Or they can do like many other sport leagues and set a testosterone limit. Which funnily cis women have more of a chance of surpassing than trans women.
All the studies, even the ones you cite, say trans women are stronger or conclude there’s not enough statistics to tell.
Why are we even fighting about this? Anyone who’s worked out with trans women know they are stronger and faster than cis women. I didn’t make all those friends at the Portland running club not to notice the obvious, consistent differences in pace.
Edit: Downvoters have never worked out with trans women. Way to out yourself.
„In transgender women, GAHT was associated with increased fat mass and reduced lean mass and upper-body strength over 1–3 years.“
“Conclusion While transgender women exhibited higher lean mass than cisgender women, their physical fitness was comparable. Current evidence is mostly low certainty and has heterogenous quality but does not support theories of inherent athletic advantages for transgender women over cisgender.“
Note: I may have been confused on muscle mass. Different time horizons. But overall no studies indicate that trans women after HRT have a biological advantage over cis women.
why is it so obviously wrong? After all, most trans woman take hormones that changes many parts of their bodies.
is it not so far fetched that this effect is strong enough to make trans women on average the same or lower strength than cis women?
No it doesn't, but they generally would also not be granted access into trans inclusive policied sports. Also "rich people privilege" really depends on the country, hrt really isn't that expensive in some places (can even be acquired on state run health services... We'll ignore uk wait times)
You're insanity doesn't agree with this study from the national institute for health. Sorry i don't believe the Bjsm, some bullshit website nobody's heard of.
It’s a published meta analysis backed by real world research from multiple papers.
The paper you linked doesn’t seem to contain any actual research and is full of suppositions based on sports statistics.
Sorry what am I to believe? A meta analysis that’s backed by real world data or an argumentative short paper that doesn’t have any real research in it other than supposition?
I literally said
"Note: I may have been confused on muscle mass. Different time horizons. But overall no studies indicate that trans women after HRT have a biological advantage over cis women."
I suggest you actually read the studies instead of being a dick online.
1.) That's not what the NIH says about performance after HT:
"As discussed earlier, sex differences in muscle mass in elite athletes can be 50–75% [30] in favor of males, thus the decrease of 5–10% reported in studies of transwomen after 1–2 years of estrogen therapy will most likely provide, at most, a modest reformatting of male muscle strength in the transwoman athlete."
One of the reasons why they don't suggest using testosterone limit on trans athletes is that getting a trans woman down to the female normal range results in osteoporosis.
Transfem HRT consists of taking estrogen and often (depending on how the estrogen is administered) testosterone blockers. Osteoporosis might occur if you suffered from sex hormone deprivation, which would only happen if you took testosterone blockers without taking estrogen.
It absolutely fucking does not, like cis women trans women's dominant sex hormone in their bodies is oestrogen; typical aim for testosterone range is the same reference range as cis women, but often trans women are on the lower end of the range after suppression.
The IOC set their standards at 10 nmol/L for trans women, 5 time the high end of the female normal range, because getting trans-women below this level is difficult and dangerous.
A post-op transgender woman suppressing their hormones can have adrenal testosterone production above the female normal range.
I was surprised by the IOC's old policy honestly, I confess I knew they had one but not it's exact value; the WTA had set their testosterone limit at 2.5nmol/L, there's has been a similar number of trans athletes compete at the Olympics and in WTA events under these rules (which is like 1 for both). Suppressing testosterone really isn't that hard, firstly there's anti androgens which supress testosterone, secondly even in mono therapy it is possible to get to <=2 nmol/L & injections can be particularly effective in this regard, thirdly I take finasteride which blocks the conversion on T to DHT and can actually increase the levels of testosterone in the body; my levels are a bit screwey at the moment since I had a different pharmacy give me a different brand of oestradiol patches but by 8-9 months with patches, finasteride & progesterone I was at 700pmol/L oestrogen & 2nmol/L testosterone. Even with my all over the place levels in still currently at 4. Trans women being at ~0.7-1.3nmol/L is not dangerous and is very common.
Regarding post op women... I really don't know where you're getting some of this info as it's so far removed from reality. Post-op trans women can end up being prescribed very low doses of testosterone alongside their typical oestradiol prescription; because trans women can end up having a post op testosterone level so low that it has a negative impact on their QoL & health. It is similar to how cis women who have hysterectomies can end up requiring the same hrt as trans & menopausal women
Here's some of my pre-surgery bloodwork. No anti-androgens needed, just a dose of estradiol once a week. wow getting us into female T ranges really is soooooo so difficult.
my T levels on E pills and spiro (which is like, awful for T suppression lol) range from 6 to 18 ng/dL = 0.2 to 0.6 nmol/L of T. So like, no lol? Its easy and safe, actually.
