There is zero biological argument because you cannot make two categories based on sex which encompass everyone.
Example 1:
A cis woman with a genetic mutation which incrases her testosterone levels into the range of cis men. Should she be banned from female competitive sports?
Example 2:
A cis woman with XY gonadal dysgenesis. She has XY chromosomes but the Y chromosome is mutated and doesn’t function as it should which causes a “female” phenotype. Should she be banned from female competitive sports?
Example 3:
A trans woman in the 95th percentile of men with regards to physical strength. She is in the 10th percentile of women after transitioning. Should she be banned from female competitive sports?
Example 4:
A trans woman with Klinefelter syndrome and XXY genes. She has naturally very low levels of testosterone and she doesn’t require testosterone blockers after transitioning and taking estrogen. Even before transitioning she had less muscle mass, weaker bones and wider hips than the average man as a result of her low testosterone. Should she be banned from female competitive sports?
Example 5:
An African woman who would be in the 1st percentile of man if she were one, both in terms of physical attributes (size, muscle mass, heart size) and competitive results. Some “scientists” argue her race makes her less of a woman and more of a man. Should she be banned from female competitive sports?
There is zero risk of these people “replacing” cis women by the way. Yes, their performance may be greater than that of comparable cis women without any genetical mutations beyond a certajn point.
Yet risk is calculated as [severity] * [likelihood]. And due to the low likelihood stemming from their very low prevalence in the general population, there is no reason to ban them.
Women’s sports is about representation of women. Trans women are part of that group, cis women with genetic mutations are part of that group, racial minorities are part of that group. You cannot exclude some women and claim this group is “fair” and representative.
Make a trans league if there’s really such a demand for it. Problem solved.
A separate but equal league? Sure sounds appealing to many to segregate trans people into their own categories.
May as well apply it to bathrooms as well while we’re at it.
What, the same way biological males and females are “segregated” in sports?
May as well just make bathrooms with individual stalls/rooms. Then everyone will shut up about this stupid crap.
I don’t care what you got going on down there at the end of the day, but you’re on some crazy shit if you think it’s fair to make trans women that have gone through puberty compete against other women. It’s just simple biology, nothing evil about that.
In some sports there are weight classes, because being a certain weight gives you an inherent biological advantage on average over people of a different weight. The weight classes allow anyone to find well-matched competition regardless of their biology.
Women’s sports vs Men’s sports is a similar idea. Separate people by some biological classification that’s often tied on average to an advantage at the sport, so that everybody has the chance to play against someone of a similar baseline.
That division doesn’t have to exclude trans people, but it does mean that a line gets drawn somewhere. And yes, that line might include some cis people with a genetic abnormality getting excluded as well, and some cis men with a genetic abnormality might be included.
If you want to draw the divisions by something like muscle mass or testosterone levels instead of trying to define sex and gender clearly enough for this purpose, that would probably be easier, although “low testosterone sports” doesn’t have the same marketability as “women’s sports” lol.
The weight classes allow anyone to find well-matched competition regardless of their biology.
That’s true. In professional boxing there are 18 weight classes from 46.3 kg (103 lb) to 101.6 kg (224 lb) plus the unlimited weight class. Only very few adults are excluded as the vast majority weighs more than the lower bound.
But with sex-based roles? Two don’t really make a fair competition, do they? I mean, otherwise there wouldn’t even be a need for per-sport subclasses.
Trans people and people with certain genetic mutations are very, very common though. We’re talking about more than 1% of people here. Shouldn’t there be a need to ensure they too can compete fairly?
Imagine if in the early 1900’s it was discovered that left-handed people are on average slightly better at math than right-handed people. As a reaction, all left-handed people are excluded from math scholarships as they have an unfair advantage over right-handed people. Would you consider this fair? After all, they only made up ~2% of the population and we have to draw the line of who gets a scholarship and who doesn’t somewhere.
