But it's not. Transgender women might retain some advantage after transition, but they also might not. That is something that is intensely studied, and hotly debated. Results have been found to support either hypothesis, and may differ from sport to sport. It's not cut-and-dry in the slightest.

[–] figaro@lemdro.id 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I think I read in a study somewhere that after transition, a trans female retains a certain amount of muscle mass and strength for a minimum of 2 years after transitioning. I'll try to find the study and link it when I'm on the computer.

That said, there is absolutely nuance to be had here, and the chess organization is being both transphobic and sexist at this point 😮‍💨

[–] darq@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think I read in a study somewhere that after transition, a trans female retains a certain amount of muscle mass and strength for a minimum of 2 years after transitioning. I’ll try to find the study and link it when I’m on the computer.

That's why I said that the evidence is highly mixed. I've seen multiple studies that conclude that there is no reason to believe trans women retain advantage, but I also don't doubt that you have seen the results you say you have either.

Then it gets even more complicated with, what kind of strength are we talking about? And for what sport? There are even arguments made that increased bone size and density, paired with female-range muscle strength that trans women at least approach if not reach after a few years of transition, may represent a net disadvantage for transgender women.

I just wanted to call out the one of the incorrect assumptions that even well-meaning folks make when talking about transgender people. Because they're really quite common unfortunately.

That said, there is absolutely nuance to be had here, and the chess organization is being both transphobic and sexist at this point 😮‍💨

100%.

[–] abraxas@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd like to interject that it's not necessarily the evidence that mixed, but its interpretation. The same data can be taken two different ways.

I just finished reading a link (wish I kept the url) that argued trans woman runners still outperform cis women by 12% after 2 years of hormones, pointing out the competitive requirements are only 1 year of hormones. Only in the subtleties do you find that their metrics for performance did not just involve running speed (but included push-ups), and that the underlying research admitted in conclusions that they were likely over-rating the trans women's competitiveness...

One of the things that I read somewhere that REALLY stuck with me is this. There will always be an "evidence-based "argument to attack trans atheletes so long as there is at least one trans athelete that is outperforming cis atheletes. If trans women are equivalent to cis women, then the real answer is that it should be even (weighted obviously) odds that the best in the world would be trans or cis... but what we seek to validate "fairness" is that no trans athelete ever actually rises to the top. Because if they do, it must have been their gender advantage.

[–] darq@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’d like to interject that it’s not necessarily the evidence that mixed, but its interpretation. The same data can be taken two different ways.

I mean yes and no, some studies don't find evidence of competitive advantage. Some do. So, yes I agree that interpretations are mixed, but also evidence, between studies. And then interpretations of the entire body of evidence are mixed, but I personally don't think that those interpretations are of much relevance, this is a discussion that has to happen at a more granular level of each sport.

I just finished reading a link (wish I kept the url) that argued trans woman runners still outperform cis women by 12% after 2 years of hormones, pointing out the competitive requirements are only 1 year of hormones. Only in the subtleties do you find that their metrics for performance did not just involve running speed (but included push-ups), and that the underlying research admitted in conclusions that they were likely over-rating the trans women’s competitiveness…

I actually think I've seen that one, yeah. One of the reasons I mention "what kind of strength", and how that's going to differ for each sport. But yeah, in that case, an exclusion period of two years, is not unreasonable at highly competitive levels.

One of the things that I read somewhere that REALLY stuck with me is this. There will always be an "evidence-based "argument to attack trans atheletes so long as there is at least one trans athelete that is outperforming cis atheletes. If trans women are equivalent to cis women, then the real answer is that it should be even (weighted obviously) odds that the best in the world would be trans or cis… but what we seek to validate “fairness” is that no trans athelete ever actually rises to the top. Because if they do, it must have been their gender advantage.

Yeah, I agree 100% here. We should expect a roughly proportional number of transgender women to be successful.

But literally any single example of a transgender women succeeding is enough to have people crying "but they're a man!". Because, for a lot of people, they really just wanted to call trans women men, the whole sports thing is mostly just pretense.

[–] abraxas@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly. I recently watched Lance Armstrong go off on a silly survival TV show about how trans folk should not be allowed in men/women's sports and try to defend it with a truly pointless argument of "unless there's overwhelming proof" bullshit.

He almost got voted off the show for that rant alone. If it weren't on Fox, he would have.

[–] darq@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The last person I want to hear from about fairness in sports is Lance Armstrong. Bloody hell, lol

[–] abraxas@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

No shit. Especially on a silly celeb survival show hosted by Will Shatner.

[–] Sludgeyy@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Even if it's not simply fact, you have to take into account people who want to abuse the system.

I'm male. How much do I have to change to be considered female?

After getting X amount of estrogen?

In things like running or swimming, breasts are a complete disadvantage. Am I required to get a certain cup size?

I could be decent in Tennis as a male. But if I started playing females tomorrow I'd be one of the best. Just how the sport works. No amount of training is going to get a female to serve and return the ball as hard as I can (Which isn't even top male speed).

How many days from today until I can play females?

What if I didn't want to subject my body to hormones just to be considered the gender I feel like I already am? That should be my choice.

You're basically saying that I need to do enough "damage" to my body to be considered female.

[–] abraxas@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I’m male. How much do I have to change to be considered female?

The standard in many sports is... documented use of testosterone blockers for 2 consecutive years, and a testosterone test showing T levels lower than some number that is clearly within the natural ranges.

If you dig into the sports involved, they generally all have run studies. There is a point where any advantage of being born male becomes negligible. It's not (just) about identifying as the destination gender. It's about showing zero or limited advantage in the league.

Ironically, it looks like the bigger issue is with trans men, who tend to somewhat outperform cis men in certain base tests of strength despite having compatible testosterone levels.

As for breasts in swimming. You understand that it is not against the rules in competitive swimming for a cis woman to get a breast reduction, right? If Cis women have no requirements or limitations on that, why should trans women?

What if I didn’t want to subject my body to hormones just to be considered the gender I feel like I already am? That should be my choice.

Then don't compete in the destination gender's circuit? Turning gendered sports into hormone-matched gendered sports is an entirely reasonable compromise because you're defending the competitive integrity without being bigoted against a person.

A trans individual is not welcome in their birth gender sport because they resemble (hormonally) the other gender. It seems contrived to defend exclusionary behavior on "what if I want to do what would include me in the other category".

[–] darq@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Pretty much every sport is going to set some reasonable limits, based on the level of competition. Most are based on maintaining a certain hormone balance, including low testosterone, for at least 1-2 years.

So most of your hypotheticals just cannot happen. And moreover, they just aren't relevant to the arguments people are making. A transgender woman is a woman, regardless of if she transitions medically, or how far along she is. But for certain types and levels of competitions, some restrictions are implemented. Most people are arguing against a) a blanket ban, which seems more fueled by bigotry than data, b) a ban from levels of competition that are more socially-oriented than meaningfully competitive, such as school sports, or c) bans like this one, in chess.