Let’s say I weigh 250 pounds, but I show up to boxing weigh-in with negative 100 pounds of helium balloons strapped to my back. I end up in the same weight class as 150 pound men, even though I can punch like a 250 pound man. Is that fair?
If divisions are essentially arbitrary, when is it better to go through the effort to change them, and when is it better to just say, “no, sir, you can’t weigh in with balloons on”?
It’s an interesting question, but I think the author is not arguing to change the actual divisions in every case, just to skip contested labels and go directly to the definitions that underlie them when needed. [1]
Next time you get lured into a sticker debate, stop. Use a label only if its admission criteria are crystal clear and uncontested. Otherwise, assume the label is moving contraband premises. Seize the cargo and answer the real question hidden underneath.
Saying “weight measured without balloons” skips having to define “weight” if there isn’t agreement. In sports, skip making everyone agree on the definition of “woman”.
However, I agree that the question of when to change the division and when to keep it persists even agreeing on definitions. The man can continue to argue the competition should use weight with balloons. People can argue a competition among only cis-women is unfairly discriminatory against trans-women. But it’s at least a bit simpler and clearer than trying to argue the same thing + the definition of words.
If you’re implying that this is what’s happening with trans women in female sports, then this isn’t accurate. There is no evidence showing that trans women outperform cisgender women by any significant margin. Based on https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10641525/ trans women get well within the expected ranges for cis women within around 3-4 years. Any remaining difference is far, far below the difference between a 150 and 250 pound boxer. (And, given how few trans women there are, if those few are in the upper 50% percentile (Which is far from universal for all trans people) what actual difference does it make? Also consider how many people take this as an excuse to harass and harm trans people outside of sports, and how the NCAA has a total of what, less than ten? trans women, total)
There is no evidence showing that trans women outperform cisgender women by any significant margin [...] trans women get well within the expected ranges for cis women within around 3-4 years.
A meta-analysis of 24 studies found that transwomen were still stronger and more muscular than ordinary women after 3 years of hormone therapy:
In transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb [haemoglobin] to levels seen in cisgender women. In contrast, hormone therapy decreases strength, LBM [Lean Body Mass] and muscle area, yet values remain above that observed in cisgender women, even after 36 months. These findings suggest that strength may be well preserved in transwomen during the first 3 years of hormone therapy.
Also, it is hard to trust the article you linked as unbiased when it contains quotes like this:
The exclusion of trans individuals also insults the skill and athleticism of both cis and trans athletes.
Or this:
Finally, there is the problem of neither sex nor gender being true binaries. This makes it nearly impossible to make comparisons among these individuals when classified into superimposed categories.
This sort of muddying the waters (“everything is a spectrum, we can’t compare groups”) is not something you expect people to do when the winds of evidence are blowing in their favor.
Nevertheless, the paper does not claim that hormone therapy eliminates differences in strength. They stick to the obviously true claim that “many of the sex differences are reduced”. From the conclusion:
While sex differences do develop following puberty, many of the sex differences are reduced, if not erased, over time by gender affirming hormone therapy. Finally, if it is found that trans individuals have advantages in certain athletic events or sports; in those cases, there will still be a question of whether this should be considered unfair, or accepted as another instance of naturally occurring variability seen in athletes already participating in these events.
There are tons of groups with significant motivation to publish just about anything detrimental to transgender people, so yes, it would’ve been published.
Well, there does seem to be no shortage of trans girls at any rate
Transgender people, total, between both transmasc and transfem individuals, make up around 0.5% of the population of the US. Hardly abundant. And again, the number of trans people in high level sports is in the double digit numbers.
I personally wouldn’t think twice about reporting whatever data I found. I suspect I’d be blindsided by the backlash (which I’m inferring would exist, from your comment) for publishing true findings, but then think in hindsight that I ought to have foreseen it.
But then, I’m pretty inept at social status games. I can entertain the notion that most people in such a situation would either not publish, or worse, fudge the data.
Let’s say I weigh 250 pounds, but I show up to boxing weigh-in with negative 100 pounds of helium balloons strapped to my back. I end up in the same weight class as 150 pound men, even though I can punch like a 250 pound man. Is that fair?
If divisions are essentially arbitrary, when is it better to go through the effort to change them, and when is it better to just say, “no, sir, you can’t weigh in with balloons on”?
It’s an interesting question, but I think the author is not arguing to change the actual divisions in every case, just to skip contested labels and go directly to the definitions that underlie them when needed. [1]
Saying “weight measured without balloons” skips having to define “weight” if there isn’t agreement. In sports, skip making everyone agree on the definition of “woman”.
However, I agree that the question of when to change the division and when to keep it persists even agreeing on definitions. The man can continue to argue the competition should use weight with balloons. People can argue a competition among only cis-women is unfairly discriminatory against trans-women. But it’s at least a bit simpler and clearer than trying to argue the same thing + the definition of words.
Similar to Taboo Your Words
If you’re implying that this is what’s happening with trans women in female sports, then this isn’t accurate. There is no evidence showing that trans women outperform cisgender women by any significant margin. Based on https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10641525/ trans women get well within the expected ranges for cis women within around 3-4 years. Any remaining difference is far, far below the difference between a 150 and 250 pound boxer. (And, given how few trans women there are, if those few are in the upper 50% percentile (Which is far from universal for all trans people) what actual difference does it make? Also consider how many people take this as an excuse to harass and harm trans people outside of sports, and how the NCAA has a total of what, less than ten? trans women, total)
A meta-analysis of 24 studies found that transwomen were still stronger and more muscular than ordinary women after 3 years of hormone therapy:
Also, it is hard to trust the article you linked as unbiased when it contains quotes like this:
Or this:
This sort of muddying the waters (“everything is a spectrum, we can’t compare groups”) is not something you expect people to do when the winds of evidence are blowing in their favor.
Nevertheless, the paper does not claim that hormone therapy eliminates differences in strength. They stick to the obviously true claim that “many of the sex differences are reduced”. From the conclusion:
Yes Requires the Possibility of No. Do you think that such a study would be published if it happened to come to the opposite conclusion?
Well, there does seem to be no shortage of trans girls at any rate, so these issues are only going to become more salient.
There are tons of groups with significant motivation to publish just about anything detrimental to transgender people, so yes, it would’ve been published.
Transgender people, total, between both transmasc and transfem individuals, make up around 0.5% of the population of the US. Hardly abundant. And again, the number of trans people in high level sports is in the double digit numbers.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/transgender-population-by-state
In the academia? Come on now. If those people post their stuff on Substack, or even in some bottom-tier journal, nobody else would notice or care.
Among youth aged 13 to 17 in the U.S., 3.3% (about 724,000 youth) identify as transgender, according to the first Google link—https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/trans-adults-united-states/ In any case, when we’re talking about at least hundreds of thousands, “no shortage” seems like a reasonable description.
So far.
Hard to say.
I personally wouldn’t think twice about reporting whatever data I found. I suspect I’d be blindsided by the backlash (which I’m inferring would exist, from your comment) for publishing true findings, but then think in hindsight that I ought to have foreseen it.
But then, I’m pretty inept at social status games. I can entertain the notion that most people in such a situation would either not publish, or worse, fudge the data.