I understand the appeal to emotion but the idea that we should allow it to create unbalanced playing fields in sport and undermine the entire original intent of 'level playfields' because trans people have a lot of issues and challenges and this would be just one more, if we don't ignore it and allow them to compete, is a very wrong way to think of it.

If we were to make this thread about track and field only, that would not change the fact that, as is usually the case, there isn't one "simple, obvious, solution". Money doesn't fix everything; if this really became a widespread issue in youth and amateur sports, it's a mediocre solution. Compensating "those few females who incur significant damages from this policy" leaves a lot of problems unaddressed.

And why do the feelings of the trans person trump those of the people they're negatively impacting?

"But what if it hurts their feelings?" is how I've been inundated with people trying to bypass no pet policies with some sham of a document from E-doctors stating their mental health status will be negatively impacted by not letting them live in the unit with their two dogs.

Of course, **** the feelings of the other people who already live there and might have chosen that property because of the strict no pet policy that was advertised.

TWO!? Really, this girl needs TWO dogs? Okay, Doctor Bullshit.

I think the bolded is why you don't realise that this would actually still be a significant issue. For (most) trans men it is as much a "life choice" to want to be in a male body as it is a "life choice" to be gay.

There are also already lots of medical interventions for which "PEDs" are legally allowed to be taken by athletes under TUEs. It is by no means settled science that hormone treatment/testosterone as used by transgender males necessarily provides a significant competitive advantage* so should it not be possible for TUEs to allow them to compete as their "biological sex"?

For the record at a surface level I would actually tend to agree with a lot of what you're suggesting, but it is nowhere near as simple as you are trying to make it.

* until the last couple of years or so there was essentially zero solid research into whether testosterone improved female performance at all - now there is some evidence of specific short terms benefits but still no real research on long term use/use in the manner of a transitioning trans male.

I grew up in west berlin and they always showed us on tv how they communist were able to get all those gold medals. They were using hormones on almost all female athletes. From swimmers to track and field to shot put. The commies did their homework of studies so to say.

They basically turned women into men without them even knowing what they are receiving. It definetely is performance enhancing, but with serious long term side effects. Lots of them sued the government after the iron curtin went down.





"Female East German Athletes conquered the World"

I think you are assuming issues where they do not exist in what you highlight.

Transmen I have already said should get to compete against bio-women when they are not they ones taking hormones and are just 'declaring' they are trans. And if they have taken hormones they should be able to compete against bio-men since that is an 'open' division as long as they fit within the various PED exemptions.

So it really is not that difficult.

And i will avoid the 'do PEDS work' debate by just saying they are regulated and mostly illegal to the sport and as long as that is the case, the rules need to be followed by all and fair to all.

No, you seem to have missed that that entire post was about trans males undergoing hormonal therapy competing in the bio-women category and that it is not a trivial thing to justify/enforce excluding them but that you seem to keep dismissing it as if it is.

I actually think that from a purely sporting perspective this is a much less clear cut issue than trans females competing in female competitions is, although the latter is significantly more complicated from a political/social perspective.

Edit: To address your edit about PEDs, the point wasn't that testosterone isn't a banned substance/doesn't confer some sort of advantage in some circumstances, it is that banned substances are often legal to use for athletes when there are specific medical reasons for doing so. This often ends up being somewhat subjective as to whether they are fair or not and I don't see a clear line between the use of specific corticosteroids for treating an athlete with asthma and the use of testosterone for a transitioning athlete.

i am saying a transmale would almost certainly be excluded from the BioWoman category due to PEDS. I think that is easy.

I added, I think a transman who is not doing hormones and just 'declaring' could still compete in the biowoman category.

I also added that transman on hormones could potentially compete in the bioman or 'open' category as long as they could fit in a PED exemption. They are numerous and often allow for discretion. This address your edit.

So I don't think I am missing any thing you have highlighted. I just don't think they are as difficult as you do.

Take the two bolded statements but consider the second in the context of the first. The point is that it could quite seriously be argued that TUEs would be justifiable to allow a trans man receiving hormone therapy to compete in the bio-woman category. It's one thing to argue that they shouldn't be allowed, it's another to completely dismiss the possibility out of hand which, unless you have completely missed the point of literally all of my posts, you are doing repeatedly.

As mentioned, from a purely sporting/scientific perspective the question of unfair advantages for trans men competing against cis women is much less clear cut than in the case of trans women competing against cis women (at least in cases where the individual transitioned after puberty).

FYI Serena's testosterone limit would be irrelevant as far as that ruling goes. The IAAF rule is specific to females with XY chromosomes (that is what the DSD bit means) and a testosterone level above the 5nmol/l level. It also only applies to track events from 400m up to 1 mile. For all intents and purposes it is a "we want to ban Caster Semenya" rule.

Ya i don't see the issue. If a TUE is applicable then its applicable and always has been. This is existed pre trans and I don't see trans making it more complex to decide whether the TUE is for male or female sport.

The case by case exceptions should exist.

Wow, I didn't know that Martina Navratilova was a Right Winger.

Sometimes people who are thoughtful and mean well get caught up in right wing made up issues. See most of the posters above, or in the other forums across the internet where this is being discussed, many of whom likely haven't watched more than a few hours of women's sports in their lives.

I would like to know what these biological reasons were supposed to be.
You brought it up and I didnt ask.

To be honest, I dont know. I think that one trans person had an unfair advantage, which probably hurt a lot of players.

I agree with the bolded, and you are right, if I remember correctly it was indeed Muresmo, you are a fox and a tennis player I guess. But not only Martina Hingis complained, it was a bunch of players. In retrospect it was wrong I guess to complain, I do not know any more details why so many players complained. Muresmo is not a man or on steroids I believe. She is just a woman with masculine features imo, which can be seen everywhere on the streets.

Serena is an outstanding player, one of the best female players there ever was, and I believe most pro athletes are juicing. So if she is I do not care.

I must confess that I don't know the timeline of this issue, but I suspect that Martina brought up the issue before it became a FoxNews talking point.

You are defining "solution" Yo mean solving all the problems while I meant it to meant it to mean the optimum compromise. At least for track. I agree that there are other reasons besides money to ban trans athletes but they are significantly outweighed by reasons not to ban them. EXCEPT for the monetary loss that could theoretically occur in very rare cases. Take that reason away and the winning side of the argument becomes clear even though it involves some downsides to female athletes.

Yes it's the trans people with the unfair advantage, not the kids who went to private tennis academies in Florida since they were pre-teens.

sir, this is an arby's

As prosthetics keep improving there will be similar challenges in dealing with this issue too as this new, emerging class of athletes continues to sue and pressure to be able to compete in the regular races and not just the Paralympics.

Tip of the iceberg as genetic design and augmentation appear.

Fot the oldies - think the 6 million dollar man being meh! You aint seen nothing yet.

^ strong point, actually.

Whatever anyone's opinions is on this issue, please conduct the debate in a manner that is respectful to the people involved.

Three times now I have deleted posts with flippant language that seem aimed at belittling trans people. I won't appreciate having to do it again.

You have an odd definition of belittle, or are just way too sensitive.

just keep your sensitivities tucked amirite?