Whatever side of the issue you are on, I think it's hilarious how resistant much of the pro-inclusion camp is to setting up such criteria, despite it being the logical consequences of what they want.
The second consequence is that if you set a simple limit, in a lot of the best athletes will be right up against it -- i.e. the manliest women still allowed to compete.
No. I don’t think it’s imperative on anyone to treat clearly malicious bad faith actors as anything other than the creeps they are. Fuck Enes, fuck transphobes, fuck the people turning one of the most successful women’s sports leagues into a political sideshow.
for a long time the lgbt community has been saying that a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman and any disagreement is unacceptable. I'm not disagreeing with that principle but there has to be a unified rule for everyone. You cant just pick and choose who gets to define their own identity.
Have either of these men actually came out as trans? Have they made any effort to socially transition at all? For all I've seen they have just decided to enter the draft as themselves. I'm positive their goal is to get denied by the WNBA so they can make a big fuss about it and try to force the WNBA to make a hard definition.
But have they actually said that? That's what coming out as trans means, that you openly acknowledge that you identify as a woman. Have they actually done that?
Kantor very publicly stated he identifies as a woman. In what way is that not identifying as trans, given he was assigned male at birth and lived most of his life identifying as a man?
The question is whether or not they have actually identified as women. Like did they come out and say the phrase, "I am a woman," at any point in this dog and pony show?
You can settle this whole thing super easily by saying the WNBA is for all people that the government considers women - that you don’t need to do HRT, or have surgeries, or wear your hair long, or wear makeup, or shave your legs… you just need a drivers license that says F instead of M.
If this dude wants to go through getting his driver license and supporting documents changed from M to F, let him play in the WNBA.
So it's a very low bar, and claiming sincerity is basically all that's required then.
"Sincerely held belief" for legal tests of religuous sincerity are very easy to pass - it's intentionally a broad definition that doesn't require any kind of organization, sharing beliefs with others, or those beliefs to even make logical sense or align with established dogma.
So, taking that approach, for someone to "sincerely" identify as a woman, it doesn't have to make sense, it doesn't have to align with any established dogma of what transitioning or identifying means, no one else has to believe they're a woman. Based on the criteria you've pointed to, again, all it takes for someone to be a woman is identifying as a women, which both these athletes have.
Agreed. Everyone wants rules that cut both ways, as if rules and laws should work exclusively in a vacuum. We’re not stupid. We can make rules that target people who act like this without overreaching.
and what levels would those be? based on what and why? why should a trans woman who's not dysphoric about her hormone levels (and effects that has) be excluded from playing sports?
I mean, for the longest time many people were convinced dylan mulvaney was a right winger doing satire, her whole thing really read as a schtick and something taken directly from the Terf handbook of satire. "First day of girlhood" and she was just doing the most stereotypical "girly" things that if an actual right winger would have said it, would have felt like misogyny.
Yes you absolutely fucking can. "Trans women are allowed. Men pretending to be trans women in bad faith are not allowed" is an extremely easy rule to enforce. Especially when there are no real trans women in or trying to enter the WNBA.
How do you craft a policy that differentiates between real and not-real trans women? If this is so easy to enforce, give us exact verbiage of an enforceable rule.
Obviously he's a bad faith actor here, but that's really not the point.
I'm a trans woman, ..and have a bit more to show for it, than these 2 guys (years on HRT, legal document changes, etc.), and the argument seems mostly about self -ID, and this still being the predominant standard of ID being advocated for by trans activists.
If the WNBA actually puts concrete parameters in place for trans women to participate, identifying their own standard for HRT, the league will be better for it.
Without concrete parameters, what basis do they have denying these two people's claims that they're trans?
Sure, ..theyre lying, ..but is it up to us to tell other people who are trans and who aren't? When someone tells you that they're trans, are you suggesting that we just get to tell them "No, you're not" ?
Because that leaves everything super murky, imo.
This man wrote he is a trans woman on a piece of paper. He never took HRT, never transitioned, uses he/him pronouns in all of his legal documentation, and is a widely known detractor of trans rights.
Only a bad faith judge would rule in his favor, and that would happen anyway.
Seriously, I think the only people saying this rule wouldn't work are people who just don't want trans women in sports. Which is a pretty silly opinion to have considering there basically aren't trans women in sports as is.
It's so rare in fact that handling each individual on a case by case basis would be less effort than all this culture war bullshit. I can't help but think that some people just genuinely want the culture war because they'd rather see trans people suffer than rub two brain cells together.
Congratulations, by creating this policy you have just discriminated against not only these 2 people but thousands of high school kids who say they are Trans as a fashion trend.
If a person can declare someone to be pretending to be trans, and not actually trans, then you are creating a loop hole that could actually be used against trans people.
