You mean the characteristics that males have over females? Thats precisely the things that separate male and female athletics. — DingoJones

The point being it's not precise at all. Otherwise this thread would not be here.

The premiss that sex has dictates prowess has been shown wanting.

Tough shit for sport. their organisation is based on a parochial patriarchic attitude towards people.

a female transgender athlete will have a different, unchangeable bone structure but reduced amounts of upper body muscle as compared to what they used to have within one or two years. — ToothyMaw

You appear to be suggesting that a transwoman will have a performance ability somewhere between man and woman, if I’m reading between the lines correctly. If that’s the case then can a transwoman only compete fairly with other transwoman? Maybe Banno is right about the things he’s mentioned in this topic.

The point being it's not precise at all. Otherwise this thread would not be here. — Banno

Your suggested criteria match exactly the advantages males have in most sports. Apparently they are precise enough.

The premiss that sex has dictates prowess has been shown wanting. — Banno

Depends on the sport of course, but males have a very measurable advantage in most of them but especially combat sports.

Tough shit for sport. their organisation is based on a parochial patriarchic attitude towards people. — Banno

Im not a big sports fan, I dont care which characters win or lose. What I do care about is women getting hurt, and to a lesser degree a fair contest.
Also, anything with history is patriarchic. So what? Do we throw out everything that started before the rise of feminism?

You are missing the point. Sex is only a proxy for innate ability. That's what has caused the problem. Drop sex and find a way to measure innate ability. Then the competition can reward prowess.

Is the notion of philosophy of sport coherent? What is it that is supposedly being measured in a competition - one assumes it is some sort of prowess, the point being to seperate out and reward prowess over raw ability. Sex is only a proxy for raw ability - whatever that is - so the task at hand is measuring raw ability without reference to sex or gender.

Makes sense to me and I feel like it may end up being the way forward.

You are missing the point. Sex is only a proxy for innate ability. That's what has caused the problem. Drop sex and find a way to measure innate ability. Then the competition can reward prowess. — Banno

There already are useful ways of measuring innate ability for the purpose of sports, one such way is by sex. Also your way of thinking does nothing to protect women from getting their skulls crushed in a lopsided match up against a trans competitor so it sucks. As I said, that is my primary concern in this topic.

Perhaps you missed it but Banno suggested grouping athletes by factors like:

height or bodyweight or muscle mass index or blood testosterone levels — Banno

Unless I'm missing something, this should theoretically reduce the chance of injury due to mismatching.

There already are useful ways of measuring innate ability for the purpose of sports, one such way is by sex. — DingoJones

Balls.

The stuff between your legs doesn't make you run faster or kick better.

Also your way of thinking does nothing to protect women from getting their skulls crushed in a lopsided match up against a trans competitor so it sucks. — DingoJones

More Balls. basing a footy game or wrestling match on body weight or some such would do exactly that.

As I said, that is my primary concern in this topic. — DingoJones

This looks disingenuous.

The stuff between your legs doesn't make you run faster or kick better. — Banno

I wouldn't imagine so, no. Of course, no ones talking abouts balls but you. Fast twitch muscle fiber, testosterone during puberty and other such factors do however. These things are pretty reliably categorized according to biological sex. Hence it is a useful in categorizing sports.

More Balls. basing a footy game or wrestling match on body weight or some such would do exactly that. — Banno

Sex is the strongest factor in the development of many of the criteria you would use. You’ve mentioned a bunch already.

This looks disingenuous. — Banno

Fascinating. What do you imagine my actual interest to be?

These things are pretty reliably categorized according to biological sex. — DingoJones

These things were pretty reliably categorised according to biological sex. Now that's not such a good proxy. So why not base the categorisation on what is actually significant - Fast twitch muscle fibre, testosterone during puberty and whatever....

Sex is the strongest factor in the development of many of the criteria you would use. — DingoJones

But it's still a proxy.

What do you imagine my actual interest to be? — DingoJones

I've no idea.

I'm amused at the whole issue. What it actually shows is how arbitrary the classifications used in sports are. It's an intellectually muddled area.

Some individuals go through an unnatural process of intentionally weakening or illegally strengthening their bodies to achieve a certain aesthetic ideal. Good for them, though neither of these is compatible with competitive sports and I don't see why that should grant them special treatment.

If they want to compete under special rules, then they may start their own competitive leagues.

Seems to me that the problem stems from sport using the wrong criteria to group athletes. It's a congenital problem with the notion of "fair" competition.

Why gender, as opposed to height or bodyweight or muscle mass index or blood testosterone levels? — Banno

Is it gender that sports uses to group athletes? Or is it sex?

Why gender, as opposed to height or bodyweight or muscle mass index or blood testosterone levels? — Banno

Have you ever heard of competitive martial arts? Fighting?

It's a congenital problem with the notion of "fair" competition. — Banno

There is a difference between a transgender woman smashing cisgender women because of a severe, unearned advantage, and a cisgendered woman smashing the competition because of her incredible technical fighting ability.

It mostly comes down whether or not both combatants' abilities are sufficiently tied to sacrifices and allocation of resources and time, including fostered talent and conditioning, such that both have a fighting chance even at the highest levels. That is what I believe to be the common intuitive notion of fairness cited by people who are against transgender women competing with cisgender women in sports.

edit: that's my best attempt at un-muddling the idea of fairness, or lack of fairness, we so often hear about

Your feigned moral outrage on behalf of the multitude of CIS women being "smashed" by the army of men pretending to be women is laughable.

