• ChristerMLB@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    I think this should be handled by the communities of the different sports in stead. I imagine some sports, like power-lifting, would end up separating on biological sex - with some others wouldn’t

  • QuantumLover@lemmy.zipOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    18 hours ago

    ITT: Lemmy’s on high alert, scanning every post in this thread for the tiniest crack of nuance, hesitation, or less-than-100% agreement. The moment someone sounds even slightly conflicted or imperfectly aligned, the chorus leaps in with the sacred “transphobe!!” label like it’s a reflex. Then comes the frantic history dive of screenshots, out-of-context quotes… anything to sharpen the pitchforks and prove the heretic was always suspect.

    I’m fine with transphobes being called out, but some in this thread are really stretching the meaning of the word. Can’t we all just try to get along?

    It’s genuinely fascinating to watch. lol

    • AdaA
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Can’t we all just try to get along?

      That’s a bit hard when we’re having our rights taken away. But sure, the biggest issue is that the folk defending trans people aren’t doing it in a polite enough way for your sensibilities.

      • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        19 hours ago

        In general, studies find that trans individuals, following gender affirming hormone therapy, become more similar to their gender identity (post-transition) cisgender counterparts, or are somewhere between the expected male and female averages. Certain aspects of pre-transition-sex seem to be less malleable, such as total height and limb length. However, there are changes in aerobic capacity, body composition, and muscular strength and endurance

        You just proved Domi right lmao

      • Domi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        2 days ago

        The first link does not support your position. It comes to broadly the same findings as the one I linked. The second link is to a DW article that haphazardly hyperlinks to a couple of small-scale studies (that were themselves included in the meta-analysis from your first link).

        The idea of a preturnatural sporting advantage for trans women in womens sports is taken as an axiomatic truth by most people when this issue comes up. In fact the evidence suggests that over the first few years of GAHT, trans atheletes’ physical performance approaches that of their cis peers. They tend to remain in the same percentile of performance for their true gender post transition as they achieved in their assigned gender pre-transition.

        The article I linked was a large-scale meta-analysis (52 studies, n=6485) that is looking at a broader evidence base. At the very least, it is reasonable to question the base assumption that there is an obvious performence difference in the first place. Especially when that assumption is being used to justify the exclusion of trans people from yet another aspect of public life, both in professional sports and in for-fun, low-stakes highschool and local sports.

          • Domi
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            2 days ago

            I’m not going to assume malicious intent from you but what you’re doing in practice is JAQing off.

            If you care about getting to the facts to form an opinion, as you say you do, then you could have carefully read through the study I linked, or even the ones you posted, before you posted them. That’s what the several people who responded to you did.

            I’m going to disengage now. Good luck to you on your fact finding mission.

              • Domi
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                15
                ·
                2 days ago

                You could of answered my questions with facts and engaged in an actual conversation

                I did, and i did.

                it seems disingenuous to claim that I’m a conspiracy theorist.

                I didn’t say you were a consipiricist and I specifically didn’t ascribe to you malicious intent.

                Perhaps in the spirit of learning, you could maybe read into that rhetorical technique a little. The wikipedia article maybe focuses a little too much on conspiracy theorists but it’s a well-developed concept and it is in fact what you are doing.

                You are crowding the conversation with questions that you’ve not sincerely attempted to answer for yourself, instead you saw my comment, googled for 30 seconds and dumped two links in here, that you didn’t read, as if they were some kindof gotcha. You’ve forced several other people to take time to engage you in the substance of your questions, which they, and I, did.

                Nobody is silencing you, I’m disengaging because this is the sum-total of the amount of energy I’m willing to put into this conversation with a stranger, whose motives I don’t fully trust. You are of course free to continue crashing out.

              • stoly@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                2 days ago

                You have a right to do many things but they will not always be appropriate or do anything to help humanity develop. Oh, and you missed the sarcastic rhetoric. You aren’t asking questions, you are pasting in talking points that someone else wrote to detour the conversation and cast doubt on the rights of others. Stand up behavior.

                • floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  It’s not healthy to look for enemies in every interaction. Detouring the conversation and casting doubt on the rights of others? When? Where?

      • njm1314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        2 days ago

        Did you even read those at all? The second one literally agrees with their comment.

        After one year of hormone therapy, trans women performed better in sports than cis women. After two years, their performance was largely equalized.

        Hell the conclusion of the article basically states we need to study it more. That there is every indication that proper regulation can level the playing field to a degree but sports have never been fair. Which yeah of course not, no amount of training was going to let me dunk over Shaq.

          • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 day ago

            If there’s no clear scientific consensus, then why in fuck’s sake could you possibly justify a sports ban? You could actually be a child molesting pedophile. I have no evidence for or against this claim. But I better call the cops on you just in case!

