Laurel Hubbard

Happened upon this story as I was digitally flicking through The Guardian yesterday. As someone who is socially very liberal, I have a lot of both sympathy and admiration for people who have to deal with something like gender dysphoria. It must be an unimaginably tough thing to have to go through. However, from the point of view of sporting integrity, I genuinely can't see how it is fair towards cisgender women that someone who was born male and went through male puberty is allowed to compete against them in top tier sport, especially in a discipline such as power lifting, which relies on brute strength as one of its main decisive factors. I realise that the issue is by no means black and white and I'm all for inclusivity on a general scale, but this particular case seems to have opened up a massive can of worms. I'm absolutely no expert, so I'm interested to hear other people's views on this subject, hopefully with the discussion staying sensible and respectful.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...hubbard-set-to-make-history-at-tokyo-olympics

 

Sport is all about a level playing field. If it's not it's no longer really a sport.
I agree with you MT.

 

Am a bit uneducated but she was born a woman in a mans body but can take part in female sport.how long before a man is born in a womans body and he gets to play in mens pro football or visa versa not to be rude but its very strange.

 

But they won't be able to because they will still be female in physicality. It is more akin to me hurting my thumb and identifying as disabled and then competing against amputees at the paralympics.

 

Theres deffo some unfair contests me and r lass av always said same.

 

As always it’s a complex issue. There is evidence that if testosterone is kept below a certain level then the advantage is basically non-existent and as the article says that’s what the olympics go off. There are some studies that show that even with the low testosterone there is still an advantage to someone that experienced a male puberty, but it all needs more research I think.

A lot of the new laws that various republican legislatures are passing in their states in the US to stop transgender students from playing sports are just needlessly and purposely cruel. When it comes to professional sports it’s not so cut and dry though. As soon as you add money into the equation the water gets muddied.

 

From what I understand it goes on testosterone levels, primarily. But a lot of people still consider this to be unfair, as the permitted testosterone level is still way above that of an average female. Also, there's the argument that male bone density and muscle mass which develops during the transition to adulthood, while reduced when female hormones start being taken, would still be nowhere near the level they would be in someone who was born female. Plus there are issues like height, hand size etc, which can also be huge and decisive factors in many sports.

 

The thing is that the vast majority of cis women that are at the olympics also have a far higher than 'average' testosterone levels. As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong) trans women have to meet the same testosterone requirements as cis women.

There's an argument about the bone density for sure, one which needs a definitive answer. Unfortunately it's going to be hard to get an answer to that question I feel.

 

She competed in weightlifting as a man and never got near the Olympics, however as a woman who is now at an age which makes her the oldest competitor, she is in with a shout of a medal. Surely that in itself is strongly indicative of an advantage.

 

The whole of the ensuing debate reminds me of when the Williams sisters played a man ranked just outside the top 200 in the world, and they got absolutely destroyed. Two of the greatest players ever to play the game, yet they weren't even in with a shout against a man who was very mediocre by the standards of the professional game. And the Williams sisters themselves are physical outliers for females, at least if we look at their height, and presumably their strength. I have no idea what their testosterone levels are, and I'm in no way suggesting that they are anything abnormal. It's just indicative as to how big a role the innate physical differences between men and women play. A coach even assessed it, and explained why the women never stood a chance, despite their superior technical ability. I'll try to find the article, as it's really interesting.

 

I think some decades down the line this notion that "trans women are women" will be massively derided by both sides, with trans women acknowledging that they are not women, but at the same time being proud of that, and confident in themselves. I think it is easier to gain acceptance by saying "I am a woman trapped inside a man's body" than by saying you aren't typically male. Until then we're going to have this encroachment into women's spaces that they have had to fight so hard to get.

 

The issue is around bone density which is irreversible for anyone who has grown in a male body.

Biology is sex, psychology is gender. To me it's fair to have a trans woman compete for Best Female Artist in the Brits, but not Olympic weightlifting.

I don't think societal identity politics can be incorporated easily in physical sports. It's uncomfortable maybe but doesn't mean trans rights can't be upheld broadly.

 

I think you're absolutely right. After reading a couple of articles on Laurel Hubbard, the following, absolutely hypothetical (but certainly possible in theory) situation popped into my head: what if a male professional footballer decided to transition to female. It just so happened that the footballer in question was very powerful on the build side of things - say in the Dike or Akinfenwa mould. Would it be considered "fair" if this player decided to continue playing in the women's game after transitioning?

In reality I don't see the above happening any time soon bearing in mind how difficult any gay footballers find it to come out, but as a hypothetical situation to consider, it's interesting.

 

This is one of the latest studies done on transwomen:

The research, published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, found that before starting their hormone treatment trans women performed 31% more push-ups and 15% more sit-ups in one minute on average than a biological women younger than 30 in the air force – and ran 1.5 miles 21% faster.

Yet after suppressing their testosterone for two years – a year longer than IOC guidelines – they were still 12% faster on average than biological females.

The trans women also retained a 10% advantage in push-ups and a 6% advantage in sit-ups for the first two years after taking hormones, before their advantage disappeared. But the researchers say they “may underestimate the advantage in strength that trans women have over cis women … because trans women will have a higher power output than cis women when performing an equivalent number of push-ups”.


Added to that, if you compare some of the records that trans women have broken, they havent just been by a milisecond, or a second, they seem to break them by far more than a ciswoman would have managed. Nothing against anyone transitioning, if they're not happen in their own skin then more power to their elbow. But to play sports when you clearly have the advantage, I would suggest, is not actually a sport anymore.

 

Also, I kind of resent women who are born into the correct body, having to now define ourselves as ciswomen. Why cant we just be women? And before someone says 'well so are transwomen', then why can't they call themselves 'women' too? If a distinction has to be made, as by times Im sure it does, surely its the newer term, the one used by the minority, that should be used and not making everyone else who used to call themselves women have to call themselves ciswomen now.

 

I don't believe anybody is forcing you to refer to yourself as anything.

As you say, women covers cis women and trans women. It makes sense for there to be a name for either subset. It makes no sense for there to be a name for just one subset of a group does it?
Otherwise if there's a distinction that needs to be made, what do you say? women and trans women? That's just a long winded way of excluding trans women from the 'women' moniker isn't it?

 

You're right, no one is forcing me to refer to myself as cis, however its becoming more and more prevalent in the media, and I dislike it. I rarely see men being described as cismen, although I may just have missed it, I've rarely if ever seen it.
As for the subset you mention, my point is that the subset of 'ciswomen' already have a name and have had for centuries, it's women. Its not just a long winded way of excluding trans women from the word women. As you said, IF there's a distinction that needs to be made, why not just say women and transwomen?

 

I'm a woman not cis woman btw.