Guest post: Why the difference, do you think?
Lady Mondegreen emailed Athlete Ally letting them know what she thinks of their dismissal of Martina Navratilova. They sent her a crap reply, to which she responded. She shared both on Facebook and gave me permish to post it here.
From: Athlete Ally Info <info@athleteally.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 8:31:21 AM
As an organization, we are committed to upholding LGBTQ equality in and through sport, and advocating for the inclusion of trans athletes is a critical part of that work.
In her article, Navratilova stated that trans women are men who “decide to be female,” and that to allow them to compete with women is “insane and it’s cheating… it is surely unfair on women who have to compete against people who, biologically, are still men.”
Transgender or Trans people are people whose gender identity is different from the gender they were assigned at birth. Trans women did not “decide” to be female. Transphobia is perpetuated by misinformation such as this.
There’s a difference between competitive and unfair advantage. As of now, sports are divided in a very binary way. For a trans male athlete to compete as a woman, you’re essential telling that athlete to disregard who they are, how they live, and the gender identity they’ve worked hard their whole life to understand and identify. It’s not a choice for them- it’s a fundamental part of who they are.
The topic of testosterone is complex, and there’s still not a lot understood or known about testosterone’s effects on the body, though we do know that every individual responds to testosterone differently. Our organizational stance is that participation of all athletes, and their human rights, should be respected and protected. We have no evidence at all that the average trans woman is any bigger, stronger, or faster than the average cisgender woman, but there is evidence that often when you lower testosterone through hormone replacement therapy, performance goes down.
In our statement, we link to the data that shows that often when athletes lower testosterone through hormone replacement therapy, performance goes down. Specifically, see paragraphs 2-3 on page 6 of the study, also copied below.
Transgender women who have undertaken testosterone suppression change from normal male testosterone levels to normal female levels, in fact, after surgery their testosterone levels are below the mean for 46,XX women (Gooren and Bunck, 425–429). Largely as a result of their vastly reduced testosterone levels, transgender women lose strength, speed, and virtually every other component of athletic ability.
Since this study looks at endurance capabilities of athletes both pre and post testosterone suppression, it is also of significant interest to look at hematocrit or hemoglobin levels of transgender women. One year after testosterone suppression, hemoglobin levels in transgender women fell from 9.3 mmol/l to 8.0 mmol/l. This latter number is statistically identical to the mean hemoglobin level for cisgender women (Gooren and Bunck 425–429).
There are so many levels of complexity that go into the question of competitive advantage. Think about all of the other ways athletes have competitive advantage — access to better coaches and facilities; money to pay for nutritionists, recovery services, etc. At the highest levels of sport, physical characteristics can only get you so far — you also need serious technical skill to be able to beat top competitors from around the world.
Trans athletes aren’t competing because they want to win every trophy and all the prize money and kick women out of sports. They’re competing because, like anyone else, they love their sport. We think it’s fundamentally wrong to force them to go against who they are in order for them to take part in the sport they love. To say that by doing so they’re being unfair, cheating and even “making a choice” is not just wrong- it paints a picture of trans people that stirs up hatred and bigotry, when this population is already being targeted and attacked daily.
It is simply a myth that trans women athletes have an unfair advantage or are taking over women’s sport. Trans athletes are not seeking to take anything away from cis athletes. Trans athletes have been allowed to openly compete in the Olympics since 2003, and yet no transgender athlete has ever gone to the Olympics. Professional trans women athletes are extremely rare. Trans athletes simply want to participate in the sport they love, like any other athlete. Nothing about that is “insane” or “cheating”.
The International Olympic Committee developed a consensus on trans athlete participation in 2015, which stipulates conditions for transgender athletes to compete. We think this is definitely preferable to barring an entire population from having access to the sport they love.