            You’re demanding someone prove a negative. That is not how proof works. You can scientifically proof Bigfoot exists. Find a Bigfoot corpse? Call in some scientists and they’ll document it, analyze it, read its DNA, and scientifically prove with a mountain of evidence that Bigfoot exists. In contrast, it’s impossible to prove that Bigfoot does not exist. There could always be some hidden cave or remote mountain valley somewhere where, against all odds, there actually is a population of large non-human primates living on the North American continent. I can prove Bigfoot exists. I cannot prove that Bigfoot does not exist. That is simply the nature of logic and proof.

            You’re approaching this from a flawed premise. You’re effectively saying, “I will accept trans women in women’s sports when you conclusively prove they have no advantage whatsoever.” But that’s demanding proof of a negative. It is possible to prove an advantage. It is not possible to prove the non-existence of an advantage. Rather, the default assumption should be that no advantage exists. Since all secondary sex characteristics, including differences in musculature, come from lifetime hormone exposure, the default assumption should be that no advantage exists. Even men growing larger than women is because of hormone exposure at different periods in life. So if you switch someone’s hormones, the default assumption should be that no advantage exists. And basic humanity dignity and respect for human beings demands that you start by assuming a position of equality.

            The burden of proof is on those demanding we strip people of their liberty and dignity. The burden of proof is on those who would do real tangible harm to a group of people. Remember, these are lives we’re talking about. You’re arguing a hypothetical, but we’re talking about real human beings. And we know that trans women athletes will be harmed by being excluded from women’s sports. They certainly can’t meaningfully compete against cis male athletes. By excluding trans women from women’s sports, you are making it so trans women cannot compete in any competitive sport at all. That’s an entire realm of the human experience you’re cutting them out from.

            If it can be proven that some overwhelming advantage exists, sure. On a sport-by-sport basis, perhaps bans would be justifiable. But you need to actually prove real harm before you start taking people’s civil rights away. You are demanding proof that no advantage exists. You should be starting by demanding those who would take away civil rights present a rigorous case and actually prove real harm.

          • Triasha@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 day ago

            You have asked for a conversation, and I want to present a different position that I don’t often see.

            Are trans women… Women?

            If they are, then what’s the problem with trans women in sports? A women’s competition was held, women competed, a woman won.

            What’s the problem? Tall women are not banned from basketball, or track, despite having natural advantages. Micheal Phelps has clear physiological advantages in swimming. He is not banned from competing, he is celebrated.

            Why are gifted trans women not celebrated?

          • njm1314@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            Who are you agreeing with? You’re the one that posted the article, I’m just explaining to you what it said since you apparently didn’t read it. Am I living in some kind of Bizarro World here? What are you contributing here to this conversation?

      • musicalphysics@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 days ago

        The first link does not conclude what you state. From the conclusion, “The exclusion of trans individuals also insults the skill and athleticism of both cis and trans athletes. While sex differences do develop following puberty, many of the sex differences are reduced, if not erased, over time by gender affirming hormone therapy.”

  • Zozano@aussie.zoneBanned
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’m of two minds about this:

    First, let people compete in comparative tier skill events. We have different weight classes for boxing, why should other sports be any different?

    Second, who fucking cares? Sports are literally just physical games which have become the victim of capitalism, and the Olympics added nationalism and implicit racial perspectives.

    You will never see a Japanese woman winning the 100m sprint. Should we have another category for Asian sprinters? Maybe? But at some point you need to realise:

    NONE OF THIS SHIT MATTERS.

    Most of these athletes are doing drugs anyway lol.

    • cyan_mess
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      who fucking cares?

      Transphobes care about it, a lot. The material changes may be minimal, and harm cis women more than they’ll harm trans women. But they use the “sports issue” as a way to introduce the idea of excluding trans people from public life to mainstream debate. Here’s prominent transphobe Helen Joyce admitting to it publicly:

      1000156425

    • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      My feeling is that if there was an unfair advantage due to hormones or genetics, or would seem unfair to peak athletes. However, there appears to be none or minimal. It seems that most elite athletes have genetic or other advantages is some way, as you alluded to with racial differences.

      However, that aside, when we look at the purpose of sport, fun, exercise, community, human achievement; the exclusion of trans people undermines that and disappoints far more people. So for me, it’s a no brainer. Inclusivity wins out as that’s what protects the most kids (and people) from harm.

      • IronBird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        biggest advantage is just having the funds/support network available to dedicate your whole life to X sport

        • QuantumLover@lemmy.zipOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          19 hours ago

          This. The amount of effort and time that it takes to be an olympic athlete is crazy. I’ve actually met quiet a few in person, through the work I do. Even their ‘light training’ days are insane. Which is why I love the Olympic Games so much, regardless of IOC rulings.

