? I'm not an expert in this and my job isn't to read all the papers. When those people start saying it's a problem, then I'll go with what they are saying.

It is a problem to let them compete and then find out if there are differences. One thing is for sure though, no research was being done on this before. Now it appears there is a lot.
Which is a shame. What a terrible allocation of resources.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT