Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I understand where women are coming from in their opposition, but you can't really put the genie back in the bottle without trampling on "diversity and inclusion", it would appear. So what's an equitable solution to this?
Maybe it's time to trample on "diversity and inclusion" a little, if that's what it takes to acknowledge reality.
We already had a working equitable solution in place for countless generations: men compete against men, women compete against women. The situation we have today isn't a problem in need of a solution, it's a "solution" that has created its own problem.
Since the main concern is the undeniable biological advantage of adult males, I wonder if some concession could be made--for instance, anyone who went through puberty as a male can not compete in sports with biological females, no matter how long they have been taking testosterone blockers since then. Of course, that would probably lead to people pushing for puberty blockers for children, which is not an improvement.
Maybe a separate (third) category is a better idea.
The weird thing is... I know quite a number of trans men and trans women. And the trans women I know, when they take hormones for a long period of time, which is necessary for their transition, they lose a ton of muscle mass. Not a one of them have a strong physical appearance like men. They look soft. Womanish. The muscle and skin tone changes. Of course I really have never met a trans person who is simply cross dressing with no real intention of the medical portion, unless they were quite old. (Met a few of those, no way they'd be involved in competitive sports anyhow.) I also have not personally met any trans women who were working hard to maintain an athletic body for sporting purposes either.
And having watched the process of medical transition, it's really...REALLY...intensive. Second puberty, I hear, is hell. The pain of surgery, recovery, and dilation. The expense. It's not something I can imagine someone choosing to do simply to gain an advantage in a sport.
The trans men that I know, I would not be wanting to see them compete against cis-female athletes, as they are taking male hormones, testosterone, and that changes their bodies also. Yet many of them retain a smaller physical frame, since bone structure of course will not alter. I know fewer trans men, only three that I can think of off the top of my head, one of them is an overweight nurse (can't imagine him competing in sports) and the other two have very tiny, petite little body frames, they were short and small and that did not change. I can't imagine them doing so, either.
I think that there has to be a way that an organization of MEDICAL professionals...not just sports enthusiasts with opinions...could weigh in on standards for a trans person's ability to compete fairly with cis men and women. There have to be objective ways to measure muscle mass, body fat, hormone levels, things of that nature, that could ensure that a person is not entering a sport with an unfair advantage against the competition. There is no need for the emotional opinions of the uninformed, to be weighed in this sort of decision making.
Given the general leanings of society (or at least a significant percentage thereof) on personal rights, I would tend to give the transgender athlete the advantage in this situation. The International Olympic Committee also seems to rule in this direction.
The ultimate solution? We may not get there for a while. Until then, I guess women will have to work on getting bigger, faster, and stronger to have a chance.
I think that there has to be a way that an organization of MEDICAL professionals...not just sports enthusiasts with opinions...could weigh in on standards for a trans person's ability to compete fairly with cis men and women. There have to be objective ways to measure muscle mass, body fat, hormone levels, things of that nature, that could ensure that a person is not entering a sport with an unfair advantage against the competition. There is no need for the emotional opinions of the uninformed, to be weighed in this sort of decision making.
OK, I admit that I am uninformed, but the idea that trans people should be judged fit for competition with their preferred gender based on specific physical standards doesn't seem that it would work. I can't imagine that any trans women will accept being told that they have too much muscle mass to compete, while these other trans women fall into the acceptable range. If you say that, then you could tell a biological woman, who has never taken any male hormones or steroids but is just naturally very muscular, that she would have an unfair advantage against other women and isn't allowed to compete.
OK, I admit that I am uninformed, but the idea that trans people should be judged fit for competition with their preferred gender based on specific physical standards doesn't seem that it would work. I can't imagine that any trans women will accept being told that they have too much muscle mass to compete, while these other trans women fall into the acceptable range. If you say that, then you could tell a biological woman, who has never taken any male hormones or steroids but is just naturally very muscular, that she would have an unfair advantage against other women and isn't allowed to compete.
Not if you base the standard on the fittest cis women's bodies. There are plenty of doctors who specialize in sports medicine. It can't be too far a leap, to measure the muscle-to-fat ratios and figure out what falls into various ranges of average to high degrees of muscularity and fitness in the bodies of existing cis female athletes. Then you'll have an idea as to reasonable guidelines and can put some standards in place. At which point the trans women will at least have a better option than not being allowed to compete at all.
If cis women are more muscular and fall outside of the standards, then their numbers can get included in the database and the standards can be adjusted. But a trans woman would need to not be more muscular than, say, some percentage of women they might compete against. Honestly this shouldn't be too tough, because again, when the process happens, their bodies change drastically. You would have to see it, they really do not look like male bodied people anymore.
And of course this would mean that a trans woman would have to be a certain way along in the process of MEDICAL transition, and again, with the intensity of that whole thing, I can't even call it a "preferred gender" anymore. This person WORKED to be a woman. I was simply born one. Lucky me, I guess, I get the privilege of not having to endure all that hell to be the gender that I can live with. If a person is willing to go through all of that, then damn...they are a woman. They earned it. At least I figure, because again, I've known enough trans women I've got a good idea of what is involved. No one would go through all of that for trifling reasons. I promise. Their gender means more to them, than mine has ever meant to me.
And I don't ever see this being a common problem anyways. Going through transition is enough all on its own, and being a star athlete is a huge commitment as well. I can't imagine that many people have what it takes to even contemplate trying to do both things at the same time. I could actually see trans men (from what little I've observed from the few I've known) wanting to do this, more, because at least one I've met seems to have something to prove about being a real tough guy all the time. Not to put too fine a point on it, but he specifically is rather like a chihuahua. Forever stepping up to the bigger dogs all fuss and fight all the time.
It is the term used for what you would call regular, normal, or biological men or women, those who are born a particular gender and stayed that way all their lives. It's not an insult, I have no idea who came up with it or where it originated, but it's a nice handy tiny easy word to use, that is accepted in LGBTQ+ and other circles. I like easy. So I go with it.
Obviously it causes a flap for those who would rather that trans people did not exist, and sure do not think of them as their post-transition gender, and who struggle with the entire concept. But a trans woman wants to be called a woman. And I do that. So I find it helpful to have a word to differentiate when, as here, it's necessary.
EDIT: Just looked it up, makes sense, it's the Latin prefix that is the opposite of "trans." Cis means "on this side of" and trans means "on the opposite side of."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
