this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2025
79 points (97.6% liked)
World News
193 readers
133 users here now
Please help and contribute as we vote on rules:
https://quokk.au/post/21590
Other Great Communities:
Rules
Be excellent to each other
founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Again, read research on the subject. You do not have any idea what you're talking about. You're comparing pretransition people to transitioned people. It's completely different.
What you're spouting is the lowbrow kind of stuff a person at a bar would utter "I could run the country better than that imbecile" or "if scientists knew anything about anything, they'd have asked me how to fix the economy".
I'm telling you again: read the damn research. You have no friggin' idea what you're talking about.
P.S look up Denning-Kruger
And not a single mind was changed that day.
Nothing about your comments indicates a willingness to change your mind. However, your statement above is the first concrete statement of the thread, so it seems like the onus would fall on you to support the claim, rather than /u/astro_city@fedio.io to refute it. If you make factual claims without evidence, nobody's especially obligated to provide evidence to tell you that your made-up facts are wrong.
Hand-grip strength of young men, women and highly trained female athletes
As the research doesn't cover trans athletes, it's of limited relevance. The onus has not yet been met.
They called my claim that men have a significant advantage over women when it comes to strenght a made-up fact so I backed it up with evidence as requested.
Hmm, on re-reading I can see that as being part of what was asked. However, you wrote this,
So I think the real ask is for evidence that post-transition trans women are stronger than cis women. To reiterate, I think the points now requiring evidence are these statements (edited by me for clarity):
I do note that you state that this is not true in all cases btw, so also interested in hearing what you think the exception is (that is, what are those cases where trans women, particularly trans women in sports, do not have an unfair or significant advantage over cis women when it comes to strength and speed).
It would be a statistical miracle if every single trans woman was stronger than every biological woman. I'm confident in claiming that most are but I'd never claim that there's no exceptions. Depends on many things such as biological diversity, how long ago they transitioned and what drugs they're taking just to name a few.
People have jumped all over you on the science, of transition and the physical difference between cis and trans women.
But I want to ask a different question.
A women's competition is held and a trans woman wins. What's the problem?
A woman won a woman's competition. Why is this a problem?
It's not but once we start seeing a trend of the winners and record holders being trans more often than not it starts becoming a problem. It's not fair for the biological women.
Source
If it's not a problem why are we talking about it?
What is the problem if trans women take all the records?
The competitions were open to women. All women. What is the problem if women win?
Exactly.
None that I can see.
This would kinda imply that maybe it makes sense to start talking about new categories. Kinda like how we already have different weight classes in wrestling. But I doubt it would happen, if you look at the studies from the NPR article by the OC,
9% isn't that much of an advantage, and it could go down further as time goes on (as the raw data sorta hints at), just maybe the study wasn't running for long enough.
And this doesn't apply to all trans folks. Do remember,
So a trans woman who transitioned before puberty has no competitive advantage worth talking about, and a trans woman who transitions after puberty just needs time to lose the extra muscle before the competitive advantage disappears.
Finally, keep in mind that even for those that are recent post-puberty transitions, they still don't perform as well as cis men, so it definitely does not make sense to include them in there.
Meanwhile, transmen on average outperform cis men,
Everything suggests to me that there's no problem and we've split up the categories in the right ways, at worst it's perhaps just a matter of tweaking this statement, "1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events" to a slightly longer time period.
The point of my questions is that there is a philosophical assumption underpinning all the hullabaloo around trans women in sports.
Even if trans women were winning every competition they competed in, (they aren't, but even if they were.) this only matters if you don't actually consider trans women to be women
This is why there is so much acrimony on our side. It appears that even for our allies, it's fine for us to compete, so long as we don't win.
So my comment about new categories should be understood to be within the context of "trans women are women, full stop." We have different weight classes for men in wrestling, but no one would question that the featherweight champion is a man, or that the heavyweight champion is a man, even though a heavyweight would clearly defeat a featherweight every time if they were to compete against each other.
That definitely seems unfair and I don't ascribe to this. There's generally nothing wrong with a trans women winning a sports competition when competing against other women (who may also be cis or trans).
The whole argument from the other side centers on the assumption that men obviously are better than women at sports just because, and thus it's obviously unfair that ...
Except that cis women have beaten cis men in sports before, see https://www.elle.com/culture/g30119/female-athletes-who-won-against-men/
In some sports women generally do better than men, see https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240731-the-sports-where-women-outperform-men
So the central premise that the other side tries to bring is faulty to begin with.
By definition that then means that if you are born a woman then you can forget all your dreams about becoming a competitive athlete because those roles are reserved for the ones that were born a male.
I think your article nails it on the head here.
In other words,
That said, we could theoretically have new height classes in basketball, the same way we already have weight classes for wrestling. Likewise, if we did need some new form of class for an Olympic sport, I'm sure we don't have to call it out by gender, but can have some similarly gender-agnostic criteria.
The issue here is that people have no problem admitting that tall individuals have an advantage over shorter ones in basketball - but when someone points out that trans women may have an advantage over biological women in terms of strength and speed, those same people suddenly come out of the woodwork, calling it a lie or transphobia.
If instead they acknowledged the advantage but still argued for inclusion, then at least we’d be agreeing on the facts - and the discussion could focus on how to level the playing field. Blanket bans are rarely the optimal solution, but neither is a free-for-all.
Key word that's often missing: "may"
The NPR article that you used as a source is pretty clear on this, that there's a group of trans women for which this (stronger and faster than cis women) is not true.
FTFY.
Actually, I suspect the issue here is that other folks - right-wing and MAGA in particular - take the a statement similar to yours, and run away with it to justify a blanket ban.
In other words, your original statement,
Well, I don't know it. Perhaps the folks on the World Olympics have loftier ideals - I sure hope that's the case.
But there are folks that don't want trans people to be able to use washrooms. (See https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/no-link-between-trans-inclusive-policies-bathroom-safety-study-finds-n911106 which references the belief, while pointing out that science doesn't provide support.)
Hence some hypervigilance to keep those folks from taking over the conversation.
True - the discussion really should be focus on inclusion, and of course a level playing field should only further the cause.
Implying of course that we were not born women.
Ok, that's fair.
Right, but that's what the other commenters were waiting for supporting research on, I believe.
Source
This is what happens when you google something to support your made-up fact, rather than base your argument on the research.
Your claim was that this applies to most, but not all trans women. Your link provides literally zero support of that.
This bad faith, scientifically illiterate shit is why people are generally inclined to dismiss you as spewing ignorant bar talk and move on without trying to change your mind. Your stance wasn't set based on current, relevant research and therefore isn't likely to be changed by it.
I made three claims and you called it all made-up facts.
If you want to get pedantic, you have to figure out how to be accurate. Breaking a sentence into bullet points doesn't make it separate claims. The word "and" means that for the sentence to be true, all of the components must be. You made one claim, with multiple aspects and evidence that does not support 2/3 of them at all.
I think the other user had it right, so I'm going to steal this one: stay ignorant friendo
Source