As a TS woman do I stand a chance against men?

Double post

 

^ I'm pretty sure most women athletes will disagree with you.

You don't get to provide rights to a minority group, by taking away the rights of another minority group. And your playing into the right wingers hands by suggesting it.

 

In what way would that take away anyone's rights?

 

If your desegregating all competition, then their will be far less Cis women at high level, testosterone is a potant anabolic.

It's kinda being piloted in Holland right now:

Ellen Fokkema: Dutch woman playing with men asks questions of German football | DW | 09.08.2020

And there is quite spirited debate about it, iirc most of the female players are against it, as it devalues their own leagues.

 

It's definitely a delicate area, trans people need support and legal protections, but then we shouldn't negatively effect other groups as a side effect either.

A good example is prisons, whilst it would seem simple to just place prisoners in the prison that best suited their new Identity, that option has been responsible for several sexual assaults and worse, but keeping them in their original identifies prison, has also lead to issues with sexual assaults.

The systemic answer seems to be a much harder issue then the personal side of it.

 

Sorry, I'm not seeing how that goes against what I wrote. Creating divisions based on biological markers that affect pound-for-pound performance, such as testosterone, would make that less likely to happen, no?

 

If you did it with testosterone then:

You would end up with tier A athletes, which would be men, and perhaps some trans men, and tier B athletes which would be trans women, and Cis women.

Which is literally relegating women to second class atheletes. Whilst removing their informed consent, you can see why some feminists find these sort of ideas concerning.

 

I was talking about having more than two divisions.

I'm not seeing how what you describe above is different to how things are now.

The unfortunate truth:

Seven in ten support equal coverage for women’s sport, but not at the cost of men’s coverage | YouGov

I also don't know what you mean by "informed consent".

The difference with non-sex-based divisions would be that more women would get a chance to be top of their division (if there are more than two), and women would be able to compete against men of equal physical ability.

We already have tiers based on an unreliable performance indicator - male and female. I'm not getting how adding more tiers based on more representative and empirical performance indicators would "relegate women to second class athletes".

 

The current method isn't that unreliable in the majority of cases, it just doesn't always work well with a few outliers, some of which are accepted some arnt, until very recently it was all phenotype based.

If you talking about moving away from a phenotype based system, people who belong to those phenotypes may very well not agree.

 

Except that the current sex divisions exclude women and men with lower testosterone levels (if we're taking that as an example) before they ever get a chance to compete. Who knows how many people out there would want to be competition athletes but are excluded before they even leave school due to not being able to match the performance of their higher-testosterone peers?

How is this argument different to an argument against desegregation of athletes because fewer white people would reach the top tier of their sport?

 

I like to consider myself a supporter of trans rights but even I have to admit that, while the old notions of two distinct genders doesn't properly describe the spectrum of the human condition, there are two peaks on the continuum that roughly correspond to "women" and "men" and they do indicate certain performance factors fairly reliably.

 

The gender performance gap has been stable in sports for 40 years, so we can say that the peaks for those categories are fairly reliable (if we ignore certain "outliers"), but that is down to how we divide athletes. The filter dictates that result. We could divide them in ways that allow more men and women to compete.

If you want to keep people born as women as a protected class, you could still have performance leagues for them while they compete against other genders of similar physical ability.

 

I'm gonna sound like some sort of gammon here but surely if they can't match the performance of others they, by default, can't be competition athletes (no matter what the reasons)?
I'd like to sing like Freddie Mercury, play guitar like SRV, drums like Bonham, and Bass like Pastorius but unfortunately I'm excluded from those things by virtue of having no musical talent and I'm tone deaf.

 

How is that different to women's sports?

Would you say: "if women can't match the performance of men they, by default, can't be competition athletes"?

Would you say: "if featherweights can't match the performance of heavyweights they, by default, can't be champion boxers"?

We already have divisions based on physical performance. Why not make them more equal and evidence-based?

 

So you're advocating a 100 meters race for people with naturally high testosterone (for example) and a 100 meters race for people below some sort of testosterone threshold?
Aside from the prohibitively colossal cost of running such tests on every athlete (and keeping them up to date year to year so they compete in the right division) surely that would just create a bunch of lower tiers no one would be interested in?
Much like, sadly, many people (it's mainly men let's be honest) aren't interested in women's or even grass roots sport?

 

Caught you not reading my posts!

According to the YouGov data I posted, women are less interested in women's sports than men are.

 

And how many people would take a test blocker before their annual "division" testosterone test in order to compete in a lower division when their test levels return to (their) normal? Like sand bagging lower belts in BJJ?
Given we have had country's cheating to win at the Paralympics that'd be standard practice really.

I say we just throw it all open and allow everyone to take whatever they want and see what humans can really achieve.
I wanna see a 5 second 100 meters and 20 foot high jumps!

 

I barely read my own posts.