I wrote a scientific paper about the dehuminization of refugees and after my introduction I started with: „In ancient Rome there was a type of person called the Homo Sacer“ It was at this point that I realised I was writing a leftist paper.
@@Soemrjruur I did. A lot of my work was based on him. I just didn't wanna bother anyone with people they may not know. Also cited Mbembe for obvious reasons. I analyzed whether various projects by the German government can end the state of Homo Sacer and "living death" for the refugees.
Every time this debate pops up I always see an article about a trans student who won the Texas girls wrestling competition 2 years in a row. People will point to it and say the athlete in question had an unfair advantage due to "biological sex". Thing is, that student was a trans boy forced to compete in the girls division by the UIL regulations. Even in cases of trans men succeeding in sports, it is used as a weapon against trans women. The athlete in question, it should be noted, has been quoted saying he'd rather potentially lose in the boys competition than win in the girls.
It is not doping to use a medication as directed by your doctor, as the boy was with his prescribed testosterone. UIL cannot prevent you from competing based on prescribed medications. That being said, you're clearly just a transphobic troll. I only responded in case someone who was less of a dungbeetle had a similar thought.
Why do so many people overreact to trans people? All they gotta do is mind their business if it bothers them so much. Transgender women just want to be treated like women.
The women's division in chess exists for the original reason you mentioned. Because chess is historically dominated by men for sexist reasons and that has lead to many more men than women still in chess today. I explained this to my daughter recently very much the same way you explained it. If you have 1000 men and 100 women all playing chess and there is no advantage, the odds are the best chess player who is actually playing will be a man. So they have a women's division to encourage more women to play. But some of the top women choose not to play in that category. And when they get to parity in numbers, there will be no reason for separate divisions anymore because obviously there is no inherent advantage.
While this is largely right, eliminating the inherent advantage probably won't lead to the phasing out of women's chess. Those organizing successful programmes to start girls playing chess are generally quite happy to push the line that girls do better in the all-girls environment. There seems to be pressure for further segregation even as the performance difference has shrunk radically in the last half century. Strangely, women's bridge is more likely to go away at all but the top levels. But bridge has long had the difference that most players at the club level are women and the tournament-level difference that the rewards for gender-restricted (or age-restricted) competitions are lower than for open competition.
Chess also had divisions based on skill. And when we find it fancy, on age. It's up to the organizers if they want a single category or not. Either way, men don't belong to the female category the same way a 20 years old doesn't belong in the sub-16 category.
@@tarnw3301 Skill level and age categories aren't going anywhere because they correspond to real differences (at least usually). Gender differences, giving women specific titles and championships, may not last once parity is reached.
@@Sam_on_RUclips sex differences also are real. But like with sports, chess is pretty much a family affair. A chess player normally has a support system, which might include a sister, a mother, a daughter, and if there's a female category, you bet it will be used the same way that a Novice category is used or the sub-14 category is used even though the Expert is open for everyone. Of course, it all depends on the organizers, and how much prizes they can afford to give.
@@tarnw3301 Sex differences are real, what I meant is that they don't confer an inherent advantage in chess. The apparant advantage comes from the disparity in popularity of the game based on gender.
The "this athletic woman who has a personal, unique body type and also some of her body parts are more toned than others due to rigorous, olympic-level training IS NOT UP TO MY BEAUTY STANDARDS, therefore she must be trans" argument is gotta be my favourite.
That's not a thing that anyone says though. We oppose MEN in women's sports, not ugly women. I don't whether you're lying or stupid, but if you can point to someone actually saying it (or anything like it) then we can work that out.
@@LucasSantos-ss6ou That proves nothing at all about what gender critical people say, think and do. "Masculine" women are not anyone's idea of the problem.
The big thing I always noticed growing up as fitness loving young girl who tended to beat a lot of the competition throughout school and above; when you're against other women, it's just a sport, but the second you go against men, it became a man vs woman situation. You were no longer competing to win, you were competing to prove the worhtiness of women everywhere. It was such a bullshit extra level of stress. If you lost, the loss came with "well a woman was never going to beat a man", even if your loss had nothing to do with that. I feel like it's often framed very much the same for trans gender people, but perhaps the other way around; a loss is a loss, but a win suddenly becomes "well they won because they're trans" and not because of their own merit, training and skill. There's such a weird us vs them mentality around sex, gender and sports/competition.
