Transgender players banned from international women’s cricket by ICC
theguardian.com
The International Cricket Council has become the latest sports body to ban transgender players from the elite women’s game if they have gone through male puberty.
The ICC said it had taken the decision, following an extensive scientific review and nine-month consultation, to “protect the integrity of the international women’s game and the safety of players”.
It joins rugby union, swimming, cycling, athletics and rugby league, who have all gone down a similar path in recent years after citing concerns over fairness or safety.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that not many users on Lemmy follow Cricket or understand it fully. My comment isn’t going to cover if the decision by the ICC is correct (or otherwise) but to provide a little insight into the men and women’s games
Speed / pace is a noticeable difference between the sexes. I don’t believe there are any current female players that consistently bowl pace over 120km/h. In contrast, male pace bowlers generally try to meet a consistent speed of 135km/h for the same role. The upper bounds for men is roughly 160km/h and maybe only one or two pro players globally can do this.
There are enough men’s bowlers who can bowl at 150km/h. At this speed an average batter would find it difficult to see the ball. Arguably batters in baseball receive faster pitches but at 150km/h+ including the ball bouncing makes it incredibly difficult to face.
The batting is also different but it might be harder to explain to a non-cricketing audience why this is.
To add extra weight to this comment. It is a common tactic to attempt to "bounce" a batter out, which basically means bowling with enough speed at such a short length that it comes towards the body, and especially, the head. If a batter is unprepared, it usually requires getting out of the way because trying to play a shot is likely to end up with you getting out or struck by the ball.
The ball is much harder and denser than a baseball and even a famous up and coming professional, international, batter died when he failed to get out of the way and was struck in the head.
Basically, there is a very real safety concern for players when it comes to something like this.
Cricket is like Blurnsball, right?
it’s slowly becoming that, yeah.
This isn't about male bowlers though. The physiology of transgender people changes very quickly after starting Hormone Replacement Therapy. Do you have data on transgender women and bowling in cricket? Because data relating to male bowlers is not applicable.
In theory trans women are superwomen and then in reality they're weaker and derpier than the top female athletes and all of this is just a scare tactic because these theories havent played out in the real world at all.
On the sports angle, esports looked like it would finally be the place for me to be a fan because the athletes are relatable to me. But no, they got bought up by the Saudis, so all I get for relatable media is drag queens and furries or whatever.
Sport is the most boring show on TV by far, and yet the actors are paid insane amounts. The fandom is the most toxic bullshit out there and the show runners encourage it.
Cancel sport already, it's really dumb.
As one of the characters in (the book) Jurassic Park says, "the two most boring things in the world are sports and fashion." I couldn't have said it better myself. But I do have a lot of family members who are athletic, and some have gone as far as olympic competitions. So, I can't really say they have no valid right to enjoy their sport. And those family members are the most kind and welcoming people, they are absolutely appalled by all this bigoted negativity toward trans athletes, and are smart enough to see if for the fascist malarky it truly is.
My fist thought was "why does the International Criminal Court care"
Just make it third category.
It's own category with like 5 people in each sport. Great idea.
What is the alternative though that won't ruin female's sports that was built as part or followup of female's emancipation ?
Some sports do it based on what kind of puberty you went through.
As a significant number of the physical advantages come through going through male puberty.
That could be a good start.
Which sports do that?
A quick Google gave me this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_people_in_sports
Oh i misunderstood i though you said that if someone is born one sex but get to transiaion by chems in puberty they are allowed.
No, it depends which puberty they go through.
You can trigger whatever puberty you want by taking hormones/medication.
The one where trans women play in the women's league and trans men in the men's. If it causes any sort on unfairness we would have seen it by now.
We have. That's why it's a dumb idea.
Where? All the hyped up news stories have been titles like "trans woman destroys women in insert sport here" but if you look into it they took 600th or something and beat maybe 10 women.
That is what tons of folks fights against. But i agree it makes sense. However, is taking testosteron considered doping for females or is it OK? if it's OK, why other "chems" are not allowed?
The testosterone for trans men is just to get to the levels that average cis men have, I'm pretty sure they test for excess testosterone. Some medication is allowed for sick athletes that is considered doping for anyone who isn't sick, like the therapy for increasing blood oxygen levels which is a common form of doping but is a valid treatment for some illnesses.
Medication for sick people seems kinda different thing to me than being healthy and chumming chems to gain muscles.
So testosterone for female( born) athletes should be allowed until they reach avg male(born) level? Is that really a thing we want to introduce into sports ? Will steroids also count as getting to avg male upper muscle mass ? Where is the line? Won't that make female athletes either obsolete or force them to chems chumming which then can cause them health issues given that most of them propably don't plan to transition and might want start families etc?
