globecanvas

Good article.

I find my own opinion on this issue settling to that there may well be a competitive advantage, and that it doesn't matter.

The review article points out that among many other advantages, "Men typically have a larger proportion of fast twitch (type II) muscle fibres and this may account for men‘s greater leg muscle strength." There is no research showing whether or not this difference persists after transition, and there is unlikely to be meaningful research any time soon. It is not unreasonable to think that it might persist. Insisting that the advantage does not persist is as tendentious as insisting that it does.

But there is also credible (though obviously controversial) research showing that "most African-Americans have a higher ratio of fast-twitch muscle fiber than whites do" (citation). As a society, we decide that if such a race-based difference exists, it is part of human variation and we do not try to create rules around it. It seems like that is the only fair place to end up with respect to transgender competition as well.

Heathpack 

Actually there was no "lol". Some of us are just trained in the field of science. When a question needs to be answered, we look for the evidence. We know that one study involving 8 subjects competing at one level in one sport is by no means conclusive. The evidence is not there, one way or the other. No one is "lol"ing. Just stating the degree of certainty that we can have about what "science says".

Remember, it was you who said that science had proven there was no competitive advantage. Even this review paper you've posted says "we don't know".

Like I said up thread, I understand the desire for transgender people to participate in sport like they might do anything else.

But I also can understand the desire for women racing to feel like they're in a fair competition. If there are performance advantages for transgender women in sport, to the extent that non-transgender woman effectively can't compete, then the transgender woman participating may render women's competition pointless. Not exactly what any sport wants.

So the difference between your position & mine, it seems, is that without science guiding us one way or the other, you're willing to say transgender women should be included on moral grounds, screw the existing women's fields. Whereas I'm willing to say, we don't know but should try to think about how we don't know & try to gather evidence to answer the question one way or the other. Because fair competition is the ESSENCE of sport. I just don't think the morality of transgender rights outweighs the very existence of sport, nor do I think that the moral aspects of the rest of women in racing having access to fields they can fairly race in is something to be dismissed.

And speaking of being dismissed: FYI if you didn't dismiss what I have to say and attempt to characterize differently than I present it, I might not argue with you as much. Your condescending tone brings it out in me quite honestly. Maybe just consider that there are actually intelligent people here on BF. Not just me. Lots of smart people here.

canuckbelle

Two things: many people read things into my comments that weren't there, including condenscension.

At a point, condescension may have been present because I got sick of the gross misrepresentations of my views. You continue it here, falling prey to the false polarization effect yet again.

There is scientific evidence supporting the 'no advantage' position and really none supporting the 'advantage' position. The latter is part of the reason the IAAF lost their court case, and the Canadian court case is proceeding. That's additional evidence.

Doge

This trans debate is not unlike the one about diabetics or any other exception. Both arguments cite science in support or not of a TUE. If science is so good at predicting athletic ability we can do away with TTs. Winning or losing normally comes down to minimal differences between athletes. A TUE can rightfully get credit for that, which is why they are secret. As long as they are allowed there is an air of unfairness in competition. I think that roles down for others than us, maybe not.
But I believe those competing with TUEs are gaining an advantage.
I think a TUE user and winner less a champion.

topflightpro

We keep talking about fairness. But is it fair that someone another person has a higher natural testosterone level than I do. That another person has a natural higher VO2 max than I do. That another person has a natural higher hematocrit than I do?

Life isn't fair, and sport isn't fair. We create rules that are intended to level the playing field - to put controls on things that can be controlled. But the human body presents a major variable. Even in stock car racing, where the rules specify every little detail about the car, there are some drivers who are better than others. They have crews who are better able to manage fuel consumption. Is that fair?

I mentioned earlier that I would hate for the world to become like Harrison Bergeron. But that is what some of you seem to be asking for. And remember, the outcome of that is to make the world and sports fair, everyone has to be brought down to the lowest common denominator.

At the rate we are going in this discussion, everyone is going to have to submit a blood sample to be analyzed before we determine what, if any, class you can compete in.

And Doge, get over it about the TUEs. If they are done properly - and I'm not saying they are, they aren't providing an advantage. If someone has a legitimate medical condition and the medication they need to survive can provide a performance boost, well, then they should be allowed to take that medication and compete. For most of us, this is a hobby.

happybday29475

First, thank you all for your participation in this discussion; it is a thought provoking thread. It has heightened my awareness of an interesting and important topic. @canuckbelle your defending of transgender rights has enabled this; thank you.