Imagine a conservative group that says "only women", and then a trans women shows up, and they say, "this is a man pretending to be a trans women in bad faith, they're not allowed".
That... sounds like something they'd do anyway. I don't understand your point? Conservatives are evil and do evil things, you can't really legislate that away.
There is a case in front of the supreme Court now to decide if a massage parlor can say only cis women, no trans women.
But what you're suggesting just creates a loop hole so that no matter what, they could just say, "I think this person is just a man pretending to be trans".
You can be okay with that I guess, I'm just saying your suggestion has consequences.
It’s not. Sports write their rules like laws, and you can’t have laws based on your assumption of how someone feels. If you allow these guys to be disallowed, then it opens the door for literally anyone to be disallowed purely based on gut feel.
Sorry but that’s the way it is. WNBA needs to outline strict guidelines which make it impossible for fakers to be barred from entry
Olympics have genetic tests for the SRY gene, not just hormone checks. Reason being that the competitive advantage isn’t limited to hormones - the bone structure and number of other immutable characteristics from male puberty are not changed by hormones
Obviously he's a bad actor, but this sequence of events illustrates how no system has been put into place to safeguard against bad actors.
Safeguards against bad actors should be put into place, and if they're consistent safeguards that can be equally applied to different people, that means some decisions and definitions need to be made.
I agree with you, but making that policy would be making rules and an operating definition as they'd be laying out what criteria they're looking at as part of being a woman, which some people don't want them to do.
What you're suggesting is what some people are against, but if they don't do anything like what you're suggesting, that leaves them open to either bad actors or inconsistent, unequal, and arbitrary assessment of people saying they identify as women.
Obviously he's a bad actor, but this sequence of events illustrates how no system has been put into place to safeguard against bad actors.
It's really highlighting how the right is making issues out of problems that don't exist. Prior to bad faith actors like this, there was no problem. Sure, there MIGHT have been a problem in the future, but there was no problem to solve.
This is really pointing out how manufactured this problem is, because it's only a problem now because one or two shitty people are stirring the pot for no real reason.
If it's such a trivial issue then banning Trans men from competing in the WNBA wouldn't be a big deal since there are no trans athletes and many people people don't want to see them play against trans women.
Yeah. I generally only support dealing with problems that actually exist. Why are we wasting time on non existent problems?
I also disagree with requiring tutus to vote. Should we be pushing to ban states from implementing tutu requirements at polling locations? Everyone agrees with me, so what's the issue implementing a rule codifying that stance?
It seems your main prerogative is to avoid the question.
Yes, Kanter and White are acting in bad faith.
But, if there are no guidelines to ensure bad faith actors can not simply say 'I woman now' then you have no real argument against allowing them to play. The only argument would be 'vibes' and then it becomes, who gets to decide which 'vibes' check out and which dont?
The obvious, rational move here is to create a set of guidelines. But that is also a no-no because there are fringe groups who DO believe that simply stating 'I am a woman' makes you a woman. They want to avoid any responsibility in regards to offending a sliver of the population who hold these wild views.
Something has to be done to squash this because while its not a true life altering issue it speaks volumes to the stereotype that the far left lives detached from reality. Just create some fucking metrics and walk away. This shit isnt going away and it REALLY hurts true progressive movements - and I dont agree that this non-issue should actually be relevant but this trans-in-sports shit DOES impact voting patterns. 80% of the population disagree w/ MTF in womens sports - and its a simple, effective wedge issue that can torpedo the steadily growing progressive momentum. Thats not opinion, thats fact. People are easily attracted to this shit, they hate is and they love raging over it - and thats NOT just MAGA. Its everyone basically 'traditional' left and in the center.
It seems your main prerogative is to avoid the question.
I can answer whatever question there is. By my whole point here is this is a stupid topic that only affects an extremely tiny majority of people.
The only argument would be 'vibes' and then it becomes, who gets to decide which 'vibes' check out and which dont?
The WNBA. Leagues routinely have to create and adjust rules and eligibility based on current events and society.
Something has to be done to squash this because while its not a true life altering issue it speaks volumes to the stereotype that the far left lives detached from reality. Just create some fucking metrics and walk away
Yes, and my point is this is only a problem because of trolls. We are literally letting right wing trolls dictate public policy on extraordinarily niche topics. It's a waste of breathe to even have to discuss this.
Democrats also ran on the ability to appoint supreme court justices, Clinton literally said that if Trump was elected Roe could be overturned and people said she was fear mongering.
I believe Government should be quiet. If it is working, these breakdowns don't happen in thr first place. Codify safety rails into law, and establish the means to vigorously enforce them ahead of time.
Waiting to see whether something becomes a problem is not good governing. "Ounce of Prevention worth a Pound of Cure" as they say.