This, too, will pass.

That is what I believe to be the common intuitive notion of fairness cited by people who are against transgender women competing with cisgender women in sports. — ToothyMaw

Check the science. FGI.

Your feigned moral outrage on behalf of the multitude of CIS women being "smashed" by the army of men pretending to be women is laughable. — Banno

You obviously have no regard for what makes sports or fighting interesting and worthwhile.

There were no elements of moral outrage in my posts over transgender women fighting cisgender women, but rather disgust, which you would know if you read the OP in its entirety.

Do you seriously think I think there are armies of fake women smashing CIS women? First off, I was talking about people who genuinely identify as women, not "men pretending to be women" dominating cisgender women. That is easily solved. Second: it only takes a few people with extraordinary unearned physical advantages to ruin a sport. Otherwise, why wouldn't we allow performance enhancing drugs? Is Banno saying, "the more 'roids the better?" Is that a moral injunction to their use?

Check the science. FGI. — Banno

Check the science? What?

Check the science? What? — ToothyMaw

Just that.

The science on hormone therapy? I know about it: many of the characteristics that result from masculinization or feminization can be reversed somewhat, but that doesn't mean a man with a male skeletal structure (something that doesn't change) that undergoes feminization is going to be equal to a CIS woman who never went through puberty.

They might become more like women physiologically, or close enough for their own tastes, but that doesn't mean that they are even close to the same level athletically as CIS women, even accounting for other factors.

These things were pretty reliably categorised according to biological sex. Now that's not such a good proxy. So why not base the categorisation on what is actually significant - Fast twitch muscle fibre, testosterone during puberty and whatever.... — Banno

In short, because you would be eliminating CIS women from the sports marketplace. Those measurements you reference do correlate generally to biological sex, which is why they have served historically as a proxy for distinguishing ability.

That's the complaint. If you allow entry of MtF athletes on traditionally CIS female sports teams, the CIS women lose their spots.

The consequences are minimal at the recreational level because the CIS girls and women could find a team to compete on at their level, but at the collegiate and professional level, those opportunities would be eliminated. It's just simple math. If you increase the competitors in the current CIS division to include trans competitors, you will lose CIS competitors, especially considering there is evidence that trans athletes are athletically superior to CIS competitors

Tough shit for sport. their organisation is based on a parochial patriarchic attitude towards people. — Banno

No doubt complaints arise from those quarters, where the objections are simply that they don't want a status quo disrupted, but an equal argument is made from the other side, which is that athletics serves a useful social and emotional function and should be as equally distributed as possible. It's for that reason that there is US law requiring equal access to sports opportunities at the college level (Title 9 rules) for men and women.

It's for that reason that there is US law requiring equal access to sports opportunities at the college level (Title 9 rules) for men and women. — Hanover

You needed a law for that?

These things were pretty reliably categorised according to biological sex. Now that's not such a good proxy. So why not base the categorisation on what is actually significant - Fast twitch muscle fibre, testosterone during puberty and whatever.... — Banno

Well thats what you are doing when you categorize by sex, as I said all the traits you use would end up being the male ones for many sports. Its a pointless way to do it, and wouldn't protect women or womens sports.
These factors from being born a male cannot be hand-waved away. Males are evolved for fighting, bone structure, thickness and density…science doesnt have a good way to change these things yet.
Ok, Maybe common ground. In most combat sports there is a policy of having 2 years of hormone treatments to counteract the significant advantages being born a male gives. Im not convinced this leads to fairness in the sports (the science isnt clear) but it does reduce the potential of egregious harm to women.
What are your thoughts on that?

I've no idea.

I'm amused at the whole issue. What it actually shows is how arbitrary the classifications used in sports are. It's an intellectually muddled area. — Banno

Ok, what is it that seems disingenuous?

The classifications are not arbitrary though, there is very good reasons, solid reasons, for having a men and womens division in many sports.

Is it gender that sports uses to group athletes? Or is it sex? — Michael

Right, an important distinction for this discussion thank you.
My understanding is gender is the way you feel about your sex, and sex being the biology of how you were born.
I thought that was the generally understood distinction?

I don’t know what any such characteristics would be. I can imagine waking up in a woman’s body, whether by magic or a brain transplant, and yet I’d continue to identify as a man, so it certainly doesn’t have anything to do with my body. And I can’t think of what psychological traits I have, except the obvious of identifying as a man, that would count as being such characteristics.

You’d be a woman because you could give birth and breastfeed. No amount of imagination can change that.

You needed a law for that? — Banno

Yes. For the Australian counterpart, see: https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/legal/legislation

We even have laws against murder and rape, despite the obviousness of the need. That's how lands governed by laws typically work, as opposed to just wise people handing down their latest views of what justice dictates.

Not an entirely responsive post to what I said, but nice chat.

So you're saying that someone is a woman iff they can give birth and breastfeed?

I’m saying that people who give birth and breastfeed are women.

I’m saying that people who give birth and breastfeed are women. — NOS4A2

They're women because they give birth and breastfeed? Or only women are able to give birth and breastfeed?

For the Australian counterpart... — Hanover

That's a very general law, and sufficient to action. What I find odd is the specificity.

Oh, well. Different strokes.

Right, an important distinction for this discussion thank you.
My understanding is gender is the way you feel about your sex, and sex being the biology of how you were born.
I thought that was the generally understood distinction?

Gender is best utilized as a staple of language, not of biology or psychology. Sex is a better descriptor, in most cases.

And men are not able to. No one alive or dead was born of a man.