We have a longstanding history of championing women’s rights in sports, from our successful #WomenInFIFA campaign which sought to remedy the staggering under-representation and under-resourcing of women in soccer, to our 2017 partnership with Shirzanan, a media and advocacy organization for Muslim female athletes, on a campaign demanding that FIBA (the world governing body of basketball) immediately overturn its discriminatory headgear ban adversely affecting observant Muslim women wearing hijab. We stand in full support of women in sports, and all LGBTQ people in sport. We believe all women, which includes trans women, deserve full access to sport.
We have and will continue to have tremendous respect for the legacy of icons like Martina, however we believe that one’s platform should be used to promote inclusion and respect for all.
Lady M’s reply:
You replied to me:
In her article, Navratilova stated that trans women are men who ‘decide to be female,’ and that to allow them to compete with women is ‘insane and it’s cheating… it is surely unfair on women who have to compete against people who, biologically, are still men.’
Transgender or Trans people are people whose gender identity is different from the gender they were assigned at birth. Trans women did not ‘decide’ to be female. Transphobia is perpetuated by misinformation such as this.
In fact, very little is known, scientifically, about gender dysphoria. But let’s be clear: “transgender” is an ideological term, not a scientific one, and there is NO good science behind trans activists’ claims about gender identity.
In any case, trans women are not female.
There’s a difference between competitive and unfair advantage. As of now, sports are divided in a very binary way.
Yes. Because male and females are physiologically distinct, we binarily divide athletes by sex in sports where greater male strength and speed give men advantages over women.
For a trans male athlete to compete as a woman, you’re essential telling that athlete to disregard who they are, how they live, and the gender identity they’ve worked hard their whole life to understand and identify. It’s not a choice for them-
Your emotional appeal is beside the point, and you know it. Trans women are males.
Tell me, are trans men beating males in cycling or tennis or basketball?
Why the difference, do you think? Surely trans men have “worked hard” to “understand and identify” their “gender identity”.
Could there be a factor that has nothing to do with “identity” at play here?
You also say that trans women do not wish to take over women’s sports. Again, that is a red herring. Whether or not they wish to “take over” women’s sports, they will take spots from female athletes.
How transgender males identify is none of my business. They are still males. Their performance while on hormone therapy may be lower than it was before, but they retain advantages in size, muscle mass, lung capacity, etc.
You then refer to the IOC guidelines and link to a study. THE VERY STUDY DISCUSSED IN THE LINK I PROVIDED.
Again: the link I provided details the scientific problems with the study used by the IOC.
You have confirmed that you care more about ideology than honesty, science, fairness, or women and girls (i.e., female human beings.)
You did Martina a favor. She deserves better than to be associated with your organization.
Long time lurker here. I think I commented once nearly a decade ago. Anyway I am largely in agreement, but you ask “Could there be a factor that has nothing to do with “identity” at play here” meaning it’s likely biological. Well, this ignores the socialization aspect: people who grow up as women lack a LOT of the access to sport compared to people who grow up as men. These early small disadvantages add up. There’s a factor worth thinking about.
The link I referred to is this one:
https://medium.com/@Antonia_Lee/the-iocs-transgender-guidelines-are-unscientific-and-pose-a-serious-risk-to-the-health-of-both-5f5f808748e2
Some highlights from Dr. Antonia Lee’s piece (linked above @ #1):
“Unfortunately, it looks increasingly likely that the IOC appears to have relied upon what can at best only be described as bad science. I’ve written about the methodological flaws in the work of IOC consensus meeting participant, Joanna Harper before (5). Let me be as clear as possible: if you decide to do an observational study, you need to follow the appropriate, recognised and demanding observational study guidelines (6). Failing to do so means that, “any claim coming from an observational study is likely to be wrong” (7). I have nothing against Harper personally; my point is that she is neither an epidemiologist nor a sports scientist and simply doesn’t seem to know how to carry out meaningful health or sports science research.