For trans men they get like an injection of testosterone, they aren't getting it to play sports, it's medication for dysphoria. I haven't said anyone else other than trans men should be taking it and definitely nothing about steroids.
The point i wanted to send across is that it gives athlete an advantage. So people will be incentivized to get it. And also those who do not get it will be at disadvantage. So if one form of chems advantage is allowed why others are not? Isn't that exactly the source of the issue here, fairness?
How does it give athletes an advantage?
What do you mean? I explained it in the posts above. So shortly It's basic biolgy. E.g. testosterone makes changes in the body.
If you have the same testosterone levels as everyone you are competing against it doesn't give you an advantage.
Imo we should get rid of the distinction by gender and just use weight classes, or whatever attributes are appropriate for a given sport.
Avg Joe can weight about or even less than avg Jane but he still outperforms her in physical activities. It's gonna be quite hard. But i can see it working as one of the many params in complex evaluation formula which never will be finished in sense every year someone will come up with exceptions and new paralela.
That's true for grouping by gender as well, probably even more so. Genetic lottery means some will always be better at a given sport than others of the same gender putting in the same effort. But it's so engrained in our thinking that we don't even perceive it as a problem, instead we tell those with physical disadvantage that they were just not made for a certain sport.
So we are far from competing with perfect here, and being able to pick other attributes to group by should enable us create much more evenly matched groups. I mean, right now we just use one deciding factor for everything and call it a day. And that's before we get into the whole gender discussion.
Regarding the actual formulas, I think we just need to find good tradeoffs between fairness and practicality. Of course even a perfectly fair system will fail if it doesn't work in practice, but I think we can do much better than just using gender in pretty much all cases.
You've just killed all of women's sports by relegating them to the bottom tiers, congratulations.
This is just a complete non solution to the problem and effectively just ends up with trans people being banned from sports altogether.
"Trans" sports teams/leagues (whatever that means) can't really exist at the amateur local level anywhere but the biggest citiess due to there being not a lot of trans people, and even less trans people who want to play sports.
The struggle to even get enough trans guys or trans girls to form a team for football or whatever would be a challenge in and of itself, and then this team would pretty much have to fly across the country (or possibly to a different country altogether) to even play a match.
This is not a reasonable solution for anyone but the people who want to ban trans people from sports.
The second issue is that this is just fear mongering and not an actual issue to be solved but that's being argued all over this thread already.
What is your suggestion than?
Does he have to have a better suggestion in order to point out how yours isn't viable?
It's preferable, as that's what constructive productive discussion is about as opposite to just negating and pointing out all is wrong all the time while never accepting any ideas.
It can be very constructive to point out why something is a bad idea without having an alternative in mind.
Doing something just to do something is how a lot of mistakes and accidents happen.
That hyperbole. What about good ideas?
I disagree because it doesn't lead anywhere , thus it doesn't consruct anything.
It can stop you from making things worse, but I'm tired of arguing this with you.
Believe what you want.
Trans people should be allowed in the sports of their gender provided they've been on HRT consistently for some time
The length can be argued but 2-3 years seem to be enough.
However those sport associations claim they had researches done and conclusions were that it is not fair due to difference in physical abilities and it brings health risk for female athletes.
2-3 years doesn't change lung size or bone density. There is a lot of stuff that doesn't change once it's developed.
Just make a separate league
Two categories:
Perfectly fair and simple.
It's already the case, most sports allow for women to play in men's leagues... But they don't. And trans women would suffer the same way cis women would in men dominated categories (or would they? Depends on the sport I guess, nobody would complain about trans women in F1 Academy I bet)
Fox news was complaining about a trans woman getting a participation medal in the London Marathon, which is a mixed event anyway. Never underestimate how much these people hate trans people.
Right, I'm sure they'll find a dumb excuse to hate on us.
You say that, but trans women are banned from playing in women's chess. https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/38210181/fide-bans-transgender-women-women-chess-events
chess has a history of being very black and white.
Yeah I forgot about that... They're just so hateful haha there's no reason remaining
Exactly.
women as females or identifier ? Open is males + trans females + trans males ?
Identity is irrelevant. The separation exists so that women get fair competition.
Women as in someone who was born as, and always has been, biologically female.
Open means everyone, unrestricted.
I see so in other words keep it stricly male and female category and let female to enter male category by choice.
Then we are where se are with people lobbing for change.