But with sex-based roles? Two don’t really make a fair competition, do they? I mean, otherwise there wouldn’t even be a need for per-sport subclasses.
Sports is full of divisions. Division by age is the most common, followed by division by skill, and division by sex. Some sports use extra divisions by weight. Some find age/sex/skill to be enough. In some sports, especially at lower age or skill levels, co-ed is common (division by sex is not used). There are also divisions for people with physical disabilities, sometimes with tweaks to the rule to accommodate.
In all cases, the purpose of these divisions is to find a balance where everyone can get a fair matchup.
Trans people and people with certain genetic mutations are very, very common though. We’re talking about more than 1% of people here. Shouldn’t there be a need to ensure they too can compete fairly?
Absolutely 100%. I think everybody should be able to participate in sports, and I think that rules about sex divisions should be modified to account for trans people and people with gender-related disorders. I don’t think just letting people choose a division is fair though, there should be rules for consistency and fairness.
The border of the divisions is always at least somewhat contentious because people just before the cutoff have an advantage. Many high-level athletes have similar birth dates because they were born just before the age cutoff growing up. Being slightly older in the age divisions gives an advantage, and that leads to performing well, which leads to feedback loops such as coaches and parents and the kid noticing the good performance and focusing on the sport more. This ends up in more kids who were at the edge of their age range growing up becoming successful athletes as adults.
Also with weight-based divisions, it’s typical in higher skill levels to body-build to slightly above the cutoff and then avoid drinking water for a day to get slightly below the cutoff.
No line you draw will be perfect, but you do have to draw a line somewhere.
Imagine if in the early 1900’s it was discovered that left-handed people are on average slightly better at math than right-handed people. As a reaction, all left-handed people are excluded from math scholarships as they have an unfair advantage over right-handed people. Would you consider this fair? After all, they only made up ~2% of the population and we have to draw the line of who gets a scholarship and who doesn’t somewhere.
There are a some problems with this analogy. Scholarships are very different from competitions (although sports scholarships exist, which is a whole other topic to discuss…). Also the gender case is looking at the edge cases of an existing cutoff, which is not the case about left handed people, unless you want to hypothetically add they might have some relation to some other grouping.
I’ll offer some analogies that I think might be similar. What about someone with developmental issues who was held back in school? Would it be fair for the other kids if they get to play sports with the younger age group because of their mind? Would it fair for the kid who was held back to have to play in the older age group because of their body? What about someone who has a condition affecting their weight? Should that condition let them compete in a lower weight class? I’m not saying I have the answers to these scenarios, btw. I think a lot of it comes down to a case-by-case basis, and guidelines with leeway for exceptions are probably better than strict rules.
Women’s sports is about representation of women.
Maybe that’s the crux of the issue. You guys keep seeing women’s sports as some sort of symbolism or representation or statement. The majority of people see women’s sports as being about sports. No agenda needed. No messaging. Just physical competition purely for the sake of it.
Yes, it is about sports - but only in addition to being about representation. This is the key distinguishing factor between women’s sports and male/open category sports.
If it were purely and solely about sports then women’s sports as a category wouldn’t exist. Female athletes would get similar funding and opportunities as male athletes, both in competitive and casual events.
Just take a look at chess: Why is there a women’s league? Answer: Because there are significant systemic barriers against women in chess. Without their own leagues, there would be no representation in the top level at all due to men dominating the rankings. Having women’s chess tournaments is about representing women in chess.
But trans women are banned from ranked women’s chess events. And to put the cherry on top, trans men are stripped of all their titles after transitioning.
Cruelty is the point of these decisions. Not “supporting women”.
Oh, and one more thing:
No agenda needed
Totally. Zero agenda, zero ideology, zero DEI and zero wokeness. Traditional conservative women’s sports events just like we always had and how God intended. Not even a strand of feminism to be found here, nope.
Calling chess a “sport” in the context of this discussion is such a reach I’m suspecting you might actually be Reed Richards in disguise.