“Let me give an example. Harper and colleagues published a two-page document with just five references regarding the pre- and post-transition data of six athletes from a variety of sports (8). One of them was a cyclist. Harper states, “The cyclist had an 8-minute power meter test performed by CTS in 2011 prior to transition and in 2016 after HRT. In 2011 she had a lactate threshold of 304 watts and in 2016 her lactate threshold is 270 watts. This 11% difference is consistent with the difference between elite male and female cyclists”. Harper then goes on to say, “The data presented offer further support for the recent IOC decision to allow transgender women to compete against cisgender women in the 2016 Olympics after one year of HRT, as well as solidifying the conclusions made in the (earlier) Harper study”.
“After a little detective work online, I was able to identify the cyclist since they had given several interviews that quoted the same power data. I’ll preserve their anonymity. Only these power figures seem to exist; there is no other data. Let me explain why this is problematic and why the ‘research’ is useless.
“I’ll assume that the eight-minute test followed a ramped protocol since this is typical in exercise physiology: that is, the cyclist is required to work harder in stages until a maximum power output is reached and further effort from the cyclist does not increase the power output being recorded. Since lactate threshold is mentioned, I’ll also assume that sequential blood lactate measurements were made. The reader is not told which lactate threshold value is being used: there’s more than one. However, lactate threshold is highly individual and in elite sport, good sports scientists create an individualised lactate profile for each athlete. It is important to point out that lactate threshold is highly sensitive to training. In other words, even a short period of training allows an athlete to produce more power for the same lactate concentration. Conversely, as little as two weeks of inactivity can result in less power output at the same lactate value as before.
“No heart rate or relative oxygen consumption (ml/kg/min) data have been provided. It is essential to have this in order to make sense of the power output values. In a ramped protocol, to establish that an athlete is working towards a true maximum power output, maximum heart rate needs to be reached. More importantly, if there is no further increase in oxygen consumption or this even falls slightly as the cyclist attempts to put in more effort, it is safe to say that a peak power (and peak oxygen consumption) has been reached and measured. For these power data to be of any value whatsoever, you would want to see the minute-by-minute recordings of power, lactate, heart rate and oxygen cost for the duration of the test.
“The tests appear to be five years apart. In the absence of training diary data leading up to each test, the power data become even more meaningless. Furthermore, this cyclist is now five years older. Maximum oxygen consumption (and hence power output) typically falls gradually over the age of 30, especially if there are breaks in training. In other words, how much of the decline in power output over this five-year period is due to ageing? How much is due to time away from training; i.e., what coaches call ‘de-training’? How much is due to transitioning? How much could be regained with training?
“In a separate interview, the cyclist says, “If you look at biological men and women cyclists, the difference between elite athletes is 11%. And so I fall in line. I’m compliant and exactly where it (sic) should be”. If you believe that there should be an 11% difference in order for you to compete ‘fairly’ in a women’s event, what’s to stop you working to a pre-determined value in a test? Hypothetically, and without the minute-by-minute data described above, this would be very easy to do.
“Whilst not suggesting this is necessarily the case, the cynic might make this simple observation: rather than provide meaningful, longitudinal data, the most basic of tests has been performed to show what the researcher wanted to show. The reporting of these tests omits all the essential, additional physiological data required to indicate that a cyclist, having since transitioned, now has 11% less power than they did at one single point five years ago. Contrary to established physiological testing and reporting procedures (9), observational study guidelines and best practice (6), no details of the test protocols, the cyclist’s training history prior to the first and second tests, or throughout the five-year gap between the tests is given. It’s nonsense. I can see scientific reasons why power output would likely fall in the transitioning athlete; but without good science being performed and accurately reported, what exists is emotionally driven, bias-confirming guesswork….”