That being said:


Regarding evidence supporting advantage or no advantage to transgender athletes:

Yet from the excellent paper @canuckbelle referred us to ("Including Transitioning and Transitioned Athletes in Sport:Issues, Facts and Perspectives"):

"review of the available scientific literature finds that ―to date, no study has examined the effects of cross-sex hormones on any objective measures of athletic performance...Additionally, no trial has been conducted with transitioned athletes as compared with physically born men and women athletes. As such, there is no concrete evidence to support or refute the position that transitioned athletes compete at an advantage or disadvantage as compared with physically born men and women athletes. The only study addressing performance measures in a transitioned population used a retrospective design looking at data from the past in a non-athletic population."

and also, a few pages later:

"the review of the scientific literature finds that the lack of relevant research to date means ―there is no concrete evidence to support or refute the position that transitioned athletes compete at an advantage or disadvantage as compared with physically born men and women athletes"



Regarding Cross-sex Hormone Administration:

From the above paper: "estrogen acts as an anti-oxidant and therefore estrogen supplementation may affect performance in terms of decreasing muscle soreness and muscle fatigue."

More generally, the paper states:

"Transitioned women receive estrogen supplementation to block or inhibit the biological effects of the hormones responsible for male sex characteristics. For transitioned women in the general population receiving this supplementation, the research found:

• Muscle mass: decreased muscle mass within one year with only a slight further decrease after three years, but still on average greater than for physically born women. However, there is a dramatic range within both groups of women, and at the high end of the range, muscle mass is similar for both groups suggesting this may be the case in an athletic population.
• Fat content and distribution: an overall increase in percent body fat. However, total subcutaneous fat, the fat just under the skin, still appeared to be lower in transitioned women compared to physically born women after one year of supplementation."

Lastly, regarding how people read things into your comments:

Your statement
brings to mind

Ygduf

So you're arguing to do away with women's racing, and just have sex-blind open categories.

Heathpack 

I don't entirely disagree with you.

I think where I see the difference is that transgender women are not competing with the physiology and hormonal milieu that they were born with. Instead, they grew muscle and size for 30-40 years perhaps under the influence of testosterone. Some here would argue that has no lasting effect once testosterone is diminished during the transition from male to female.

But the truth is we don't know, science has not conclusively addressed this subject.

So it's not the same as being born a XYZ physical or physiologic trait. It's about being born with a set of traits that would clearly put you in a men's field to compete (because that's what's 'fair') and then undergoing a medical treatment to change those physiologic traits and assume that puts you squarely on a fair competitive level with women.

Why does it matter? Men are much better able to produce anaerobic efforts than women and they can produce more of them. These efforts are vital to successful road racing. It's part of the basis for having men's fields vs women's fields at all. So if a transgender woman retains these abilities to an extent that non-transgender women can't compete, what is the point of the competition at all?

But if you keep an open mind and actually investigate these issues, maybe you find that the appropriate way to handle this is that transgender women race with men or in a category up or an age group down.

When we start to talk about it not being important that we attempt to make things fair, you just kind of lose me. People get sick and need anabolic steroids as part of their medical treatment. Is it now immoral to deny sick people the opportunity to race just because they need an anabolic steroid? Everyone gets so caught up in the concern to not discriminate against anyone that we lose sight sometimes that you can attempt to come up with balanced workable solutions by being willing to look more deeply at a subject.

So to me, it's the change in the hormonal milieu that you were born into that's the difference between transgender people and variations that naturally occur within a gender.

topflightpro

Not at all.

My point is just that there natural variations among all of us. There are many men who are born with biological or genetic advantages over me. If we want to focus on fairness, then we have to consider whether any advantage is fair.

Heathpack 

So what is the rationale behind having women's fields at all, when you think about it?

It has to do with the magnitude and nature of the differences, right? Men have better absolute aerobic potential, higher absolute power, better ability to produce anaerobic efforts of greater magnitude and to do that more repeatedly. The difference is recognized as being great enough that there are men's fields and women's fields.

We all have differences that we are naturally born with and that is great. I'm not interested in segregating anyone within a given gender based on physiology they were born with.

