fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #6539 ]

[ SECRET POST #6539 ]

⌈ Secret Post #6539 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 37 secrets from Secret Submission Post #935.
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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Oh trans men do exist for them, just mainly as a cautionary tale of internalized misogyny gone too far.

Sometimes yes. But when it comes to sports and bathrooms, they pretend, and have to pretend, that trans men don't exist. Because it does ruin all their arguments.

I mean, trans men don't actually have an unfair advantage in sports over cis men the way trans women do over cis women.

Trans women don't actually have an advantage either, science actually says that. Only TERFs claim that.

I've seen scientific studies that say otherwise, mainly based on muscle mass/distribution and bone density.

DA

It's all very much a "it depends, case by case, sport by sport, person by person, depending on individual medical history" and it's silly for either side to pretend like it's always significant or always insignificant.

This thread made me realize I hadn't done any research on the subject, just heard people discoursing about it from their respective political positions and assumed the one that aligned with my politics was correct, but now that I've looked at the original studies on this, you seem to be the most correct.

It depends! The advantage males have over females varies from basically nil (like shooting/archery; the top female score for the latter was literally higher than the top male at the last Olympics), to small (5-10%) but consistent enough that if the sport was mixed no female would ever qualify for elite events (running/swimming), to so enormous (>30%) that if they were mixed female athletes would be uncompetitive even at the amateur level (weightlifting). And the degree to which post-puberty gender-affirming hormones compensate for these advantages also varies in terms of both strength of the effect and time needed to achieve the effect, with some only taking about 12 months, others 24-36, and some never actually going away.

So yeah, it's going to depend on the sport, and the degree to which those permanent advantages affect performance. Barring trans women from archery (or like, chess :/) is patently just transphobia but the rest? Depends. The largest study of its kind found advantages in running were still present by the end of it (three years), with an effect size comparable to elite cis men and cis women.

(And also, of course, what we as a society value: inclusion or fairness.)

> So yeah, it's going to depend on the sport, and the degree to which those permanent advantages affect performance. Barring trans women from archery (or like, chess :/) is patently just transphobia but the rest? Depends.

Finally some nuance, thank you.

AYRT

It also depends when, where, and how the woman in question began transition. Not all trans female athletes had a male puberty if they began on hormone blockers early enough. Also, not all male puberty results are equal: sometimes a male puberty still results in a 5'2" and 100 lb cis male and a trans woman whose puberty experience is comparable to that is unlikely to be physically advantaged compared to the average cis woman in a statistically significant way at a sport like hockey or basketball.

It depends. It depends on everything, down to the individual person and their height, build, musculature, and medical history. Both sides of this issue always love to talk about it like it always does or does not matter and that simply isn't the case. Where's the overall cutoff where it matters? I don't know, but I can tell you it's different for every sport and some trans women will fall beyond the line and others within it, and only a doctor will be able to tell me that, not internet randoms who don't know what they're talking about. How should sporting rules deal with the situation? I don't know either, but one-size-fits-all ban or approval is people burying their heads in the sand because trying to deal with "it depends" is too hard for them.

Having a male puberty and transitioning in adulthood is also a factor. This doesn't make those athletes not valid, they are 100% valid. But it's blind to act like there isn't a difference.

Yeah, and that's one of the reasons why it's so important for trans kids to have access to gender-affirming care like puberty blockers. If they transition before puberty, then it's virtually a non-issue because their body will have developed according to the hormones that match their gender.

Some may have some advantage. But it isn't any different than someone who is just really, really good. There are always going to be people who are just better. Should be ban all the athletes who are at the very top just because it is somehow unfair? If you say not, then your only argument is that trans women aren't real women and therefore their advantage is somehow different. AKA transphobia.

Also, I'd like to point out that cis women can get caught up in these bans and are forced to prove they are cis. It ends up being fairly sexist as well.

It is though, especially in contact sports like boxing. In general, if there really is no biological advantage/difference between bio sexes, we might as well do away with the sex separation in all sports and just wait until women don't really win any medals anymore, I guess.

And what was the methodology of these studies? What was their N? What was their declared conflict of interest?

You could ask the same thing of those studies that mysteriously didn't find an issue and look where their funding came from, you'd be surprised.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2024-12-01 15:21 (UTC) - Expand

Considering the number of sports in which cis women outperform cis men, I have a hard time believing trans women are any kind of a serious threat.

What sports are those?

Trans women are still in bio male bodies. Most bio males are taller, lengthier, and stronger than bio women. Entering into bio female sports competitions might not be a fair fight.

I still think they should just make a separate trans category and let them compete against each other.

100%.

Some of them are mad at trans men for becoming men and not being butch lesbians instead.

It's extra funny when half the trans dudes you know are flamboyant gay boys and not a hint of butch at all whatsoever. Which, good for them being what they want to be, more power to them, but makes "why not butch lesbians?" really hilarious

I think that's cool when the trans guys turn out to be bi/gay AF.

Yeah but according to Terfs, that's mainly because most of them are straight gay chaser women who fetishise gays and hate women so much they deluded themselves into thinking they are gay men.

Even if that were true, there are infinite better ways to combat misogyny than trying to convince trans men to examine themselves until they detransition. It's not even "We can do more than one thing!" because even if you used every moment of your life to combat misogyny and never slept, you would still accomplish more by doing things other than anything that involves the personal business of trans men.

And when misogyny is purged from the world entirely, we will see if your theory holds up if trans men suddenly stop existing.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only