Transgender athlete commits to Power 5 school

[redbeard2008]

Dec 21, 2023 18:56:21 GMT -5 Fight On! said:

Dec 21, 2023 18:44:59 GMT -5 redbeard2008 said:

If taken to its logical conclusion, it would destroy women's sports, in my opinion. That's the whole point.

Since the first case of a trans athlete competing in women’s sports in the late 70s, women’s sports hasn’t been destroyed and there are a handful of trans athletes anyone knows of. A handful, in 45+ years. So at a rate of a handful of athletes per 50 years or so I bet women’s sports will be around for quite a while.

Div I women's team sports? I don't think so. (This raised a hullaballoo because s/he would have been the first.)

[jcvball22]

Dec 21, 2023 21:14:57 GMT -5 redbeard2008 said:

Dec 21, 2023 18:56:21 GMT -5 Fight On! said:

Since the first case of a trans athlete competing in women’s sports in the late 70s, women’s sports hasn’t been destroyed and there are a handful of trans athletes anyone knows of. A handful, in 45+ years. So at a rate of a handful of athletes per 50 years or so I bet women’s sports will be around for quite a while.

Div I women's team sports? I don't think so. (This raised a hullaballoo because s/he would have been the first.)

She’s definitely not the first. In fact, there is at least one other that I know of currently playing women’s volleyball at the D1 level.

And note: the world isn’t ending. She’s good but not spectacular. And she’s just living her life.

[n00b]

Dec 21, 2023 21:01:16 GMT -5 badgerbreath said:

Dec 21, 2023 19:22:13 GMT -5 medusa said:

I support the LGBQ community, but Iam against transgenders in women sports for one reason. Even though trans take Harmone pills, they still are more powerful than biological females. Thats my opinion. But to hate Trans for being trans is another topic.

People keep saying this, and I'm not sure I've seen any data to support it. It just feels like an assumption. And more powerful than all biological females? Better performing than what proportion of females? Even when additional guidelines regarding hormone levels are met?

Just feels like ghost stories.

Literally my first Google result:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9331831/

4. Conclusions
Testosterone drives much of the enhanced athletic performance of males through in utero, early life, and adult exposure. Many anatomical sex differences driven by testosterone are not reversible. Hemoglobin levels and muscle mass are sensitive to adult life testosterone levels, with hemoglobin being the most responsive. Studies in transgender women, and androgen-deprivation treated cancer patients, show muscle mass is retained for many months, even years, and that co-comittant exercise mitigates muscle loss. Given that sports are currently segregated into male and female divisions because of superior male athletic performance, and that estrogen therapy will not reverse most athletic performance parameters, it follows that transgender women will enter the female division with an inherent advantage because of their prior male physiology.

The current IOC regulations allow transwomen athletes to compete if testosterone levels have been lowered to <10 nmol/L for 12 months prior to competition. While this begins to address the advantageous effects of circulating testosterone on athletic performance, it does not take into account the advantage afforded by testosterone exposure prior to transitioning. The existing data suggests that lowering testosterone to less than 10 nmol/L for 12 months decreases muscle mass but not to biological female levels and despite the decrease in mass, muscle strength can be maintained, especially if concurrently exercising. Estrogen therapy does not affect most of the anatomical structures in the biological male that provide a physiological benefit. Hemoglobin levels are lowered by estrogen therapy, and consequently, maximum aerobic effort may be lower, but this parameter will only be manifested if testosterone levels are suppressed to levels within the biological female range and maintained for extended periods of time. Reported studies show it is difficult to continuously suppress testosterone in transgender women. Given that the percentage difference between medal placings at the elite level is normally less than 1%, there must be confidence that an elite transwoman athlete retains no residual advantage from former testosterone exposure, where the inherent advantage depending on sport could be 10–30%. Current scientific evidence can not provide such assurances and thus, under abiding rulings, the inclusion of transwomen in the elite female division needs to be reconsidered for fairness to female-born athletes.

And the second Google result:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7846503/

Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant.

[molokaiboi]

Dec 21, 2023 19:18:24 GMT -5 badgerbreath said:

Dec 21, 2023 18:58:26 GMT -5 molokaiboi said:

Because women’s volleyball has been that way for decades.

Why do people have to put up with this nonsense because transgender people feel excluded?

Why do we have to consider them as women just because they take hormones?

This sounds exactly like the arguments people used to make against women's sport generally. Why change things just because some people feel excluded from sports? I remember that well. That was a much bigger deal.

I just don't understand why this is such a big deal. We're not talking 50% of the population, but only ~1% at best. There are policies, paths to allow trans people to play fairly. The women competing don't have to do anything different. That burden is on the transitioning men and women. 

That’s exactly what people say when a certain group feel likes they’re not being included how sad?

[molokaiboi]

Dec 21, 2023 19:21:38 GMT -5 donut said:

Dec 21, 2023 18:58:26 GMT -5 molokaiboi said:

Because women’s volleyball has been that way for decades.