So, do transgender leagues get the same amount of resources as male and female? There's no way they're going to bring in as much money as male or even female leagues.
Female leaves done bring as much as male leagues either. So male leagues sponsors female leagues. So i guess nope, as male and female leagues do not either.
God I thought it said the international criminal court
Hej, I‘ve seen quite a few comments using weird expressions to refer to trans women here, so to clarify, a trans woman is not:
A trans woman is:
Just use the words trans woman and cis woman, it‘s concise, correct and respectful. I‘m not saying that there are no differences between trans women and cis women, but simply that trans women are women. If you disagree with that, go watch ContraPoints or PhilosophyTube.
Consequently, the international cricket council should call it the elite cis women‘s game from now on, that would just be consistent.
I am still confused. My understanding was that trans people change their gender. This is something I am able to wrap my head around because gender (man/woman) is a human construct anyway and people should have the freedom to choose where they are on that spectrum.
But isn't sex a genetic thing that can't be changed? If it's the case that a person can choose whether they are male or female then science is going to need new terminology to replace male/female for XY and XX because the words science used to use have been commandeered to mean something more like gender?
In particular when referring to humans, the definition of sex is ambiguous, as is the term “biological male”. And I think this problem is intrinsic: Gender and sex are complicated (with many different markers which may be congruent for many people, but are not for trans and intersex people), and the usefulness of categories depends on context. For example, in a dating context, gender might be a useful category. In a medical context, sex is not a useful category for trans and intersex people: It's not sufficient information, and sometimes ambiguous.
I agree that it would be nice to have other words than for XY/XX chromosomes (or small vs large gametes), this would make the language more exact and inclusive. However, I (and others) dislike the term “biological male”, because I think it exists only to create a category that equates cis men with trans women. Even if we agree on defining “biological male” as a person having XY chromosomes, in a sports context this is an unhelpful category because there are large differences between XY cis men and XY trans women. When there is apparently so much concern for fairness and safety, why not ask the big questions: How can we make sports inclusive, safe and fun for everyone (including trans people!), regardless of genetics? Are sex or gender useful categories to separate competition — or are there other, more useful markers? (And maybe even: Are international competitions as we have them now a desirable system?)
I dislike the lack of an enclosing comma. Would you, pretty please, fix that?
Uh oh, someone is conflating gender and sex again, despite claiming to be a trans ally.
Don't use cis. Woman is a woman.
Fuck this. Sports are games, they shouldn't be taken this seriously. Like, for example, Micheal Phelps has webbed feet and freaky monster lungs but nobody's banned him from swimming events for that. Every human is different, people need to fucking accept that sports can never be totally fair and realize that's not what this is about.
By this logic, we should all go back to open division sports, which is what historically led to a de facto exclusion of women from all sports because, unsurprisingly, the vast majority of them were unable to be competitive in divisions that had men in them.
Most sports actually have an open division. People tend to just call it the men's division since, as you point out, women get completely zoned out by men in sports. High school boys dominate leader boards when compared to Olympian women.
While I won't deny there is a biological difference that impacts performance there's also a systemic societal difference that doesn't help.
In general women are not given the same support, whether from family, schools, coaches, research or funding, to become top athletes.
It's certainly much better that it has been in the past now days and it's getting better, but even just people saying "women aren't as good as men" is something that sinks into the psyche of women who want to compete.
It's akin to men from poorer nations who can't afford resources, time and training, having a hard time competing against "richer" nations who invest more into it
How about adding a third category instead: a free for all category where all genders are welcome to compete and can use as much steroid as they want.
While I think people should be allowed to do anything they want with their bodies, I understand that sports leagues don't want the athletes to push boundaries and destroy their bodies with stupid amounts of steroids.
I've always said baseball needs to just say fuck it and let guys go nuts. I want to see someone throw a 108mph fastball that gets clobbered 600ft.
I think that gender specific leagues need to go the way of the dodo but while they're here they're essentially weight/strength classes and most transwomen are more fairly matched against AMAB men than AFAB women.
Ideally, we could just realize that having multiple league levels based on body type would be much more equitable.
Source?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33289906/
Not only do I think this study is complete non-sense, but 3 other professors at the same journal published their comments and concerns with this study and how it's being spread around as though it's fact when in truth, the "science" in it is rubbish.
Here's a link to the article in PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37726582/
PubMed unfortunately doesn't have a transcript, but you can read the transcript here (or click on the link next to DOI in PubMed that I linked above): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-023-01928-8
Here's TL;DR from the conclusion of the comment on the study is that the original study's scientific basis is dubious at best, it hasn't been properly peer reviewed, despite not being properly peer reviewed this article is being shared and used as a basis for shaping policies.