@@sparingharbor2600 i don't fully see how this is much by way of input. we already know sports is divided, that's what the entire video is about, and what we see when we observe amost any sport out there beyond a slim few. yes sports is divided, yes that's why people make it us vs them above the usual competitive nature. it's even worse for trans folk because they're literally only allowed to come in last place or there's fingers pointed.
@Rock zen because it applied to multiple ones. If you'd like I'd happily list the school sports I experienced this, but I was under the impression the people reading wouldn't needed exact, literal details of every single fact. Also I love ham, so not really sure how that's and insult. Spam too, unsurprisingly :)
I absolutely FEEL the idea that cis women having fewer numbers of eligible competitors stunts their progress in sports. When I was a competitive martial artist, I was perceived as female and thus stuck in the women's competitive category, and by the time I hit black belt there would be competitions where I had nobody in my rank to compete against. The obvious solution should have been to stick me in with the men's competition of my rank, but instead I was forced to compete against women 3 to sometimes 4 ranks beneath mine in order to fill out a roster. One year was so scant that the entire women's division was forced to compete with each other despite rank and this poor 14-year-old yellow belt was forced to go against me at 19yo, 2nd dan. When I complained, I was told, "You would get hurt in the men's division (bullshit, because most of my sparring partners were men, and the judges knew that), and we trust you not to hurt the less experienced girls." I ended up forfeiting the match because how fucking demoralizing to be a kid that's trying compete in a new skill in front of a crowd only to have the roster bracket you against someone closer to rank with your teacher than you.
@@hairymcnipples Folk ages 12 and up were allowed to sign up for full contact I remember and I had signed up for that division, but with low sign up rates it wasn't uncommon for full contact to not be allowed for certain matches at judge's discretion. After I forfeit (& several heated conversations with all of the local dojang head masters) later tournaments allowed me to be in the men's division so long as I signed a waiver but full contact was never allowed.
Yeah, the highest ranked student (and 2nd highest instructor) at the tkd school I go to is a woman and always has to spar much lower ranked students than herself at tournaments. We ALL know that her skills are topnotch and there are maybe three students (all male) who have a chance of winning against her, but the board requires a "woman's bracket." When sparring in house we all line up for a chance to spar and learn from her. Sigh...
My father saw something different when he was learning martial arts. The wife and daughter of the guy running the dojo were both good fighters(daughter was a black belt I believe) and the daughter had multiple trophies from competitions. However, neither would fight a male student at their level. They only fought lower grade students(usually 2 or 3 levels lower than them) and even then they only won on technique. They couldn't hit with their full strength nor take a hit without getting injured.
@@Maverick-7508 What is the point of this story? Were they good fighters or did they only have trophies from beating up on lower ranks? Did they have unearned success because they were women or because they were the literal wife and child of the guy that ran the dojo? What were the association’s rules for types of competition they were required to participate in by rank? (Mine required full contact participation at least twice a year to earn blue belt and 6 times a year by the time you tested for black belt. However, many associations don’t require competition at all to advance in rank which obviously leads to those students being geared towards testing katas/forms and board breaks with very little focus on sparring. That’s important information to consider because if your dad’s school was from an association that was not competition geared since that means everyone in that school was probably a poor competitive performer because the experience was just never there -despite gender-.) Lastly, how does this anecdote contribute to support or denial of the point that woman’s sports are stunted by lack of competition? I’m asking because based on how your dad would answer the above questions to steel-man this argument this contributes nothing to the point of women’s sports but it is a display of how student’s are unaware that they are in competition with dojo/dojangs that are held to different competitive standards and students that highly value competition in those associations that don’t will underperform in that setting. Presently, it sounds like your dad came across a case of nepotism on behalf of the dojo owner (which has nothing to do with gender) and somewhere in between then and now someone telling the story decided to be sexist about it.
i have a trans friend who played in a hockey League. they didn't have any rules against trans women competing but she still felt weird about it and ended up quitting organised sport altogether. really sad and i have to wonder how common that is.
