I can’t see how you could exclude them from competing, and yet they definitely have a genetic advantage over the vast majority of women, to the point where certain events could conceivably be dominated by people with their condition, as rare as it is. How does this play out long term is an interesting question. But at the end of the day the real question is what is the purpose of women’s categories of competition? Who are we trying to protect? Who are we leveling the playing field for? Women’s categories will always be controversial since they are inherently exclusive. The category was literally made to exclude a segment of the population from competing (men). So who else should be excluded if the line between men and women turns out to be less clear than we thought? Do we need more protected categories? Do we get rid of the protected categories altogether? If we shift the line slightly, then these women who are at the very top of their game in women’s sports suddenly find themselves irrelevant entirely, but on the other hand if you don’t shift it then you have the same dilemma before women’s categories were created. Again, what is the purpose of the women’s protected category?
You are misgendering her.
and yet they definitely have a genetic advantage over the vast majority of women, to the point where certain events could conceivably be dominated by people with their condition
Do you have a source for this? Here is a study that came to a very different conclusion.
Key Biomedical Findings
- Biological data are severely limited, and often methodologically flawed.
- There is limited evidence regarding the impact of testosterone suppression (through, for example, gender-affirming hormone therapy or surgical gonad removal) on transgender women athletes’ performance.
- Available evidence indicates trans women who have undergone testosterone suppression have no clear biological advantages over cis women in elite sport.
The category was literally made to exclude a segment of the population from competing (men).
Women’s sports weren’t invented to exclude men, they were invented to include women. This may seem like a minor distinction, but I don’t believe it is because of the clear connection between cis women being excluded from sports due to misogyny, and trans women being excluded from sports due to transphobia.
(I made this comment on my lemmygrad account originally, but realized you wouldn’t see it then, so I’m reposting it on this account.)
Your study is about transgenders, which is a different topic than the women boxers in question, and debatable anyway since there are also contradictory studies on that topic. Regardless, women’s sports were definitely created to exclude men, if not explicitly, then by necessity, since prior to that there was only one category that men or women were allowed to compete in, but women couldn’t truly compete in those sports against the men. I don’t think there are any men’s sports that deliberately exclude women, and every once in a while an exceptional woman talent breaks through, but it’s pretty rare. The only one I can think of right now is Michelle Wie, who played a few PGA events. Men aren’t allowed to play in LPGA WNBA or any other professional women’s sports, but women are allowed to play against men if they are good enough. Women’s sports HAVE to exclude men if the goal is to include women, and if the goal is to be competitive. Casual sports for fun are totally different.
Regardless, women’s sports were definitely created to exclude men, if not explicitly, then by necessity, since prior to that there was only one category that men or women were allowed to compete in, but women couldn’t truly compete in those sports against the men.
I’m pretty sure we are talking about the same thing here, but you are attributing it to women being physically unable to compete versus men, which while it can be a relevant concern depending on the sport, was historically not really the reason they were excluded. Women were heavily discouraged by men to participate even though they were technically allowed to. There’s actually some really interesting connections between women’s sports and feminist movements that help make this connection more apparent, particularly biking and the suffragette movement. I don’t have anything to link on hand but I definitely recommend reading about it. It’s still easy to see this in the modern day if you look at competitive activities where there is no possible argument of a biological advantage, like e-sports or chess, where women could easily be just as successful as men, if the cultures of those games weren’t so dominated by men who view those spaces as theirs, and who view women who come to participate as invaders.
Jeeze, if only there had been a group shouting from the rooftops that tolerating terf bullshit would lead to real-female purity tests. Damn. Who could have seen this coming.
Who has been tolerating terfs? Did I miss something?
Fellow transphobes?
Large parts of politics in most countries?
Gobsmacked. Gobsmacked I tells ya
Not to be ignorant, but she’s not even transgender, is she?
“[she] was born female, was registered female, lived her life as a female, boxed as a female, has a female passport.”
Yes, this is transphobia hurting a cis women, but because so many misidentify her as trans officials correctly fear it will have consequences for woman and LGBTQ+ athletes.
Throw it into the mountain of evidence that transphobes don’t actually give a shit about “protecting women”.
Some athletes and LGBTQ+ observers worry that hateful comments from critics — and the IOC failing to address a larger global conversation before the Olympics — have already started to vilify transgender, nonbinary and other LGBTQ+ people at an event championing inclusion.
You know, ten years ago, the international community dealt with similar matters since Putin and Sochi banned any gay representation, so a whole lot of athletes wore brightly colored uniforms, with Germany going over the top.
We should preserve that spirit and double down.