And besides, even if the original study were true, wouldn't transgender athletes would be winning at a rate higher than their prevalence in sports? Considering about 1% of people are transgender, they should win 1% of the time, but that doesn't happen, because any advantage is entirely fictitious.
And even if there was an advantage, there are lots of people who have a biological advantage. That's just a part of sports that's impossible to eliminate because we're not all robots running on the exact same hardware and software.
You aren't factoring in how many people win as a %. Only like .01% of people compete at the top level of sports, if 1% of people are Trans it's going to take a while to actually hit someone that is both talented enough to be relevant and trans.
And backing up your claim, thank you!
I just want you to know that the study that was posted is trash. Here's link to a comment on that same study by 3 professors from the same journal https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-023-01928-8
And here's a quick TL;DR from the conclusion of the comment on the study is that the original study's scientific basis is dubious at best, it hasn't been properly peer reviewed, despite not being properly peer reviewed this article is being shared and used as a basis for shaping policies.
That doesn't surprise me, but I wasn't aware of that. Thanks!
No worries at all. I know this is a really sensitive subject and it'll basically require a change in how we view sports leagues and gender to resolve.
It really depends on the sport imo. Trans women may retain some more muscle and some parts of the skeleton are largely unaffected, but muscle elasticity, hip rotation, flexibility, and endurance all end up being more dependent on hormones than birth sex in the long term. How much these things matter varies a lot from sport to sport, and the current system is not sufficient to balance these traits even among people of the same sex. Multiple leagues based on broad body types sounds reasonable, but I have no idea how complicated the rules would have to be to make it completely fair, given we already accept a great deal of unfairness currently.
I'd look to wrestling as an example - it manages to have several leagues of weight classes that participate... but yea, it'd be a pretty big change.
As a trans woman who works out but doesn't really do sports because people make them suck, I have to say that I don't think that study is correct based of my experiences. Trans women often have lower testosterone than cis women after being on hrt for a while (2 years max typically, but it can be sooner). When I started hrt, literally only about 2 weeks later I noticed massive muscle atrophy and I literally couldn't even help my father move heavy furniture that I doubt I would have had a problem with before. After that I decided to start lifting and it's been a few months since then I am still not as strong as I used to be.
Petite women compete against tall women all the time though
That's why I think weight/strength classes are the way to go - we arbitrarily divide sports in half by gender and it makes most body types uncompetitive.
The problem is that there’s too much money on the line. If certain performance enhancing drugs (like testosterone) are allowed, every athlete will be required to take them if they want to compete at the highest level. Athletes are known to favor short-term gains over long-term health consequences, and they’re pressured by their environment to do so as well.
Capitalism ruining good things, as always. In the case of trans men on testosterone, though, who cares? I feel like that just levels the playing field for them generally. And as a trans woman? Estrogen has fucked up my body's ability to build muscle if anything. These arguments all boil down to excuses.
Even on estrogen, the power level is nowhere near equal to born women. I personally think that the only fair solution is to have separate trans divisions, but there's the question whether there are enough contenders for that. Even women often have problems, I know a kickboxing slender woman who constantly complains about not being able to find competitors and always having to compete at a severe disadvantage.
Says who? Why segregate sports in the first place? Why can't they just exist for the sole purpose of fun? Does it really matter if trans people have a advantage? Are you that afraid of trans people succeeding? Is any of this really enough to justify dehumanizing trans+intersex people and shunting them out of another public space?
Why is it dehumanizing to have a separate division? Is it dehumanizing for women to have a separate division?
You can do sports for fun, but not the one with the money behind it. The one without the money behind it is not the one you can see in broadcasts, it happens elsewhere. Because broadcasts cost money, and so those are interlinked.
So, the whole topic is only about the one with the money behind it, aka the one not done for fun.
Because trans people are their gender, and because intersex and nonbinary people exist too and we all deserve to have access to the same opportunities as others. That means the big, televised sports too. Gendered divisions don't give cis women a fair chance at a national platform either, comparatively and oftentimes unduly sexualize the players. If you want any given game to be fair every single team should have a certain distribution among height/weight classes if not among genders as well. There is no reason I see most sports can't be coed either if this is practiced. It's almost like it was never about fairness in the first place... 🤔
I never said otherwise.
That works for a team sport, but what about sport for a single person, like kickboxing/grappling/tennis/etc?
