As a cis person who isn't very invested in sports of any kind, I'm not all that interested in a debate on this.
That being said.
Here's a systematic review on trans people in sports published in 2016 that concludes that evidence so far suggests that transwomen have no significant advantage: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40279-016-0621-y. It's the only review I could find, but if you can dig up any that say otherwise, go ahead.
There's little evidence that trans people who have gone through their transition (a transwoman isn't just a man in a wig, you know) participating in sports is unfair, and if it is, categories could be developed irregardless of gender (here's an article https://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/spotlights/transgender-in-sport/ by a PhD student on the subject that details more analytical arguments). According to Joanna Harper, a physicist and transwoman, (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/do-transgender-athletes-have-an-edge-i-sure-dont/2015/04/01/ccacb1da-c68e-11e4-b2a1-bed1aaea2816_story.html and here's her research on the subject: https://cgscholar.com/bookstore/works/race-times-for-transgender-athletes?category_id=common-ground-publishing), "hormone therapy for trans women typically involves a testosterone-blocking drug plus an estrogen supplement. As their testosterone levels approach female norms, trans women see a decrease in muscle mass, bone density and the proportion of oxygen-carrying red cells in their blood. The estrogen, meanwhile, boosts fat storage, especially around the hips. Together, these changes lead to a loss of speed, strength and endurance — all key components of athleticism." These ideas seems to be backed up by the evidence I linked above. After all, every athlete has advantages and disadvantages, many out of their control, and it doesn't look like transgender athletes have any real edge.
As for your thing, "looking into it" does not equate to googling someone else that agrees with your preexisting belief and linking their video back. I don't want to waste time watching a 16 minute video of some random guy with no qualifications ranting at the mic, and he has no articles linked in the description whose validity I could assess. There's just nothing to suggest this guy is a valuable or reliable source in any way. Summarize his points (and evidence) for me if you're going to use them - I'm not doing your research for you. Sorry if I sounded harsh - but I try to type out arguments myself, linking evidence and expert opinions just to verify I'm not making it up. I feel like you should do the same as a courtesy.
People born men have s greater distribution of fast twitch muscle fibers which help in an explosive event. They have a greater lung capacity which helps in endurance events. They have greater bone mineral densities that reduce injury rate and increase capacity for force output. Men don't have to deal with the mass of breast tissue affecting agility and explosiveness. Men don't have the discomfort and hormonal changes associated with the menstrual cycle that can inhibit performance both physiologically and psychologically by serving as a distraction. People born men have stronger ligaments and connective tissue across their entire body which lowers injury rate and can also increase power output. All of things things are EFFECTED by hormone treatment but not fully resolved.
Keep in mind that part of my studies are to do with athletic performance and physical. And even if HRT is 99% effective which I doubt it is, it's still unfair to real women. There's a big confirmation bias that is trying to make it politically correct but its horribly unfair and painfully obvious to everyone who knows shit about sports performance. I don't need to look into it I study this type of shit for my job I just thought you wouldn't care about my credentials which is what people usually say on here. Anyone who thinks there is no advantage whatsoever is fucking stupid and very politically motivated.
This is also not evidence. It's a collection of anecdotal statements from presumably unqualified individuals, published by a site described by Media Bias as right-biased with "mixed" factual reporting (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-signal/). You might as well link me to a YouTube comments section.
Seriously, dude. If you're not interested in a civil debate, just say so. But evidence doesn't go away if you ignore it.
You're retreating into echo chambers - like that link you sent me - full of people that think like you and confirm what you already believe. Listening to them make you feel righteous and superior - so many people agree with you, so you must be right, and anyone who thinks otherwise is either a bit slow or has an agenda. Right? I get that. It's natural. People don't like having to question their beliefs, and it's so much easier to stick with what you know, or what you think you know.
