also interested in hearing what you think the exception is
It would be a statistical miracle if every single trans woman was stronger than every biological woman.
but I’d never claim that there’s no exceptions
Ok, that's fair.
I’m confident in claiming that most are
Right, but that's what the other commenters were waiting for supporting research on, I believe.
They called my claim that men have a significant advantage over women when it comes to strenght a made-up fact so I backed it up with evidence as requested.
Hmm, on re-reading I can see that as being part of what was asked. However, you wrote this,
This isn’t about not wanting trans people in the sports and you know it. It’s about the unfair advantage they have over biological women.
Men have a significant advantage over women when it comes to strenght and speed and in most (but not all) cases this applies to trans women as well.
So I think the real ask is for evidence that post-transition trans women are stronger than cis women. To reiterate, I think the points now requiring evidence are these statements (edited by me for clarity):
It’s about the unfair advantage .. trans people in the sports .. have over biological women.
.. trans women .. have a significant advantage over .. cis .. women when it comes to strength and speed and in most (but not all) cases
I do note that you state that this is not true in all cases btw, so also interested in hearing what you think the exception is (that is, what are those cases where trans women, particularly trans women in sports, do not have an unfair or significant advantage over cis women when it comes to strength and speed).
Actually, now I'm curious how they will handle cases of people with more than 2 chromosomes.
Me too. Actually, this is explicitly called out in the article,
World Athletics’s testing requirements would also affect small numbers of competitors who were born with atypical sex chromosomes.
But they don't say what would happen. The easy ones: presumably, XYY is treated the same as XY and XO is treated like XX. But how would XXY be handled? Or cases where we have genetic chimerism - e.g. some cells are XY and some are XO or XX. (One way this happens is if fraternal twins of different sex are in the womb, and then one absorbs the other.)
Intersexed folks at best seem to be an afterthought in this proposal.
If the tests are sensitive enough, someone with XY gonadal dysgenesis might be counted as XX as well, though I'm skeptical on this point. Actually, this is exactly why such tests are bad - someone who presents as female in virtually every public way, and would be seen as female in terms of sex under even many forms of medical examinations, could be treated as male under these rules and forced to compete against men.
It's the exact opposite of what the anti-trans folks say that they want to accomplish - protecting women from male athletes.
As the research doesn't cover trans athletes, it's of limited relevance. The onus has not yet been met.
The company said: “Any buyer will be required to comply with applicable law with respect to the treatment of customer data.”
And let's hold them to that. There's no way a release of someone's DNA isn't a violation of the GDPR, the CCPA, or something similar. And I'd expect it'd also be protected under various health regulation related laws too.
Exactly.
None that I can see.
This would kinda imply that maybe it makes sense to start talking about new categories. Kinda like how we already have different weight classes in wrestling. But I doubt it would happen, if you look at the studies from the NPR article by the OC,
9% isn't that much of an advantage, and it could go down further as time goes on (as the raw data sorta hints at), just maybe the study wasn't running for long enough.
And this doesn't apply to all trans folks. Do remember,
So a trans woman who transitioned before puberty has no competitive advantage worth talking about, and a trans woman who transitions after puberty just needs time to lose the extra muscle before the competitive advantage disappears.
Finally, keep in mind that even for those that are recent post-puberty transitions, they still don't perform as well as cis men, so it definitely does not make sense to include them in there.
Meanwhile, transmen on average outperform cis men,
Everything suggests to me that there's no problem and we've split up the categories in the right ways, at worst it's perhaps just a matter of tweaking this statement, "1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events" to a slightly longer time period.