I couldn't agree more. The one thing "SPORTS" means is, everybody gets to particpate. EVERYBODY. That's what the word "sports" means. It does not mean only the people are are "straight" get to play. Or only the people who are the physically strongest. It is about interest in participating and having opportunities for everyone to be able to play regardless of their sexual or gender identity.
Damn straight the reason why people play sports is to have fun.
It’s makes me sick these commentators are their hiding transphobia in their “competitive arguments”.
We don’t need to have these invasive requirements to test someone’s hormones just let people play their gender identity. No human deserves to be excluded from having fun when they only got one life.
Cricket is as a fun as baseball.
Downvote this foo!
Or don't, I'm not your mama.
I thought I told you to get rid of those sideburns! ..."But Mr Burns I don't think know you what sideburns..."
I've had it with your attitude! You're outa here!!
Appropriate then, that the issue is dicks
Not all trans women have
I'd be mad except... it's fucking cricket.
Cricket is the second-most popular sport in the world.
I've literally never seen a game of it, and know nothing about it, but this affects a lot of people.
Like baseball but slower.
Get that terf garbage out of here.
The ultimate reason it's wrong to ban transgender people from competing in athletics competitions is that the implication is that testosterone can be considered a performance enhancing drug -- even if the athlete in question is well within hormonal levels of any other cisgender athlete in the same sport.
If that's the case, then it opens the door to banning other athletes for exceeding the testosterone limit, and guess what? Cisgender women with African heritage naturally produce more testosterone than the average woman world-wide. So banning transgender athletes leads to potentially banning African women which is obviously racist and wrong to do.
Also, poly cystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is a condition that affects about 1 in 10 women and a very common side effect of PCOS is elevated testosterone levels. So 1 in 10 women would be banned for medical reasons outside of their control. And banning people for a medical condition is ableist and obviously wrong to do.
And, ultimately, sports aren't fair. We try to make them equitable by making the rules universal, but biological advantages are just part of sports. If we start banning athletes for hormones, why not ban athletes for being taller than average? Why not ban athletes for having better vision than average? Or better peripheral vision? Or faster reflexes? If only the absolute average, or below average people were allowed to compete then nearly half of all people would be unable to compete.
Plus, the vast majority of athletes say that they don't want transgender people to be banned from their respective sports.
And not to mention that it's just rude to exclude transgender athletes, and if it were truly such an advantage to be transgender then why aren't transgender people winning tournaments left and right? About 1% of people are transgender, so if transgender people are winning 1% of all tournaments then that would mean that they're exactly on exactly equal footing with their competitors. But I suspect that less than 1% of tournament winners are transgender which means that transgender people are actually at a disadvantage, which again, is fine because sports are inherently unfair as I outlined above.
At the end of the day, transgender athlete bans hurt everyone, and anti-transgender jerks are just making a big stink about it because it sounds reasonable on it's face to uninformed people and so it's a good wedge issue to bring up. Anti-transgender people don't care about the sports they're "trying to save", they just hate transgender people and want to see them suffer, and anyone who entertains their non-sense is complicit (probably unknowingly) in that suffering.
So please, those of you who are reasonable, shut down any discussion of transgender sports bans.
Trans women out perform cis women in nearly all sports and need to be banned. Quit trying to blame this on transphobia and stop helping people cheat at sports.
African women out perform lots of athletes in nearly all sports, should they be banned from competing? No, of course not, that's bigotry. Trans women don't out perform cis women or there would be overwhelming evidence that they're winning tournaments constantly over cisgender women. Where's the evidence? Good luck finding it, because it doesn't exist, because it's not true.
And as I pointed out, sports are inherently unfair. It's not cheating to have a biological advantage. It's only cheating if you break the established rules of the actual game. Being more intelligent than your opponent in chess is not cheating, but moving a piece during your opponents turn is. See the difference? One is a biological advantage which is fine, the other is breaking a rule within the sport itself which is not fine.
I think that for us to move forward as a society we either need to drop leagues altogether (and just accept that female athletes in some categories will be vanishingly rare) or adopt body-type based leagues that are more fair in grouping up competitors according to their inherent bodily advantages.
Safety of the players? How do trans women playing cricket endanger cis women?
Cricket balls are hard dude. Like really hard.
100%, but the hardness of a cricket ball doesn't change with who's using it. A really really hard ball moving really really fast is still a really really hard ball moving really really fast, so it's not like there's some significant difference in danger posed. And even if there was such a big danger posed by someone assigned-male-at-birth playing cricket, why would it still be perfectly fine for men's cricket?