@@SevenPr1me Trans woman are still male, yeah. But they are also woman. Female and woman are terms that mean different things. To be honest, you can't really appropriate womanhood. And like, I feel like it's weird to say that Trans woman just put on makeup and a dress and do woman things that they are just suddenly a woman. They where always women. Literally any Trans woman will tell you that they understand this, but wear dresses and makeup because a. they like it and/or b. If they go by she/her, but still look like a man, it can get them hurt. Socially transitioning is almost always for safety.
@@SevenPr1me Not to also mention that if Trans people do professional sports they have to physically transition, and have their hormones under or over certain levels. Their bodies physically change. So technically, if you physically transition, yeah.
@@SevenPr1me And there are cis woman, who also don't have that ability? There is a difference between male and female and man and woman. Female is biology. Woman is the social construct. If you ask a transwoman, they'll say "a woman is someone who identifies as a woman". They won't give you a description of "a woman is a girly girl who wears dresses and makeup and likes pink". A female is a biological description (that by some definitions may not apply to biological females) and a woman is a social indication/description. Every woman, cis or trans, is different, and have different ways of identifying their womanhood. There is nothing detrimental about a cis woman fitting into a stereotype (liking pink, wearing dresses, blah blah), why is it suddenly detrimental to womanhood when transwoman do it?
@UCVNcWNkspMUSsUeTXnFxKUg Bro a boat isn't a social construct what are you on??? Here, think of it as money and currency. Money is literally a piece of paper. Physically, it is a piece of paper. But socially, we give money value. We, as a society have dictated how much things "cost". I could literally just give a service of mine for free, or I can charge money for it, and that money is usually dependant of my personal values and societal indicators of the price range I can give it, especially if my service is not within the mainstream market. Also, not saying that Trans woman are mental. But if Trans people and third genders have existed for literally decades, don't you think that their is some pattern to it? That we SHOULD look into it and not dismiss it as "people be crazy". That emotions are just as much of a part of biology. Who says transeness isn't an untapped medical phenomenon that we could look into. Not to mention that the literal treatment for gender dysphoria, a condition that most trans people have, is transitioning, socially and/or medically.
The way Caster is restricted from participation in her sports category and is shunned as being not "correct" biologically and forced to take anti-androgens in order to compete, compared with how Michael is treated in the sporting world and the public eye, just screams misogyny to me. The effects of being a genetic outlier in sports as a man is celebrated, while as a woman it is vilified, viewed with heavy scrutiny, and results in incredible discrimination.
You are hilarious. Misogyny is such a bad faith argument. Caster is intersex and Phelps is a biological male. So Caster is competing in a category they don't technically belong in whereas Phelps is competing in a category he does belong in. It only matters when a person wins. I'm sure there are intersex men competing in men's sports but they won't be statistically likely to win. You sound like a misandrist and a misogynist at the same time denying that there are sex differences that matter to women on competition. Misogyny! That's the funniest thing I've heard. It's Misogynistic now to protect women's sports... SMH.
@@Bradley_Lute Getting lectured on good faith from someone pointedly they/theming the intersex lady and using an anti-trans dogwhistle to describe the dyadic guy, what a morning... Yes I'm aware Michael's large innate biological advantage isn't related to his sex. (As far as we know; don't know if he's been genetically tested). That isn't the point. It's still a genetic unfair advantage over those he competes with. Caster is competing in the category concordant with her sex in every social sense, and is regarded with suspicion for the same reason (with unpleasant overtones of "how can a mere woman be so fast?"). I think a lot of what you've said suggests that you haven't watched the video, as it ignores a lot of the points built up there such as the reason for the sex segregation in sports, as well as the way female athletes are expected to conform to specific beauty standards to be seen as legitimate. The latter of which is misogyny, and I think it's certainly a large part of what led to Caster being ordered to get a sex test. Though if you want to say "this is actually discrimination against intersex people" then yes, that too, I agree and it isn't acceptable. Another point covered in the video is about those who say they're "protecting women's sports" and you've fallen right into the stereotype of single-mindedly focusing on a topic with discriminatory intent rather than genuinely wanting to address the issues such as reduced pay for female athletes and lack of funding in schools. Solving those is protecting women's sports, kicking out people who perform too well in their natural state is not.
