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.
Articles != scientific evidence. I've yet to see a single scientific study from you that backs up that idea. So far, you've linked a random YouTube video that cites no sources and an opinion piece by a fitness site that cites few relevant sources (and no relevant studies). I'm not sure what you mean by "how many sources do you want me to find" since you've hardly found any. Again, I don't mean to be rude, but I honestly have no idea what you're getting at.
Also, I hate to repeat myself, but I feel like you've just ignored everything I've presented. So here goes...
2016 systematic review of multiple studies that concludes transwomen have no significant advantage (and that transgender people face extra challenges in sports including discrimination and transphobia): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40279-016-0621-y
Recent study on the performance of transgender distance runners that shows that transwomen have similar competitiveness before and after transitioning (i.e. you are in the 25th percentile as a cis man competing in male competitions, transition, and continue to be in the 25th percentile as a trans woman competing in female competitions - basically, no advantage): https://cgscholar.com/bookstore/works/race-times-for-transgender-athletes?category_id=common-ground-publishing
Article by transgender physicist that states "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." (not just testosterone - not sure where you're getting that from): https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/do-transgender-athletes-have-an-edge-i-sure-dont/2015/04/01/ccacb1da-c68e-11e4-b2a1-bed1aaea2816_story.html
Article by PhD student that summarizes the available evidence, and gives alternatives to discriminating against trans people: https://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/spotlights/transgender-in-sport/
I could find more articles, but I'd rather focus on the evidence over opinion pieces - and once again, here's that review (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40279-016-0621-y) on every relevant study before 2016 the authors could find. (I did some basic background work to make sure this is a real article, but if you find anything that suggests it's unreliable, please do tell me).
I try to keep an open mind, and I hope you will too.
If you ignore all my sources all ignore all yours. I know enough about this to make up my own mind. Trans athletes need to compete against other trans athletes to make sure it's fair. I really would love to meet some irl who thinks this so I can make them look stupid but I haven't found anyone. To me it's common sense.
I did not ignore your sources, I explained why they're not reliable - for example, the fact that neither of them cited a relevant scientific study. There's a difference. If I link a blog post by some random dude saying that transwomen can shoot lasers from their eyes, you can tell me that's unverified bullshit coming from a completely unreliable source, and that would be a perfectly valid response. "This isn't a reliable source because X, Y and Z" (or "my evidence is more reliable because X, Y and Z") is a reasonable rebuttal / criticism that we can debate. "I'm ignoring your evidence" is not.
Intuition isn't always correct. Plenty of "common sense" is actually wrong - here's an AskReddit thread of people sharing facts that go against intuition - https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/b3hs98/what_common_sense_is_actually_wrong/. (This isn't actually important evidence or anything so you don't have to read it, but it might be interesting.)
"I know enough about this to make up my own mind."
This boils down to "I know I'm right because I know I'm right." It's circular reasoning that helps nobody. Pretty much everyone is confident in their beliefs - and if we always assumed we're right and refused to change our minds even in the face of evidence to the contrary, there would never be any progress. Admittedly, a lot of people struggle with it, me included. I do my best to keep an open mind about things, and look for reliable evidence instead of confirmation. I'm not perfect and I'm often more stubborn about my beliefs than I should be, but I try.
Don't debate to "make the other person look stupid", debate to find the truth. It's not shameful to be wrong about something. We all are at some point. It's shameful to be unwilling to learn. Don't place your ego over the truth. I've talked to you on here before, you seem like a smart person. You're better than this, dude. Keep an open mind. Accept that you're wrong sometimes - maybe about this, maybe not - and don't be willfully ignorant.
I read this, like I sat down & actually looked @ *some* of your sources.
I honestly avoid internet debates of this nature like I avoid matted plague rats because I find that discussing issues, isuues that I consider myself to be passively knowledgeable about, able to provide evidence about, strongly opinionated about...well, it raises my fucking blood pressure because it ends up in these bad faith arguments that inevitable circle back around to...well that's what I know based on my personal experience...or that's what I think just because. It can be so indescribably frustrating putting in the effort to speak patiently with someone who is very determined not to change their mind.
