this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2023
216 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
1454 readers
72 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I am aware of the concept of being transgender I am just wondering what your "polite disagreements" are with it
I'd say that a fairly debated topic related to transgender people, which isn't just transphobes attacking people trying to live their own life, is the presence of transgender athletes in competitions. Some will take it as a personal attack whether you take a side or sit on the fence. I'm not looking to start that conversation here, but yeah. It's definitely possible to hold a polite conversation about this while disagreeing on parts of the question. In a healthy space.
I think that after HRT the difference is not that big. Trans athletes may even be at the disadvantage since there are some cis woman that have higher than average amount of testosterone.
In the long shot I think it would be for the best to abolish gender based separation altogether and replace it with something more like weight categories.
Consider two 5'6" 65kg athletes, one man and one woman, are you saying that the man doesn't have an advantage?
I used to believe the same until I saw the recent Women's Premier League in Cricket. They had to reduce the size of field and the weight of ball. Even with that, the fastest bowl in the tournament was 130kmph while that speed is considered a "slower ball" in men's cricket.
Now some of these female cricketers earm more than any Pakistani male cricketers. Which is fair, bigger market, bigger payout. But female cricketers don't stand a chance against the male cricketers
Here is a surprise for you: HRT actually does things to your body. I don't think this should have been that hard to find on your own, but I can't judge your circumstances.
Transphobes always make the same tired arguments about "biological differences between men and women" and then scream and run away when you bring up actual science, because they don't care about the science. They care about being bigots, and using science to make their bigotry look legitimate.
No, my MMA teacher was female and she'd kick my arse regularly
Now you're undermining your first point, you're not comparing same heights and weight. Physics is real.
Okay.
Ellyse Perry, the fastest bowler in women's cricket is 176cm at 60kg (amazing athlete, represented Australia at both Cricket and Football world cups!). Her fastest ball was 130.1kph
Shoaib Akthar, the fastst bowler in men's cricket is 180cm at 80kg. His fastest was 161kph
Laws of cricket dictate that women should use a ball that is between 415⁄16 and 55⁄16 ounces (139.98 and 150.61 grams); which could be up to 13⁄16 ounces (23.03 grams) lighter than the ball used by the men.
Also made me think, the whole height-weight distinction will only work in purely physical sports like boxing (maybe even some american sports like baseball and nfl). It is not going to work in global sports like Cricket and Football. Think about the greatest footballers of our generation. Cristiano was 183cm (6ft) and Messi 169cm (5ft 6in).
So his mass is 33% more and the ball goes 23% faster? Momentum is mass x velocity iirc.
I only pointed out the difference between the fastest. There’s plenty of shorter, leaner bowlers in men’s cricket who bowl faster than Perry. Kemar Roach for instance is in the same height and weight category as Perry and regularly bowls 150kph
Tbf it’s expected. You know women going below 16-18% body fat is completely unhealthy while top male athletes are perfectly healthy at 6% or so
Edit: wtf mate? Momentum is not mass of propeller times velocity. By your logic a sumo wrestler would easily be the fastest cricket bowler!
Momentum is mass x velocity. Google it.
Would you rather get hit by a featherweight or heavyweight? Mass matters
I'd say the difference between men and women's cricket will reduce as women get more training and money, I don't see any reason why not
Yes dear friend, momentum is indeed mass x velocity. But we’re not talking about the speed at which the bowler runs. It’s the speed at which the bowl is propelled.
(to be clear, the lower mass of cricket ball in women’s cricket is a factor in reducing momentum. But we’re talking purely speed here)
Some women cricketers (outside Pakistan) earn more than Pakistani male cricketers already. And I must say, I’m a huge supporter. Unlike the WNBA in the US, women’s cricket is way more popular in rest of the world.
It’s a biological factor that women, generally, aren’t as physically strong as men and as a supporter of female athletes, abolishing gender boundaries is practically killing women’s sports. Here’s some more data you could’ve found out by googling: https://boysvswomen.com/#/
Thanks, done a little googling, I'm not very au fait with the subject
I found this article that reinforces most of what you say, but also makes the comment:
https://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/1104475/how-far-can-women-s-cricket-go
I'm not so sure. Women's football is doing very well now that it's getting more money and attention, as are motor sports.
It is doing very well indeed! Why kill it?!
Do you understand why this statement is wrong?
You’re mixing the mass of the person throwing the ball with the mass of the ball.
This would matter if he was flying himself at the batsman.
Because the bowler is giving momentum to the ball?
Correct. The bowler is contributing to the velocity part of the equation
There are things that don't completely change with HRT (particularly when started after puberty.) Height, bone density, lung capacity, hand/foot/limb size etc. do not vary significantly after HRT and depending on the sport can make a huge difference (eg. Hand and foot size or lung capacity in swimming even where the two swimmers are the same height.)
Then we should allow people to access gender affirming treatment earlier, no?
That could be one conclusion since it may lead to more desirable outcomes. On the other hand, we generally don't allow children to undergo other permanent procedures (eg. Nose jobs, tattoos etc.) because children change their minds. It can be argued that medical transition is necessary medical care (eg. like how we give chemo even though it may have permanent long-term effects.)
However, since dysphoria is a psychiatric diagnosis (there's nothing physical to test like a tumour) we cannot be sure in the same way that treatment is medically necessary. Therefore, I believe that the care providers should have to be extremely sure that the child is not going to detransition before making any medical moves like puberty blockers or HRT. I'm not convinced they can be sure enough or at least that they are being that rigorous (they clearly weren't here: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-62335665.)
Okay thanks for the input
All good! Sorry for the paragraph. I'm just bad a writing short messages… 😅
I disagree, that isn't a "polite disagreement" and is, absolutely, "just transphobes attacking people trying to live their own life" as you put it. Every time that "Argument" happens it's openly done in biologically unfounded ways by people who simply don't understand how our bodies actually work- yet those arguments get mass upvoted by people who also don't understand how biology actually works and who believe that trans athletes get some insane, unfair advantage.
If you want to pass laws to restrict trans people from sports, then you want to pass laws to discriminate against trans people. That's not really up for debate IMO, it's a straight up fact; it's what you're doing when you advocate for laws that are not founded in science, that are specifically targeting a tiny minority for the chance that one of that tiny minority might beat cis athletes in an "unfair" way, you're advocating for bigoted laws.
Such arguments are also inevietably filled with people misgendering trans people, deliberately calling trans women "men" and hiding behind the "I'm talking about biology" argument to do so.
Replace the word "trans" with "black" and you'll find that people are making literally identical arguments to those against desegregating professional sports leagues 80 years ago. Literally word for word.
I'll be the first to admit I don't know how our bodies work, but I think explaining it will be more helpful in the long run than just making the subject taboo and banning everyone who asks it.
At the beginning of the pandemic a common argument against masks was "the virus is too small to be caught in a mask" - which made sense from a layman's point of view. When people started explaining that masks did stop the water droplets the virus needs to be airborne - that argument become a lot less common.
Not everybody who has questions is "just asking questions", if you catch my drift.
I agree with that statement, context is everything.
I think that in the context of someone starting out going "it's unfair for men to compete in women's sports," the person is "just asking questions." That context poisons the well for questions.
But if someone comes in and makes a thread like "I don't understand how hormone therapy works, can someone please explain it?" that, to me, is a good faith question and 100% should not be bannable.
All good :)
Now that I have your attention though, what would be a good counter argument on why trans women should be allowed to compete in the same league as non-trans women (please excuse my lacking vocabulary)?
Like I mentioned, at first sight as a layman, the argument that trans women would have an competitive advantage makes sense to me. So I'd be grateful if you could take away my ignorance.
First for the vocabulary:
non-trans = cisgender. cis meaning "same," as in "same gender as assigned at birth."
Second, I'm not the best at doing that, but I know of a really good report which has good citations of studies and really thoroughly discusses the issue. PDF WARNING: It can be found here.
Thanks for the former, guess I should have known that, but I'll be sure to remember now. As for the second... I'm interested in the answer, but not 86 pages scientific report interested. Guess I'll just have to wait around for the "water droplet"-size answer, but thanks for your patience nonetheless :)
The hardest part with this conversation is that there isn't really a satisfying short answer, but I can try to give one.
The biological differences between men and women that most people think of as giving men an advantage over women in sports are counteracted by hormone replacement therapy, and do not give trans women athletes an advantage over cis women athletes. Some of the arguments, such as bone density being higher in men, are literally taken word-for-word out of segregationist rhetoric- and ignores the fact that black women have higher bone density than most men. There is not a clear scientific reason to exclude trans women who are undergoing HRT from sports.
That's it, that's the answer. But I feel like that's just asking you to take my word for it- all of that and more is backed up by science in the report I linked.
For what it's worth, I never checked the size of the corona virus particle either, so I'm fine with having to take your word for it :)
It also sounds like this could be confirmed by the drug testing, which is already in place anyway, and would ensure that participants have the proper hormone level that wouldn't give them an advantage. (I also just now remember that this was literally the plot point of a Futurama episode.)
Thanks for taking the time to answer me. I don't need the complete fine details, but it is a satisfying answer.
Are you genuinely interested or just looking to start a fight? I know recreational outrage is a thing on Reddit and I had hoped to leave it there.
No I'm genuinely interested to hear your perspective and why it was a point of contention