[ SECRET POST #4748 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4748 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 41 secrets from Secret Submission Post #680.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

It's at least theoretically possible that being AMAB would provide a structural advantage to athletes. So, on some level, it is something that deserves some kind of consideration.

But the way that the argument is made is to look at any trans athlete winning, and jump to the immediate conclusion (grounded in nothing more than "common sense") that being trans is the reason they won. And this is a really bad approach, purely from an intellectual point of view, even setting aside the questions of trans rights. The crucial point that you seem to be missing is that, in a world where being trans conferred absolutely no advantage over being cis, we would still expect trans athletes to win some of the time. This means that trans people winning competitions is not in itself evidence of trans people having an intrinsic advantage. Trans people and cis people being equal in athletics would mean that sometimes trans people win, so trans people winning does not establish that they had an unfair advantage. Trans people winning is an expected and normal and unobjectionable result of trans people competing - after all, someone has to win any given competition.

So you would have to go deeper and actually look at data and see if there actually is an enduring, systematic advantage derived from having a male body. It isn't actually something that you can just assert as common sense and assume that it exists. And, in fact, looking at the data, there really is not any compelling reason to think that such an advantage does exist yet. Instead, there's a lot of cherrypicking - you have things where a trans athlete and a cis athlete compete 20 times, and the trans athlete wins once, and then people say that the trans athlete clearly has an unfair advantage.

[(Anonymous)]

new to this thread

Plus I remember a study awhile back that showed that once they had been on hormones for X amount of time trans people didn't have any advantage at all.

[(Anonymous)]

Exactly, thank you.

[(Anonymous)]

So you would have to go deeper and actually look at data and see if there actually is an enduring, systematic advantage derived from having a male body. It isn't actually something that you can just assert as common sense and assume that it exists. And, in fact, looking at the data, there really is not any compelling reason to think that such an advantage does exist yet.

Are. Are you kidding me with this? So, the extremely well-documented fact that competitive male athletes statistically out preform competitive female athletes, consistently, in almost every sport on record, is somehow not compelling enough data for you? You somehow don't think it suggest that a biological advantage exists?


Or are to talking specifically about male bodies that are on hormone blockers? If you're talking about the latter, specifically, then okay, yeah, I agree that it's by no means an open and shut case, and I'd want to see more data.

[(Anonymous)]

??? Yeah, we're discussing trans people. Hormone treatments tend to factor in, usually. Hence the need for study.