So, I just wanted you to know that others do read this & you are not banging your head against a brick wall here. Color me convinced on a subject that I would have been otherwise ambivalent to/uneducated about.
Also- holy shit w/ your patience & maturity lol. I would thumb you up more, but this site says I can only give you TWO *lame*
But I did read it & appreciate all the effort you put in to supporting your POV
Thank you! Don't worry about me, I seek out these debates myself and I reap what I sow. Partially just because I like to debate and want to improve my skills (I'll let you know that banging your head against a brick wall is an 𝘢𝘳𝘵, thank you very much), but also for the sake of anyone who might read it - even on a smaller forum like this. Convincing your opponent is hard, especially when they're actively blocking out your ideas, but swaying a neutral party reading through the thread is a lot more doable - as you just proved, lol. At the very least, I would like "my side" to look like a reasonable one, even to someone that disagrees.
I honestly thought that Doesnormalmatter would be a little more open-minded, but I take what I can get. Maybe he'll be more open to the idea next time he comes across it. Admitting your opponent has made you think (even just to yourself) can be hard, but starting off from a more neutral position next time you encounter the topic helps you save face. Or at least that's my experience as a fairly stubborn person, I don't know.
And fun fact - I was actually fairly neutral / uneducated about the subject before starting the debate here! Like I said, I'm a cis person who gives zero shits about sports. My tentative thoughts were something along the lines of, "this is a difficult situation because transwomen probably have an advantage, so it would be unfair to let them play, but also unfair to not" and I wanted to see what the data said, so I looked for legit-looking studies and drew my conclusions from there. I didn't do any cherry-picking or ignore evidence that doesn't support "my side", at least not consciously, and I'm as surprised as you are by the results. I was kinda tempted just to drop it because I didn't want to spend time researching this (and I'd rather have no opinion at all than have an uneducated one, especially if I'm going to debate it), but the more you know...
IIN I feel superior to women
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
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
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.
--
palehorse
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Articles != scientific evidence. I've yet to see a single scientific study from you that backs up that idea. So far, you've linked a random YouTube video that cites no sources and an opinion piece by a fitness site that cites few relevant sources (and no relevant studies). I'm not sure what you mean by "how many sources do you want me to find" since you've hardly found any. Again, I don't mean to be rude, but I honestly have no idea what you're getting at.
Also, I hate to repeat myself, but I feel like you've just ignored everything I've presented. So here goes...
2016 systematic review of multiple studies that concludes transwomen have no significant advantage (and that transgender people face extra challenges in sports including discrimination and transphobia): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40279-016-0621-y
Recent study on the performance of transgender distance runners that shows that transwomen have similar competitiveness before and after transitioning (i.e. you are in the 25th percentile as a cis man competing in male competitions, transition, and continue to be in the 25th percentile as a trans woman competing in female competitions - basically, no advantage): https://cgscholar.com/bookstore/works/race-times-for-transgender-athletes?category_id=common-ground-publishing
Article by transgender physicist that states "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." (not just testosterone - not sure where you're getting that from): https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/do-transgender-athletes-have-an-edge-i-sure-dont/2015/04/01/ccacb1da-c68e-11e4-b2a1-bed1aaea2816_story.html
Article by PhD student that summarizes the available evidence, and gives alternatives to discriminating against trans people: https://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/spotlights/transgender-in-sport/
I could find more articles, but I'd rather focus on the evidence over opinion pieces - and once again, here's that review (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40279-016-0621-y) on every relevant study before 2016 the authors could find. (I did some basic background work to make sure this is a real article, but if you find anything that suggests it's unreliable, please do tell me).
I try to keep an open mind, and I hope you will too.
--
Doesnormalmatter
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
If you ignore all my sources all ignore all yours. I know enough about this to make up my own mind. Trans athletes need to compete against other trans athletes to make sure it's fair. I really would love to meet some irl who thinks this so I can make them look stupid but I haven't found anyone. To me it's common sense.