Transgender women are a different case however. Because they have a physiology for one part of their life that conveys a clear enough advantage that they would be expected to race with men. And their transition takes away some of those advantages. The unanswered question is "how much?" Enough that it's reasonable to race with women? Not enough so that they should race with men? It's a very valid question and by no means the same thing as physiologic differences that people are born with IMO.

happybday29475

All categories are arbitrary: age, cat, and even, as we're learning through this discussion, gender: human gender is in fact not binary, even though sport has treated it as such for centuries.

Isn't the ultimate goal of categories is to promote even competition amongst athletes of various abilities? It doesn't matter how each category is labelled or even identified.

lol what if we had a system that, rather than 45/4's, for example, we had 45/10% bodyfat, 45/15% bodyfat, etc...

Ygduf

This is what @Heathpack is arguing for, and what I agree with, yes.

Enthalpic

In theory race-based differences could be mitigated or enhanced by gene doping. can-of-worms

Creakyknees

<sigh>

I'm a Texas master... raced against Baatz many times... stood 3rd on a podium where he won... can't say I'm surprised he tested positive and let's leave it at that.

So discouraging. I just feel so let down today.

beatlebee 

Similar discussion on slowtwitch as well. A good read:

Is it time to revisit the issue of testosterone for men and women in athletics?: Triathlon Forum: Slowtwitch Forums

wktmeow

We could just have it broken down into a slightly larger number of non-gender/age based categories, and let them get sorted out by skill & ability level naturally. I imagine eventually you'd end up racing with those that are similar in skill/fitness. Maybe add some sort of fast-track out of the easier categories for those with clear fitness advantages so those competing at a lower level don't just get beat up on by newbies coming through with good natural abilities. Though I suppose that would make things like championships a little trickier.

Doge

We agree - we can't figure out fair. There is little fairness or equal in juniors and they still have fun. So "fair" to me met everyone got the same opportunity based on who they were naturally. Others do not agree. Just I don't think we can figure the proper amount to correct to get everyone normalized. It is not my right to be competitive with you. I see that as true me being a big guy in his 50s or a big guy your age.

Personally I liked the idea of 10 or so categories that anyone can race with restrictions for equipment, distance in each category. As you get better you upgrade. We would expect the top categories to be mostly a certain age range and gender, but all would be there based on achievement (that is the hope). This also gets rid of the sometimes small fields and give all racers the "real" race experience.

wktmeow

I suppose the argument against that would be that you'd most likely see less women at the top of the sport, which would probably decrease women's participation. This is a sticky wicket indeed.

Creakyknees

Pet peeve of mine: "fairness" should apply to opportunity, not outcomes.

In bike racing, "fair" means everybody has the same rules, same course etc. (as much as can be reasonably controlled).

It does not mean that you will only compete against "equal" athletes, since of course no two people can ever be 100% physical equals.

The whole point of a bike race is to determine who is fastest.

/ rant off, please continue.

hack

Is there testing during the suspension period for the folks that get caught doping? If not, what's to stop them from doping to the max, cycle off when the suspension is over, then ride those doping gains to glory?

Doge

In the multi category mixed gender system everyone would try to be best in their category - which would sort out to be mostly the same ability riders. Today there are separate races of small fields of similar ability. For example M15-16, MCat 3, WCat2, M55+ packs regularly catch each other on loop RRs. I'd expect a few of those categories would be a combo of mostly elite women, some junior men and some older men. The best woman is the one that places the best in the highest category.

If there is a healthy woman's racing league I'd certainly advocate leaving it alone. But in SoCal/NV/AZ is is hard to imagine lower participation. VOS stage race had 1 woman in each of two junior categories and 150 boys. Typical SoCal RR may have 3-4 women in a category. The SoCal W P123 district champion is a 13 year old (Cat 3 as she may not upgrade until 14). 25 years ago when my wife raced, fields were bigger than they are now for road races, so whatever we are doing now does not seem to be increasing female participation.

wktmeow

But without, for example, a women's olympic RR, or state championships, or women's ToC, I imagine the draw for new women to compete would be even less than it is now. In a mixed gender system, there would be less to aspire to I'd think.

Doge

Go ahead and have a National Women's RR, or any of the populated big draw groups. At the local level what we have does not work outside of a few crits.

Ygduf

look at the bright side - at least he got caught?

Ygduf

I dunno. Ask Kayle. Just hit the podium presentation where he used his juiced-up legs to climb the steps.

I should add that it doesn't matter if they test during the ban or not. I imagine they do, but ask Ex to explain how stupid people have to be to get caught at an event test...