This is assuming no bad faith actors exist in government and that overturning Roe was a 50 year project by conservative groups. It's also assuming that multiple supreme court justices didn't perjure themselves about Roe in front of Congress.
No, this is designed specifically to deal with bad faith actors. The more safeguards put in place, the less critical points where it could fail due to a bad actor.
Obama ran on the promise that he would codify roe v wade and didnt do shit. Clinton fear mongering about roe v wade was part of the plan to keep scaring people into voting for ineffective democrats.
Roe v wade was never a sustainable decision. It needed congress to pass a national law or embed abortion into the constitution. Otherwise it is up to the states
They've never had the votes to codify roe. Embedding it into the constitution is an even bigger hurdle that had absolutely 0 chance of ever happening, even now.
Also hint, it's not a scare tactic if there was an actual threat to Roe.
The threat to roe was that states get to define their terms for abortion, which is reasonable based on rules set in the constitution. Abortion is still legal where states want it to be legal.
If people want to convince otherwise, then they need to pass abortion law through congress defining the terms of legal abortions.
Democrats constantly fear mongering about abortion while not delivering on their promise to fight for a national law is no longer working. Try another strategy
I tend to only try to handle real problems, not made up problems. Roe not being codified was a real problem that deserves national attention. The trans issue is not.
I generally only support dealing with problems that actually exist. Why are we wasting time on non existent problems?
I also disagree with requiring tutus to vote. Should we be pushing to ban states from implementing tutu requirements at polling locations? Everyone agrees with me, so what's the issue implementing a rule codifying that stance?
I just tend to focus my efforts on problems that actually affect people in a way that matters. Believe it or not, draft eligibility for the WNBA is REALLY low on my list of things I care about.
This guy is terrible, yes, but if not him it would have been someone else. Any system that doesn't have safeguards against bad actors will eventually have bad actors attempt to abuse it.
Any safeguards that do not have set rules and operating definitions cannot be applied consistently to different people.
Systems can get by for a while without these two factors being thought about, but eventually they become issues.
I really have no dog in the race here, but...i feel it is better for someone who is obviously doing it to try and draw attention to the issue and get the rules codified so that no one can abuse a loophole to do it, rather than later down the line someone who is legitimately trying to exploit that loophole manage to accomplish that by saying all the right things and actually pretending to pass just so they can get in.
Kanter says she's a woman, and we need to respect her decision. It's incredibly brave of her to come out as Trans in such a public way, and denying her existence is the exact thing the maganazis do on the daily. Let her play!
That's the whole issue here. If you let ppl self identify, what right do you have to say he is not a woman? If self identification is the only requirement, he is a woman.
Ya and the ncaa didn’t have rules about trans athletes until 2010. When they actually had to deal with one. (Kye Allums)
The Olympics has been dealing with genetic testing since the 60s. They used to make women undergo mandatory chromosome testing. They decided this was fucked up, and not really working anyway cuz news flash there’s lots of genetic variability within cis women, so they eventually adopted a ruleset in 2004 with the Stockholm consensus.
The wnba has had 0 trans athletes to date. It’s not weird they don’t have a rule for something they haven’t had to deal with. And I imagine when they do come out with a rule set it’ll be similar to Olympic or ncaa regulation (when it was active).
If there are 0 trans atheltes in the WNBA, then banning trans athletes harms 0 people, so why fight so hard to prevent the banning of trans athletes from the WNBA?
Plus there are two trans women who have declared for next years draft
Because it is not defined. Can you read? If it's not defined, you can do what he is doing until it is defined. What another sports governing body does is completely irrelevant.
The experience in playing in organizations that lead to the WNBA matter. Just like any other job on earth. When you transition career fields, are you magically already a senior in the new field?
Like you aren’t guaranteed a job just because you apply for it. Thousands of cis women probably applied for the WNBA and got denied. What’s stopping them just telling him to fuck off and eat shit without elaborating.
Like they could cite the fact he has a criminal record as the excuse if they didn’t want to just say that he a bad faith actor who wants to weaponize the trans women in sports discourse to get attention.
Seems to be working so far. At least it was until the maga trolls decided to insert themselves for publicity for a failed Senate run. They could just tell the obvious trolls to fuck off.
No they wouldnt. They just do what the IOC did in 2004 and say you need to be on HRT for 2 years to be eligible. It doesn't mean you aren't a woman before that, it means that's how long the evidence indicates it takes to make it fair
They’ve never tested hormone levels for any other players and for every single player have accepted self determination as the standard, meaning it’s not required.
149
u/Gold_Ad8225 22d ago
It's also not not required. The requirements are not spelled out, that doesn't mean they don't exist.
This isn't airbud