--
palehorse
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
I did not ignore your sources, I explained why they're not reliable - for example, the fact that neither of them cited a relevant scientific study. There's a difference. If I link a blog post by some random dude saying that transwomen can shoot lasers from their eyes, you can tell me that's unverified bullshit coming from a completely unreliable source, and that would be a perfectly valid response. "This isn't a reliable source because X, Y and Z" (or "my evidence is more reliable because X, Y and Z") is a reasonable rebuttal / criticism that we can debate. "I'm ignoring your evidence" is not.
Intuition isn't always correct. Plenty of "common sense" is actually wrong - here's an AskReddit thread of people sharing facts that go against intuition - https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/b3hs98/what_common_sense_is_actually_wrong/. (This isn't actually important evidence or anything so you don't have to read it, but it might be interesting.)
"I know enough about this to make up my own mind."
This boils down to "I know I'm right because I know I'm right." It's circular reasoning that helps nobody. Pretty much everyone is confident in their beliefs - and if we always assumed we're right and refused to change our minds even in the face of evidence to the contrary, there would never be any progress. Admittedly, a lot of people struggle with it, me included. I do my best to keep an open mind about things, and look for reliable evidence instead of confirmation. I'm not perfect and I'm often more stubborn about my beliefs than I should be, but I try.
Don't debate to "make the other person look stupid", debate to find the truth. It's not shameful to be wrong about something. We all are at some point. It's shameful to be unwilling to learn. Don't place your ego over the truth. I've talked to you on here before, you seem like a smart person. You're better than this, dude. Keep an open mind. Accept that you're wrong sometimes - maybe about this, maybe not - and don't be willfully ignorant.
--
CountessDouche
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Ok, sooo...
I read this, like I sat down & actually looked @ *some* of your sources.
I honestly avoid internet debates of this nature like I avoid matted plague rats because I find that discussing issues, isuues that I consider myself to be passively knowledgeable about, able to provide evidence about, strongly opinionated about...well, it raises my fucking blood pressure because it ends up in these bad faith arguments that inevitable circle back around to...well that's what I know based on my personal experience...or that's what I think just because. It can be so indescribably frustrating putting in the effort to speak patiently with someone who is very determined not to change their mind.
So, I just wanted you to know that others do read this & you are not banging your head against a brick wall here. Color me convinced on a subject that I would have been otherwise ambivalent to/uneducated about.
Also- holy shit w/ your patience & maturity lol. I would thumb you up more, but this site says I can only give you TWO *lame*
But I did read it & appreciate all the effort you put in to supporting your POV
--
palehorse
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
See More Comments =>
Thank you! Don't worry about me, I seek out these debates myself and I reap what I sow. Partially just because I like to debate and want to improve my skills (I'll let you know that banging your head against a brick wall is an 𝘢𝘳𝘵, thank you very much), but also for the sake of anyone who might read it - even on a smaller forum like this. Convincing your opponent is hard, especially when they're actively blocking out your ideas, but swaying a neutral party reading through the thread is a lot more doable - as you just proved, lol. At the very least, I would like "my side" to look like a reasonable one, even to someone that disagrees.
I honestly thought that Doesnormalmatter would be a little more open-minded, but I take what I can get. Maybe he'll be more open to the idea next time he comes across it. Admitting your opponent has made you think (even just to yourself) can be hard, but starting off from a more neutral position next time you encounter the topic helps you save face. Or at least that's my experience as a fairly stubborn person, I don't know.
And fun fact - I was actually fairly neutral / uneducated about the subject before starting the debate here! Like I said, I'm a cis person who gives zero shits about sports. My tentative thoughts were something along the lines of, "this is a difficult situation because transwomen probably have an advantage, so it would be unfair to let them play, but also unfair to not" and I wanted to see what the data said, so I looked for legit-looking studies and drew my conclusions from there. I didn't do any cherry-picking or ignore evidence that doesn't support "my side", at least not consciously, and I'm as surprised as you are by the results. I was kinda tempted just to drop it because I didn't want to spend time researching this (and I'd rather have no opinion at all than have an uneducated one, especially if I'm going to debate it), but the more you know...
Thanks again :D