Because scientific males have significant anatomical differences than scientific females, which results in the former having dramatically increased strength and endurance. It doesn't take that much explanation to understand why it might be bad to have an athlete hurling what are essentially rocks at 80+ mph towards batters who are lacking sufficient muscle fibers to respond effectively and, especially towards the end of a match, are far more likely to be exhausted.
You're replying to a comment chain saying that it's for their safety and you're not actually discussing that claims by saying they're likely to be exhausted. The damage a ball traveling that fast can do is similar to men and women, I would imagine, and in the men's league that risk is obviously not something that prevents the game from being played.
Just so I'm understanding this right, you're saying that exhaustion doesn't affect safety? I think it absolutely does.
Because they don't exhaust as easily.
Again, we're talking about throwing "essentially rocks" at speeds that are insanely fast no matter who's doing the throwing. When you're talking hard objects being thrown at such high speeds towards people in protective gear, the difference in danger (even if that danger is significant) is going to be minimal. If women "are far more likely to be exhausted" at the end of a match, they're more susceptible to really bad injuries from any cricket ball moving at such a high speed. A trans woman throwing the ball isn't going to pose much more risk, definitely not enough for safety to be a factor in banning trans women from women's cricket.
I think there's definitely a discussion to be had in regards to what's fair and how we approach fairness and sports in a world that's accepting of trans people. However, the moment you go out and pretend that there's some safety risk posed by trans women in sports, you unjustifiably paint them as threats to cis women, and that's completely unacceptable.
I think you're conflating the severity of being hit with a thrown ball with the frequency of being hit with it. I agree that getting smacked with a rock going 80 mph vs. 60 mph both carry a significant risk of harm, even in protective gear. My point is that women are more likely to be unable to effectively respond to those faster pitches, particularly towards the end of a match, and thus are exposed to a greater frequency of being hit by the ball and injured.
If you have ever been in a batting cage, you should understand how much more difficult it becomes to read a ball with even a 5-10 mph increase in speed. Not only do biological women lack the same muscle and skeletal composition that allows men to respond quickly in dodging or turning into a misguided pitch, but they also exhaust quicker and thus are more likely to be suffer from a delayed neurological response in doing the initial mental read of the ball's path. If you suddenly turn the speed of those pitches up by a third, you're increasing the likelihood that those women batters will be hit, regardless of whether the injury is likely to be the same.
Hmm, fair point. I can see how increased ball velocity and decreased reaction speed could make an injury more likely. Nevertheless, I still have these doubts:
Unless there really is some big safety concern, still seems absurd to ban people on these metrics and tell people that you're protecting the other players by doing it. With the evidence I'm aware of, it still seems minimal to me, and we've seen BS reasoning for banning trans women in other women's competitions (e.g., chess). While I can't say with confidence that there's no decent argument in support of a ban, I still don't think safety is part of it.
I think you're right the most of the argument for the ban relates to fairness, and I frankly doubt that there have been any sort of safety studies done in cricket that would speak to my point.
Lotta bigoted users are really going mask off on this thread huh
For real. These people are brain dead.
That is the whole point of "trans women in sports" discussions. That's why conservatives selected this issue to push.
They can act like concerned people when in reality they dgaf and never were interested in them in the first place
my ass..
(edit to clarify: the only concern in making these decisions are the fragile egos of cis people)
I'm all in for all of us holding hands and walking into the sunshine. But if someone has a concern about a potential unfair advantage because their oponent used to be male/female, they are automatically labeled as having "fragile ego"? That sounds very condescending. What should they do, just walk it off because you don't like it?
They should make tests for all sports and decide if there is a potential advantage to be gained from being born male/female and decide on a case by case basis. If there is none, perfect, game on!
I think there was a scandal in the US with a swimmer some time ago? My wife used to play tennis as a child and she said it was brutal when they were training and playing against males. It was a completely different level.
Also not a big fan of being called "cis", to me it sounds offensive.
Cis is the term that just means you are the gender you were born, you aren't trans.
If you aren't trans, then you are cis.
If you aren't gay, then you are straight.
Do you also dislike being called straight?
I'm ok with being called straight.
I remember those same kinds people in high school saying "I'm not straight I'm normal"
So I'm gonna guess his response would be "I'm not cis I'm normal"
Which the only correct reply is...
based account
♥ 💕 ♥ 💕 ♥ 💕 ♥
Cis is just a term trans people came up with so they could label normal people as they've been labelled.
It's literally a Latin prefix. Exactly the same as "trans", being the antonym thereof.
Oh my god get over yourself cis is not offensive.
Fucking cislord scum.
Now that? That would be offensive.
Who gets to decide that for me? You? Thanks for making that decision for me.