Ok now try actually answering my question.

Why do we have to consider them as women just because they take hormones?

Couldn't even keep up the facade for like 2 pages, huh?

Dec 21, 2023 15:56:47 GMT -5 molokaiboi said:

like I’ve stated I respected this person as a woman.

Get over it.. they’re trans-women… I may accept them as women because that’s what they feel like they need to be called but I don’t have to submit and say they are biological woman..

🤭😂 Just because someone takes hormones, it doesn’t make them a biological woman. Sorry… Everyone doesn’t have to accept that mentality.

[houstonbear15]

Dec 21, 2023 21:19:22 GMT -5 jcvball22 said:

Dec 21, 2023 21:14:57 GMT -5 redbeard2008 said:

Div I women's team sports? I don't think so. (This raised a hullaballoo because s/he would have been the first.)

She’s definitely not the first. In fact, there is at least one other that I know of currently playing women’s volleyball at the D1 level.

And note: the world isn’t ending. She’s good but not spectacular. And she’s just living her life.

The university I work at also has trans athletes. Some are out, some aren’t.

[houstonbear15]

Dec 21, 2023 21:36:48 GMT -5 molokaiboi said:

Dec 21, 2023 19:21:38 GMT -5 donut said:

Ok now try actually answering my question.

Couldn't even keep up the facade for like 2 pages, huh?

Get over it.. they’re trans-women… I may accept them as women because that’s what they feel like they need to be called but I don’t have to submit and say they are biological woman..

🤭😂 Just because someone takes hormones, it doesn’t make them a biological women. Sorry…

So what defines a woman? Someone with breasts? A vagina? Ovaries? Is it all just physical/external characteristics that defines womanhood for you?

[redbeard2008]

Dec 21, 2023 18:57:45 GMT -5 mervinswerved said:

Dec 21, 2023 18:44:59 GMT -5 redbeard2008 said:

If taken to its logical conclusion, it would destroy women's sports, in my opinion. That's the whole point.

What logical conclusion?

That the differences between biological males and biological females are insignificant.

[badgerbreath]

Dec 21, 2023 21:29:05 GMT -5 n00b said:

Dec 21, 2023 21:01:16 GMT -5 badgerbreath said:

People keep saying this, and I'm not sure I've seen any data to support it. It just feels like an assumption. And more powerful than all biological females? Better performing than what proportion of females? Even when additional guidelines regarding hormone levels are met?

Just feels like ghost stories.

Literally my first Google result:

v

4. Conclusions
Testosterone drives much of the enhanced athletic performance of males through in utero, early life, and adult exposure. Many anatomical sex differences driven by testosterone are not reversible. Hemoglobin levels and muscle mass are sensitive to adult life testosterone levels, with hemoglobin being the most responsive. Studies in transgender women, and androgen-deprivation treated cancer patients, show muscle mass is retained for many months, even years, and that co-comittant exercise mitigates muscle loss. Given that sports are currently segregated into male and female divisions because of superior male athletic performance, and that estrogen therapy will not reverse most athletic performance parameters, it follows that transgender women will enter the female division with an inherent advantage because of their prior male physiology.

The current IOC regulations allow transwomen athletes to compete if testosterone levels have been lowered to <10 nmol/L for 12 months prior to competition. While this begins to address the advantageous effects of circulating testosterone on athletic performance, it does not take into account the advantage afforded by testosterone exposure prior to transitioning. The existing data suggests that lowering testosterone to less than 10 nmol/L for 12 months decreases muscle mass but not to biological female levels and despite the decrease in mass, muscle strength can be maintained, especially if concurrently exercising. Estrogen therapy does not affect most of the anatomical structures in the biological male that provide a physiological benefit. Hemoglobin levels are lowered by estrogen therapy, and consequently, maximum aerobic effort may be lower, but this parameter will only be manifested if testosterone levels are suppressed to levels within the biological female range and maintained for extended periods of time. Reported studies show it is difficult to continuously suppress testosterone in transgender women. Given that the percentage difference between medal placings at the elite level is normally less than 1%, there must be confidence that an elite transwoman athlete retains no residual advantage from former testosterone exposure, where the inherent advantage depending on sport could be 10–30%. Current scientific evidence can not provide such assurances and thus, under abiding rulings, the inclusion of transwomen in the elite female division needs to be reconsidered for fairness to female-born athletes.

And the second Google result:

v

Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant.

This is a descriptive not a systematic or quantitative review, but I'll read it. 

This is very recent a systematic quantitative review of MedLine and EBase data on nonathletic people undergoing GAHT, and it comes to an quite different set of conclusions. It uses non athletes, because the  data on athletes is really scarce. 

academic.oup.com/jcem/advance-article/doi/10.1210/clinem/dgad414/7223439

[mervinswerved]

Dec 21, 2023 21:52:13 GMT -5 redbeard2008 said:

Dec 21, 2023 18:57:45 GMT -5 mervinswerved said:

What logical conclusion?

