Nary a ripple
More on the Laurel Hubbard question aka the trans women competing against women in sport question:
Hubbard is a transgender athlete, who as a male named Gavin did not make a ripple on the international stage until becoming a woman in her mid‑30s. Now, though, Hubbard is a realistic contender for an Olympic medal and creating a tsunami of protests from women who fear she has an unfair advantage because of the residual benefits of being a male. As the Australian weightlifter Deborah Acason put it: “I feel that if it’s not even, why are we doing the sport?” The Samoan prime minister has also weighed in.
The women don’t so much fear Hubbard has an unfair advantage as know he does. It’s not just some random weird inexplicable coincidence that he wasn’t a blip competing as a male but won all the things as a female. That happened for a reason.
But when it comes to the science, a new academic paper in the BMJ Journal of Ethics argues that elite transgender women do maintain an advantage when they transition – and that the current International Olympic Committee policies create what they call an “intolerable unfairness”, because testosterone has much more of an advantage on nearly every sport as opposed to say, being tall, having a large wingspan, or coming from a richer country, which the scientists say is more of a “tolerable unfairness” as it only provides a benefit in some sports.
…
As the academics note: “These differences largely underwrite the significant differences in world record times and distances set by men and women.” That, of course, is why women’s sport is protected. If it [weren’t] there would be no Serena Williams, no Dina Asher-Smith, no Megan Rapinoe as role models for millions: Novak Djokovic, Christian Coleman and Lionel Messi would smash them into dust every time.
And so would “Laurel” Hubbard, despite the lowered testosterone.
AFAIK, there is not even solid science or consensus behind the IOC’s policies regarding testosterone levels. It’s simply a set of assumptions, and really is no different than the “logic” of thinking that more massive objects should fall faster than less massive ones.
It genuinely boggles my mind that this conversation is even necessary. It’s like …
The first time I encountered a true blank slatist some 21 years ago at a NARAL cocktail party when I mentioned something benign about men’s and women’s sports. It was the same sort of experience as when you say something about evolution and a creationist pipes up. Or antivaxxers or flat Earthers. I honestly freeze momentarily while my brain reconfigures its model of reality.
This whole trans and non-binary thing feels like that.
If you put a man and a woman side by side, the man towering over the woman, and suggested they compete in some sport where size makes a difference, most people would say “No”. Put a pony tail and a skirt on the man, and suddenly the answer is “yes”.
I think it worth pointing out that some of the effects of growing up with testosterone are locked in and will never be lost, even after hormone therapy. They mention being tall – an excellent example of my point. The skeleton does not shrink with testosterone reduction; a person’s size is therefore static and unaffected by therapy.
And wouldn’t you know it, size is one of the most notable causes of advantage between the sexes, as potential musculature is dictated by the frame of the person.
And we don’t seem to have ‘heroic trans athletes’ turning up in sports where maleness ISN’T a huge advantage, e.g. long distance running and swimming.
Nor do we seem to have ‘heroic trans athletes’ turning up in men’s sports, demanding that smaller, female-bodied trans men be allowed to play men’s sport. That’s even more telling.