"The issue isn't how many spectators there are. It's whether female participants should have their chances of winning ruined because they must compete with a biological male whose body retains some natural advantages in strength and speed even after going through hormonal treatment."
Do you have any evidence for the last part of that? Bec…
"The issue isn't how many spectators there are. It's whether female participants should have their chances of winning ruined because they must compete with a biological male whose body retains some natural advantages in strength and speed even after going through hormonal treatment."
Do you have any evidence for the last part of that? Because the studies I've seen (as well as the fact that these athletes aren't blowing out absolutely everyone) suggests otherwise.
I don't have it handy right now, but I've certainly read it. And when someone who was a mediocre athlete competing in a field of boys or men easily dominates all the girls and women after the required amount of hormonal adjustment - as I have seen in track and in swimming -- is it really plausible that there is no residual biological advantage from all those years of male hormones and the other deep differences that start setting in early in the body's development?
The burden of proof should be on those who insist that there is no significant biological difference between a female body and a hormonally and surgically altered male body. And it should be not called hateful to say there's a difference.
I've interacted with people whose gender was ambiguous in their self-presentation, and I've treated them as people fully deserving of human decency. But that's a different matter from the realities of biology.
I had girls' shot putter who outthrew almost every boy on the team (the top 2 boys were better than her, but that means she would have made the boys' varsity team)
"The issue isn't how many spectators there are. It's whether female participants should have their chances of winning ruined because they must compete with a biological male whose body retains some natural advantages in strength and speed even after going through hormonal treatment."
Do you have any evidence for the last part of that? Because the studies I've seen (as well as the fact that these athletes aren't blowing out absolutely everyone) suggests otherwise.
I don't have it handy right now, but I've certainly read it. And when someone who was a mediocre athlete competing in a field of boys or men easily dominates all the girls and women after the required amount of hormonal adjustment - as I have seen in track and in swimming -- is it really plausible that there is no residual biological advantage from all those years of male hormones and the other deep differences that start setting in early in the body's development?
The burden of proof should be on those who insist that there is no significant biological difference between a female body and a hormonally and surgically altered male body. And it should be not called hateful to say there's a difference.
I've interacted with people whose gender was ambiguous in their self-presentation, and I've treated them as people fully deserving of human decency. But that's a different matter from the realities of biology.
Anecdotal evidence:
I had girls' shot putter who outthrew almost every boy on the team (the top 2 boys were better than her, but that means she would have made the boys' varsity team)