But just because it's common doesn't mean it isn't problematic. This kind of reasoning - retreating into echo chambers and ignoring evidence - is what enables anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, and the essential oil people, tricks normally smart individuals into cults and scams, and generally spreads ignorance. Even if you are right about trans people in sports, what you're doing will still be problematic. Not just because you're unable to accept new evidence, but also because you'll never be able to convince anyone else you're right if your only response to their arguments is referring them to other people that agree with you, or telling them they're stupid. There's nothing to be ashamed of in taking a step back and reassessing your beliefs - even if you ultimately decide that they're right. You throw shade on religious people for believing things without evidence - so why not practice what you preach? Pun intended. Be skeptical. It's a good trait to have.
If it makes you feel better about it, you can be a conservative and still form your own opinions about things. I mean, most conservatives are traditional Christians, but you rejected that and became an atheist because it felt right to you. You don't have to consult the hive mind for every belief you hold. I don't. I'm a liberal, but also I'm a gun owner and I don't think hate speech should be illegal (unless it directly threatens or encourages violence). Frankly, you never seemed particularly conservative on social issues in the first place.
Read my comment here, by the way, although I suspect you already did and just don't want to acknowledge it: https://www.isitnormal.com/post/iin-i-feel-superior-to-women-287017/comment/2888250
I see two articles from scientific journals in that bibliography, neither of which are directly relevant to transgender athletes. I'm really not buying it. I'll accept evidence that you can find - but I don't see any so far.
Which link doesn't work? I might be able to fix that.
I've now read 4 articles making that case and they all state that HRT lowers the advantages. But that's not what I'm debating. It does not lower it all the way we at least need a separate section for trans athletes. How many sources do you want me to find?
The second link worked but they think only testosterone matters which is wrong.
IIN I feel superior to women
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Here I looked into it some more
https://youtu.be/Y1Fkld9PPO4
--
palehorse
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
As a cis person who isn't very invested in sports of any kind, I'm not all that interested in a debate on this.
That being said.
Here's a systematic review on trans people in sports published in 2016 that concludes that evidence so far suggests that transwomen have no significant advantage: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40279-016-0621-y. It's the only review I could find, but if you can dig up any that say otherwise, go ahead.
There's little evidence that trans people who have gone through their transition (a transwoman isn't just a man in a wig, you know) participating in sports is unfair, and if it is, categories could be developed irregardless of gender (here's an article https://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/spotlights/transgender-in-sport/ by a PhD student on the subject that details more analytical arguments). According to Joanna Harper, a physicist and transwoman, (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/do-transgender-athletes-have-an-edge-i-sure-dont/2015/04/01/ccacb1da-c68e-11e4-b2a1-bed1aaea2816_story.html and here's her research on the subject: https://cgscholar.com/bookstore/works/race-times-for-transgender-athletes?category_id=common-ground-publishing), "hormone therapy for trans women typically involves a testosterone-blocking drug plus an estrogen supplement. As their testosterone levels approach female norms, trans women see a decrease in muscle mass, bone density and the proportion of oxygen-carrying red cells in their blood. The estrogen, meanwhile, boosts fat storage, especially around the hips. Together, these changes lead to a loss of speed, strength and endurance — all key components of athleticism." These ideas seems to be backed up by the evidence I linked above. After all, every athlete has advantages and disadvantages, many out of their control, and it doesn't look like transgender athletes have any real edge.
As for your thing, "looking into it" does not equate to googling someone else that agrees with your preexisting belief and linking their video back. I don't want to waste time watching a 16 minute video of some random guy with no qualifications ranting at the mic, and he has no articles linked in the description whose validity I could assess. There's just nothing to suggest this guy is a valuable or reliable source in any way. Summarize his points (and evidence) for me if you're going to use them - I'm not doing your research for you. Sorry if I sounded harsh - but I try to type out arguments myself, linking evidence and expert opinions just to verify I'm not making it up. I feel like you should do the same as a courtesy.
--
Doesnormalmatter
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
People born men have s greater distribution of fast twitch muscle fibers which help in an explosive event. They have a greater lung capacity which helps in endurance events. They have greater bone mineral densities that reduce injury rate and increase capacity for force output. Men don't have to deal with the mass of breast tissue affecting agility and explosiveness. Men don't have the discomfort and hormonal changes associated with the menstrual cycle that can inhibit performance both physiologically and psychologically by serving as a distraction. People born men have stronger ligaments and connective tissue across their entire body which lowers injury rate and can also increase power output. All of things things are EFFECTED by hormone treatment but not fully resolved.