“…Cynical colleagues continue to remind me that I shouldn’t expect anything to change and that the IOC is the most crooked of organisations. Certainly, a quick, internet search reveals countless instances of IOC corruption (12, 13, 14, 15); so, they may be right. I’m also fully aware that 83% of voting IOC members are men (16): perhaps of the highly privileged, virtue-signalling variety. As a consequence, and to use a sporting analogy, they have absolutely ‘no skin in the game’ when it comes to women’s rights. However, I’m simply making the case for good science being needed to inform policy. It’s for everyone’s benefit. Above all and in this matter, the IOC needs to commission a real scientific consensus paper, written by independent scientists (including muscle physiologists like Kristian Gundersen; a world-leading expert on myonuclei and muscle memory) interested in simply doing good science for the benefit of sport and society.”
Curious that Rachel McKinnon didn’t have the “serious technical skill” to be able to beat top competitors when she competed as a man. I guess she just practiced really really really hard at exactly the same time that she switched to women’s events.
Trans activists say that ANY male who declares himself trans at ANY time for ANY reason immediately becomes a full-fledged woman — biologically female, even. Picture a pair of identical twin male athletes. Now imagine one of them announces he’s trans. Poof! Now you have two identical bodies, but one’s competing in men’s sports and the other is potentially allowed to compete in women’s. What’s the point in dividing sports anymore if it can lead to a scenario as ridiculous as this? It makes no sense.
Why do these organizations think we have separate sports for women and men to begin with? Do they think it’s like bachelorette parties versus bachelor parties? It’s just the-boys-wanna-hang-with-the-boys and the-girls-wanna-hang-with-the-girls? That it’s just a fun way to split up into social groups?
Transgender is *social* and only social. You’re a male who wants to socialize as a woman? Wear women’s clothes, use her pronouns? Act the part of the bride at your wedding? Fine. Go ahead. Join women’s book clubs and knitting circles (so long as you’re courteous and they’re willing to let you join). But in medicine, sexuality, sports, law, and lots of other aspects, your male sex still counts, no matter how dysphoric it makes you feel when you have to acknowledge it. To be blunt: that’s your problem to cope with, not ours.
And when this shit really starts taking off, when the men start racking up all the awards — I’m looking at you, 2020 Tokyo Olympics — I can’t imagine this having anything but negative repercussions for the everyday transpeople who just want to go about their lives in whatever social gender role they feel most comfortable in.
Artymorty raises a good point there. Do we know of any cases where identical twins are both transgender, or where one is and one isn’t? It would seem to be relevant.
Another Rob C @ 1 – good point. “Socialization” can sound like a squishy, subjective, political word, but it can be very hard-edged and physical, like for instance a lack of opportunities, as you say.
I’m glad she wrote it out, but I hate that Lady M had to waste time arguing against that sophistry and lying. This conversation is nothing but socially acceptable lying.
Ah, Josh Slocum, that is a BIG part of the anti-woman trans movement’s goals — to make real women have to fight and fight and fight over and over again for things we already thought we had locked down as far as rights. Makes it hard for real women to advance any further against male control, doesn’t it?
Yeah, I hate the fact that this sophistry is so widely accepted, but since it is, I’m glad to speak out and challenge it where I can.
Lady M, eloquent and necessary. I’m proud to “know” you.
swnow, I suspect they hope women will get tired of fighting and just go sit in the corner and sulk. Women have been fighting for their full rights since long before I was born, or my parents, or my grandparents. My grandmother fought for the right to vote; she never thought I would have to fight for the right not to have to share women-only spaces with men who said they were women. In fact, from what she said, I think she imagined that her granddaughters would grow into dignified middle aged women without having to fight, let alone having to fight the same battles she’d already fought for so long.
Andrew Sullivan, in one of his more thoughtful moods, the kind of mood that allows me to respect what he says, has an essay up today supporting Navatrilova — and there was another one the other day.
Thanks, iknklast.
We’re saddled with whole rafts of Emperors-With-No-Clothes who depend on everybody else cheering their new outfits.
They must be validated. Every consequence be damned.
(Sounds rather stereotypically manly to me.)
It’s all about the validation and, bonus!, you can support the patriarchy and dump on women while being woke!