That the differences between biological males and biological females are insignificant.

I don't see how trans athlete participation under established guidelines destroys women's sports but perhaps you can enlighten us.

[n00b]

Dec 21, 2023 21:59:02 GMT -5 badgerbreath said:

Dec 21, 2023 21:29:05 GMT -5 n00b said:

Literally my first Google result:

v

And the second Google result:

v

This is a descriptive not a systematic or quantitative review, but I'll read it. 

This is very recent a systematic quantitative review of MedLine and EBase data on nonathletic people undergoing GAHT, and it comes to an quite different set of conclusions. It uses non athletes, because the  data on athletes is really scarce. 

academic.oup.com/jcem/advance-article/doi/10.1210/clinem/dgad414/7223439

Am I reading that conclusion correctly that they repeatedly use "relative" measures to discount the general size difference between transwomen and ciswomen?

[badgerbreath]

Dec 21, 2023 22:11:30 GMT -5 n00b said:

Dec 21, 2023 21:59:02 GMT -5 badgerbreath said:

This is a descriptive not a systematic or quantitative review, but I'll read it. 

This is very recent a systematic quantitative review of MedLine and EBase data on nonathletic people undergoing GAHT, and it comes to an quite different set of conclusions. It uses non athletes, because the  data on athletes is really scarce. 

academic.oup.com/jcem/advance-article/doi/10.1210/clinem/dgad414/7223439

Am I reading that conclusion correctly that they repeatedly use "relative" measures to discount the general size difference between transwomen and ciswomen?

Height isn't affected by therapy post puberty. We knew that already - bone density declines but bone length doesn't. Muscle mass will scale with height, so imagine they have to correct for that height effect. Reducing muscle mass to levels lower than predicted by height would impose a severe competitive disadvantage. Lots of stress on muscles. Potential for injury much higher I would presume.

I'm grading on a tight deadline so don't have time to read either of these closely right now. But I will get to them. It looks to me like this is a very nascent field though. The substantive research is scant on first glance. Very much so on athletes per se.

[Fight On!]

Dec 21, 2023 22:23:42 GMT -5 badgerbreath said:

Dec 21, 2023 22:11:30 GMT -5 n00b said:

Am I reading that conclusion correctly that they repeatedly use "relative" measures to discount the general size difference between transwomen and ciswomen?

Height isn't affected by therapy post puberty. We knew that already - bone density declines but bone length doesn't. Muscle mass will scale with height, so imagine they have to correct for that height effect. Reducing muscle mass to levels lower than predicted by height would impose a severe competitive disadvantage. Lots of stress on muscles. Potential for injury much higher I would presume.

I'm grading on a tight deadline so don't have time to read either of these closely right now. But I will get to them. It looks to me like this is a very nascent field though. The substantive research is scant on first glance. Very much so on athletes per se.

Right! If transition is post puberty, one has a larger body to move around with less strength to do so, provided hormone levels are normal (as is required by policy).

There will be very few elite transwomen athletes in the future, as there have been in the past.

[VB48]

Dec 21, 2023 22:23:42 GMT -5 badgerbreath said:

Dec 21, 2023 22:11:30 GMT -5 n00b said:

Am I reading that conclusion correctly that they repeatedly use "relative" measures to discount the general size difference between transwomen and ciswomen?

Height isn't affected by therapy post puberty. We knew that already - bone density declines but bone length doesn't. Muscle mass will scale with height, so imagine they have to correct for that height effect. Reducing muscle mass to levels lower than predicted by height would impose a severe competitive disadvantage. Lots of stress on muscles. Potential for injury much higher I would presume.

I'm grading on a tight deadline so don't have time to read either of these closely right now. But I will get to them. It looks to me like this is a very nascent field though. The substantive research is scant on first glance. Very much so on athletes per se.

Good article. Any idea of the source of funding?

[badgerbreath]

Dec 21, 2023 22:59:21 GMT -5 Fight On! said:

Dec 21, 2023 22:23:42 GMT -5 badgerbreath said:

Height isn't affected by therapy post puberty. We knew that already - bone density declines but bone length doesn't. Muscle mass will scale with height, so imagine they have to correct for that height effect. Reducing muscle mass to levels lower than predicted by height would impose a severe competitive disadvantage. Lots of stress on muscles. Potential for injury much higher I would presume.

I'm grading on a tight deadline so don't have time to read either of these closely right now. But I will get to them. It looks to me like this is a very nascent field though. The substantive research is scant on first glance. Very much so on athletes per se.

Right! If transition is post puberty, one has a larger body to move around with less strength to do so, provided hormone levels are normal (as is required by policy).

There will be very few elite transwomen athletes in the future, as there have been in the past.

That's just sampling statistics. The trans population of athletes (and of the population in general) is so small, the chances of anyone being in tails of a distribution of athletic ability (which are truly tiny) are very low.