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      Women’s sports exist because they can’t actually compete against men. The division is inherently and explicitly exclusionary. They were created to give 50% of the population a chance to compete on as fair of a stage as possible.

      • Furbag@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Women’s sports exist because men wouldn’t allow them to even play competitive sports, period. Women’s leagues were created as a conciliatory gesture from misogynists, not out of some sense of chivalrous duty to uphold fairness and equality.

        • krisevol@lemmus.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          There isn’t men sports. There are sports, and women sports. The league men play in allow both genders.

          • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            2 days ago

            Lol, no they don’t. Some do, but many don’t.

            For games like golf, up until relatively recently, women weren’t even allowed to be club members.

            Let’s not rewrite history.

          • Furbag@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 day ago

            That’s how it works today, but historically that has not been the case. Women even being allowed to play sports is less far removed from the present day than you might imagine.

        • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          That’s an interesting take when there’s generally no rules preventing women from competing in professional men’s leagues.

          • Furbag@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            There are no rules against it today. Go back in time 100 years and you have a culture of women being excluded from sports in general in favor of them learning “women’s work” or being homemakers. The 14th amendment was the catalyst that allowed women to begin participating in competitive sports as more than just a passtime or a hobby.

      • Cherries@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        Women’s sports was not created to protect women. Women’s sports were created to protect the egos of men who would place under women. If women competed with men, there would be a bunch of butthurt men who would be angry they aren’t as good.

        For example, the Battle of the Sexes tennis matches had so many men coping and seething when a women beat a man in a highly publicized tennis match after the guy was talking mad shit. You can look up any number of examples like this where after a woman does well in a sport, a seperate league for women is established.

    • qevlarr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      It matters exactly for the reason why it’s banned. Sports is a pretext for hurting trans people. Sex assigned at birth should not matter at all. The bigots know this is just a way to draw in normies. Their bigotry is acceptable as long as it’s dressed up as an intellectually honest debate about fairness in sports. Fairness in sports is a fool’s errand, like you point out. Having that discussion at all is letting the bigots win.

      • Zozano@aussie.zoneBanned
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        Sex assigned at birth should not matter at all.

        It shouldn’t, but it does. As a matter of what is statistically relevant about the dichotomy between males and females.

        • dandelion
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          is that true, though? What I’ve read is that the science is showing the opposite, that sex is mostly plastic and that after a couple years on hormones, trans women have similar fitness and athletic ability as cis women:

          https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2026/01/22/bjsports-2025-110239

          While transgender women exhibited higher lean mass than cisgender women, their physical fitness was comparable.

          transgender women’s VO₂ max, when adjusted for weight, aligns with cisgender women,4 further supporting parity in endurance capabilities

          the absence of strength disparities between transgender women and cisgender women found in the current review was consistent and contradicts narratives framing male puberty as conferring irreversible athletic advantages despite [gender-affirming hormone therapy].

          transgender women’s pretherapy advantages in push-ups and sit-ups disappeared after 2 years of feminising hormones among 46 individuals who started [gender-affirming hormone therapy] while in the US Air Force.

          • Zozano@aussie.zoneBanned
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            I’m going to plagiarise myself:

            This systematic review aligns with previous ones in highlighting critical research limitations. This includes the typically short study durations (<3 years) and a lack of data on elite athletes.

            So we aren’t talking about Olympic tier athletes.

            Also, the authors themselves acknowledge the evidence quality sits between very low and low

            • dandelion
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              14 hours ago

              For decades the Olympics committee has enabled trans and intersex athletes to compete without issue, using regulations on hormones to ensure fairness; it is only because the new IOC president is committed to excluding trans and intersex participation in sports that we have seen this reversal - there has been no change in the science to support the IOC’s new position.

              The quality of evidence is often low to very low for many important guidelines, both clinical and social, and yet those guidelines are not tossed out as not sufficiently backed by evidence. Meanwhile, the evidence we do have is clear that there is no meaningful advantage granted to trans women over cis women in physical fitness or athletic ability - and this fact is corroborated by decades of failure of trans female athletes to dominate against cis female competitors.

              Furthermore, the majority of trans athletic bans are state laws in the US that bar both trans men and trans women from participating in sports primarily in K-12 schools - the impact of the anti-trans movement’s push for the exclusion of trans participation in sports has not been primarily about creating fairness, but opening the door to senseless discrimination, often against a handful of children.

              In Kentucky, they passed a law and overrode the governor’s veto to pass a trans sports ban that only impacted a single girl who was actually the founder of her field hockey team, and all the people she played with wanted her to be able to play. But now she isn’t allowed to play because she’s trans..

              Whether you intend to or not, you are supporting a hate movement without the actual evidence to show that trans participation in sports is a problem on any level of competition, let alone for children playing with their friends.

            • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 day ago

              Why are you demanding that someone proves no advantage exists? If you find the level of proof ambiguous, then the null hypothesis must be that no difference exists. That’s just basic respect for human rights and dignity.

              Realize what you are suggesting. You are suggesting that trans women and girls be completely cut off from competitive sports in any form. Trans women are conclusively far below cis men in performance. We’re just squabbling over whether some minute advantage exists over cis women. Trans women can’t just go and play with the guys. You’re arguing for trans women to be completely excluded from any form of sports whatsoever, a complete expulsion from an entire realm of human culture and experience.

              If you’re arguing for something so radical and cruel, the burden of proof is on you. The default assumption is equality. We don’t take away civil rights on a whim. If it can be scientifically shown, on a sport-by-sport basis, that trans women have some massive advantage over cis women? Fine. In that case I might support a handicap system, or if that were not possible, exclusion as a last resort. But the burden for proof for that should be high. You’re hurting real people here. Unless you can scientifically prove that some advantage exists, the default assumption must be that no advantage exists.

        • qevlarr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          2 days ago

          I’m not having that debate. Nobody cares except bigots trying to hurt trans people. If you’re not, don’t get sucked into that debate. They’re arguing in bad faith

          • Zozano@aussie.zoneBanned
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            You’re arguing in bad faith?

            You are creating a strawman by claiming anyone who cares about gender in sports is a bigot who is trying to hurt trams people.

            • qevlarr@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              2 days ago

              No, I said people are being duped into debating by bigots. This is about politics, not sports.

              • Zozano@aussie.zoneBanned
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 days ago

                That’s a strawman.

                You are saying that people do not reach that conclusion on their own.

                • OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Has Domi pointed out elsewhere in this thread. There is no evidence that transgender women have a physical advantage over cisgender women, provided they’ve been on HRT for 2+ years. here’s the meta-analysis they linked

                  So yeah, based off of:

                  It shouldn’t, but it does. As a matter of what is statistically relevant about the dichotomy between males and females.

                  You’re either a bigot trying to use sports to hurt trans people, or you’ve been duped by bigots. So, unless you’re made of straw Qevlarr isn’t using a straw man argument.

  • FreddiesLantern@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 days ago

    Can we just, I dunno, end competitive sports for a while already?

    The planet is going to shit, dictatorships are running wild, democracy is dying, wars, …

    Meanwhile these assholes are SOOOO concerned about people their genitalia and using that to distract people from ACTUAL problems. Like maybe just stfu and go away.

    Same for the whole Eurosong debacle btw.

  • ordnance_qf_17_pounder@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    3 days ago

    Sad times if you’re a cis woman who happens to have a wider jawline, larger nose or who generally does not look sufficiently “feminine”. You can be subjected to cruel, invasive transvestigation instigated by people with sinister motives or bitter rivals.

    As always, transphobia is used to pander to bigoted pricks. This is not a victory for women in any shape or form. This just opens more avenues for abuse for the fucking gender police.

  • the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    3 days ago

    IOC 2022 “Framework on Fairness, Inclusion and Non-Discrimination”.

    IOC 2026 “Pander to Sexists, Racists, and Morons”

    It’s so sad to see hatred winning.

    • stray@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      Now I’m curious: Are there official limits on just how much a trans man is allowed to juice as an athlete?

    • JamesTBagg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 days ago

      Or because trans men don’t have a physical advantage over Cis men competitors in physical competitions.

        • JamesTBagg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          That’s neat. Wild how much an affect hormonal changes can have on the body. Humans are weird.

            • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              Imagine if Greg had responded “yes,” and then proceeded to provide detailed step-by-step instructions in how to induce lactation. That would have been a real weird twist. I’m talking like a five minute segue in the movie.

      • MyMindIsLikeAnOcean@piefed.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        2 days ago

        Not all Olympic events are about brute strength or reaction time etc.

        There’s equestrian, sailing, shooting, and an array of mixed events where a trans man could have an advantage over a Cis man.

        • JamesTBagg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          You’re correct (shooting… women are naturally better shooters than men in my experience.) I agree in competitions that don’t rely on pure physicality this ban wouldn’t make sense, but I don’t agree this is just misogyny versus some other type of prejudice.
          I think a one way ban makes sense in some fields because a trans man competing against cis men is already at a physical disadvantage. That’s not the case if the genders are switched.

          Curling is the only sport in the Olympics that matters and it would probably be fine ungendered.

  • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 days ago

    The amount of reactionaries here is deeply disappointing, I expected nothing from a world community and yet somehow I am still disappointed

  • muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    Find, the Olympics have been super corporate for too long anyway. Create an inclusive alternative and fuck corporate