Keep in mind that part of my studies are to do with athletic performance and physical. And even if HRT is 99% effective which I doubt it is, it's still unfair to real women. There's a big confirmation bias that is trying to make it politically correct but its horribly unfair and painfully obvious to everyone who knows shit about sports performance. I don't need to look into it I study this type of shit for my job I just thought you wouldn't care about my credentials which is what people usually say on here. Anyone who thinks there is no advantage whatsoever is fucking stupid and very politically motivated.
--
palehorse
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I see a lot of analyticals and a lack of actual evidence. Care to disprove the review I linked?
--
Doesnormalmatter
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Doesnormalmatter
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/05/19/we-hear-you-when-transgender-athletes-crush-the-girls/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwjy74nZ1KPkAhUBDKwKHQXVBUYQFjAEegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw30eOy_kbphOz3uXjdEnufZ&cf=1
--
palehorse
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
This is also not evidence. It's a collection of anecdotal statements from presumably unqualified individuals, published by a site described by Media Bias as right-biased with "mixed" factual reporting (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-signal/). You might as well link me to a YouTube comments section.
Seriously, dude. If you're not interested in a civil debate, just say so. But evidence doesn't go away if you ignore it.
You're retreating into echo chambers - like that link you sent me - full of people that think like you and confirm what you already believe. Listening to them make you feel righteous and superior - so many people agree with you, so you must be right, and anyone who thinks otherwise is either a bit slow or has an agenda. Right? I get that. It's natural. People don't like having to question their beliefs, and it's so much easier to stick with what you know, or what you think you know.
But just because it's common doesn't mean it isn't problematic. This kind of reasoning - retreating into echo chambers and ignoring evidence - is what enables anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, and the essential oil people, tricks normally smart individuals into cults and scams, and generally spreads ignorance. Even if you are right about trans people in sports, what you're doing will still be problematic. Not just because you're unable to accept new evidence, but also because you'll never be able to convince anyone else you're right if your only response to their arguments is referring them to other people that agree with you, or telling them they're stupid. There's nothing to be ashamed of in taking a step back and reassessing your beliefs - even if you ultimately decide that they're right. You throw shade on religious people for believing things without evidence - so why not practice what you preach? Pun intended. Be skeptical. It's a good trait to have.
If it makes you feel better about it, you can be a conservative and still form your own opinions about things. I mean, most conservatives are traditional Christians, but you rejected that and became an atheist because it felt right to you. You don't have to consult the hive mind for every belief you hold. I don't. I'm a liberal, but also I'm a gun owner and I don't think hate speech should be illegal (unless it directly threatens or encourages violence). Frankly, you never seemed particularly conservative on social issues in the first place.
Read my comment here, by the way, although I suspect you already did and just don't want to acknowledge it: https://www.isitnormal.com/post/iin-i-feel-superior-to-women-287017/comment/2888250
The link didn't work. Most of the claims I "made up" came from the video you refused to watch I linked and the sources they cited.
Here is a fairly politically neutral fitness site and their info. The links to studies are at the bottom in case that's the only thing you care about.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.t-nation.com/opinion/trans-athletes-the-death-of-womens-sports&ved=2ahUKEwiz4ev_0qPkAhUQIqwKHU4jABIQFjAAegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw1qKC-1aNxL53tgM04QhPre
--
palehorse
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
I see two articles from scientific journals in that bibliography, neither of which are directly relevant to transgender athletes. I'm really not buying it. I'll accept evidence that you can find - but I don't see any so far.
Which link doesn't work? I might be able to fix that.
--
Doesnormalmatter
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
I've now read 4 articles making that case and they all state that HRT lowers the advantages. But that's not what I'm debating. It does not lower it all the way we at least need a separate section for trans athletes. How many sources do you want me to find?
The second link worked but they think only testosterone matters which is wrong.