You can find anything offensive, but it doesn’t mean that social norms have to accept it. Do you take offense to being called your race? What about doctors using medical terminology to describe something like your muscles? These are the same things: descriptive words that were created without your input that you have no say in. It’s language, and it’s weird to get offended by a word being used in a non-inflammatory way.
If you're offended by being a homosapien that doesn't change what you are. Cisgender is a rational scientific term. See transalpine Gaul and cisalpine Gaul for a reference as to why.
I mean you can be offended by whatever you want.
But "cis" is a Latin prefix which is simply the antonym of "trans". It holds absolutely no value judgement.
So it's a strange thing to find offensive.
You're welcome, my cis friend. (I'm also cis, just not a fucking baby about it its not hard)
Keep your cis to yourself.
It hangs out on accident sometimes
And so another so-called sport franchise flushes itself down the sewer for its ingrained bigotry and body shaming depravity.
There is absolutely not one shred of evidence whatsoever that going through male puberty automatically makes you a superhuman athelete. There is no evidence at all that trans players are more intrinsically athletic than any other player on the field.
THESE IGNORAMUSES ARE NOT PROTECTING ANYONE'S INTEGRITY. They are simply demonizing and hating on a very easy to target group because they themselves are so ashamed of their own nonatheltic abilities.
The whole notion and meaning of the term "sports" is "inclusion of anybody willing to participate." There is no other criteria. Sports is supposed to be a fair game for all. Obviously the international cricket council is not just anti-sport, but anti-humanity in every conceivable way.
I hope all the sports enthusiasts of the world unite to work against hateful sport councils such as the ICC. Hate and bigotry and sheer ignorance have no home in sports franchises.
Sorry dude, but you're objectively wrong. There is a wealth of academic studies demonstrating that transgender players have an advantage in women's divisions, and that gender-affirming treatment fails to rectify that.
Heather AK. Transwoman Elite Athletes: Their Extra Percentage Relative to Female Physiology. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Jul 26;19(15):9103. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19159103. PMID: 35897465; PMCID: PMC9331831.
Roberts TA, Smalley J, Ahrendt DEffect of gender affirming hormones on athletic performance in transwomen and transmen: implications for sporting organisations and legislatorsBritish Journal of Sports Medicine 2021;55:577-583.
Case Studies in Physiology: Male to female transgender swimmer in college athletics Jonathon W. Senefeld, Sandra K. Hunter, Doriane Coleman, and Michael J. Joyner Journal of Applied Physiology 2023 134:4, 1032-1037
honestly his use of the term superhuman athlete makes the whole thing just silly. men are not automatically superhuman athletes either but in many physical sports they might as well be compared to women. Mens sports generally allow both sexes so are open to all, womens are basically so that women athletes have an outlet where they can reasonably succeed. Otherwise its like chess tournaments always allowing computers.
Women are not in any way less athletically abled than men are. I've seen men gymnasts that could outdo women and women football players than could outdo men. It's not about who is better abled to do something - sports is about having inclusion for everyone no matter their level of talent or ability.
yes the best female athlete can beat some male athletes but the best male will always outperform females where physical strength is an issue. Just look at any olympic events male/female side to side or that one male tennis pro while a pro was ranked something like 100 and smoke serena who was ranked 1 among women. Look at all the olympic races, weight lifting, etc male/female side by side.
I disagree with that idea - that the best male will always outperform females where physical strength is concerned. And even if this is true, sports should not favor those with the greatest physical strength, to me the best athletes are those with the drive and determination to participate. Trans, straight, bi, gay - those things are only relevant off the field, not on.
this is not an idea, its just facts plain and simple https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Olympic\_records\_in\_athletics# your physical strength idea only works if you put forth the idea that pretty much every competition is reliant on it. strength speed endurance. its all men. its not about willingness to be an athlete its just about having a doable categorization. This is why combat competitions besides having seperate mens and womens also have weight classes.
No it's not "facts." It's your acceptance of bigoted and chauvinistic ideas about women and men based on outdated stereotypes. Men are NOT inherently stronger than women are, and I've even go so far as to suggest that women are many times stronger in the realms of emotional stability and reliability than men could ever be. You can have whatever bigoted ideas you want - but dont try and pass them off as "facts" just because you were never taught any other way to see the world.
Nope. Actual. Measured. Performance metrics. Are. Facts.
We're talking about sports here - men, on average, have more muscle mass than women, on average, have. So in most sports men will have a higher average and peak performance than women with otherwise the same physiology. This isn't to say that men are better than women, they simply have a higher physical capacity in this regard.
If your idea of strength is only measured by muscle mass instead of by qualities like perseverance and speed and agility, then it's true that men have an edge over women. I happen to think that strength can be measured in other ways.
That's not my idea, no - but different sports are biased in different ways. Something like a shot put is all about raw muscle mass while billards is all about fine motor control and spacial reasoning. No skill is more valuable than another but certain sports and competitions emphasize different things.
In most competitive sports, men do have an edge because they're sports that men were traditionally good at.
I believe men only have the edge in being "traditionally good at" some sports because women were excluded from them for so long. Not because women are inherently weaker. And (this isn't about your comments) again I state that it's imbecility to say that transgender males have some kind of an "edge" over other athletes - suggesting that being trans imbues you with all these amazing supernatural athletic abilities!
I still say that sports is about one thing only - all people of all walks of life having the right to participate.
[1] If this issue is so clear cut, then I wonder why like any guidance by medical organizations for transitioning people state clearly "expect muscle and strength loss at the level that it might affect your grocery carrying experience" (like this https://www.wpath.org/publications/soc ). [2] Don't forget junk science has targeted women of color, intersex women, and even normal women with high testosterone levels https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/07/sport/athletics-testosterone-rules-negesa-imali-running-as-equals-dsd-spt-intl-cmd/ for exclusion from female sports. [3] Now to your "academic" points. Your first reference is written by an inarticulate person reciting long debunked gender stereotypes in some third-world journal, without even backing it up. Low quality article all around, appears like a targeted attempt to give academic substance to age-old stereotypes. In contrast Scientific American has published that "trans girls belong to women's sport" https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trans-girls-belong-on-girls-sports-teams/ since "there is no scientific case for excluding them" and "a visualization of sex as a spectrum" https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sa-visual/visualizing-sex-as-a-spectrum/ which I guess debunks all certainties of the said article. [4] Your second reference is a cherry pick from an article that states exactly the opposite "The 15-31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy." (from the abstract), so what you have written might be just a little bid ...dishonest? [5] And the third is a N=1 case study of one champion? It compares a single person before and after hormones to the "established sex differences"? Come on! I could even bring in articles on your side of the argument that could be more hard to debunk. The Karolinska Institute study is one for example http://biorxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/782557, who went to great lengths to skew the sample to make a seemingly neutral contribution. [6] Look for systematic studies, cherry picking is cheating: Here is a systematic review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5357259/ It is inconclusive whether testosterone drives athletic performance, and studies are inconclusive about trans women having unfair advantages. But they do point out that prejudice stigma and violence is a factor for transgender athletes. If anyone wants to be fair has to factor in the shit trans women will take in male sports, plus that some male athletes may find it unfair to compete them in case they recognize them as women. Also some athletes and commentators have switched sides about their prior strong rhetoric on the matter https://www.thedailybeast.com/mma-fighter-rosi-sexton-apologizes-to-fallon-fox-for-transphobic-comments and I think Joe Rogan himself apologized to.
[1] Because while strength decreases, empirical research shows that it does not decrease to the level of removing the competitive advantage in women's sports.
[2] This article contains utterly no discussion about transgender athletes that have already undergone male puberty.
[3] You're relying on ad hominem attacks instead of actually addressing any of the substantive findings. Moreover, your articles do not contain a single empirical study.
[4] If you read the full article, you would see that it doesn't decline to the point of removing the advantage, as my quoted sections show. In fact, the very next sentence after the one you quote reads "However, transwomen still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events." Your claim of cherry picking is ironic.
[5] Yes, the meaning of a case study is that it studies a single case. Notably, there are only five known transgender swimmers in the NCAA's Division I, which was the subject of the study. I'm not sure what you're trying to do by citing another study (ultimately finding that transwomen "were still stronger and had more muscle mass following 12 months of treatment") in support of my point, but go off I guess.
[6] Your "systematic review" is close to a decade old and, unsurprisingly, doesn't address any of the studies I cited. Moreover, the study you're citing consistently admits that it doesn't have enough information to really make any judgments - and its conclusion is based on the importance of sports for the physical and mental health of transgender people. To the extent it discusses competitive advantage, it does so entirely within the context of androgenic hormones, and contains no discusses of anatomical differences (e.g., larger bodies, longer legs, bigger bones, larger lungs). In addition to citing an outdated study in a rapidly evolving field of research, you then you cite a Daily Beast article -- lmfao.
Do you even attempt to argue in good faith?
Yes and I'm corrrect. It's your problem is you don't even attempt to listen in good faith. That's on you and your need to have bigoted outdated ideas. Not on me.