@@scoreunder Michael Phelps is well within the male range of excellence. He's around 0.4 seconds ahead. Lia Thomas is 14 seconds. You want to eliminate women's sports for mediocre males while telling us *you care so much about guys like Nassar.*
This was really interesting. I think my favourite sport, equestrian showjumping, is a really interesting case study into the gender and class aspects of sport. The majority of equestrians (at least in my country) are women and it’s been decades since women were allowed into the sport, but the vast majority of the highest ranked riders in the world are men. Not because of any biological differences - since the sport is far more about technique than pure physical ability - but because of social factors. Pursuing a career in showjumping is so time-consuming that it’s virtually impossible to combine with raising children. Many equestrians therefore end up having to choose between the two, unless they happen to be married someone with no career ambitions of their own, who’s happy to stay home with the kids while their partner is away competing. For complex reasons I trust we’re all familiar with, it’s usually the women who are expected and taught to prioritise having children. Furthermore, the dependency on sponsorship money (horses are terrifyingly expensive) means that the most visible, ie the highest ranked and most successful equestrians - and the minority who already happen to be filthy rich - are the ones who tend to get access to the best horses, making it even more difficult to make a comeback at the top level after taking time off to have kids. It would be the easiest thing in the world to take the statistics at face value and say that men are clearly better at showjumping than women, when the actual reasons are far more complicated than that.
Kinda useless for this conversation. Nobody is saying transwomen will dominate equestrians sports. Equestrian sports are hardly even a human sport, you're training an animal first and foremost. It's like dog fighting or horse racing
@@amazin7006 You have completely missed the point of my comment. I was expanding on Mia's argument that things like gender roles or class, which have nothing to do with sports on paper, can actually have a huge impact on who can become a successful athlete. Mia spent a good portion of the video talking about how this isn't limited to just trans people. As for your second point: I take it you've never actually ridden a horse, so why don't you go take a few riding lessons, maybe try to jump a fence or two, and then come back and tell me if you still think it's not a "human" sport. I dare you.
@@idab9958 What matters most for an athlete is their genetic aptitude, everything else is secondary. Mia constantly lies and downplays the role of puberty and testosterone when it comes to athleticism because it's convenient for her unscientific argument. "maybe try to jump a fence or two" You're not jumping over a fence, the horse is. All you did was train it.
@@amazin7006 This is totally relavant. They're bringing it up because it's an example of a sport that isn't divided into seperate divisions based on gender of the participants. Also, equestrian sports are sports. They have to train the horses AND they're preforming along with the horse. The horse doesn't do it alone. Riding horses is punishing on your body, if you disagree with that I'm quite sure you've never done it.
Except that Russian MMA fighting where they let anyone, including 400 lb women and grandpas fight. It's all equal opportunity there. Bring back the colosseum for everyone!
@@Dimllll773 Medals are for kids. It shouldn't be possible to make a living doing something as worthless att playing games. The only good thing about sports are that it makes the idiots stabs up and declare themselves so the rest of us know who they are.
You touch on this, but I think the issue with some of these rules is that policy that makes sense for super-duper elite athletes doesn't necessarily make sense for ordinary people. At the highest levels of sport, microscopic differences determine success, and getting even a tiny boost from an inborn characteristic can be decisive and lead to enormous monetary and reputational advantage, but at the "ordinary person" level (basically anything less competitive than high-level college sports) there's a much greater degree of variance, and vastly lesser rewards for success. To use a crude example, a 5'9" transwoman on a highschool basketball team (who might have been 5'4" had she been cis) will be substantially less disruptive to the competitive balance of said league, than a 7'0" transwoman on a WNBA roster (who might have been 6'8" had she been cis), and any potential competitive disruption in the former case will hurt the other athletes far far less in the former case than the latter. If a line must be drawn (and I think it must be), we should draw it where it hurts the fewest people possible. To my mind, this points to one set of rules for hyper elite athletics (maybe something like the IOC framework, and potentially with an additional category for trans people who don't want to meet those limits) and another for 99.999% of athletes who do it for fitness, enjoyment and personal growth (basically, compete as you identify). You're right that it's virtually impossible to draw a line that doesn't harm anybody (i.e. Semenya), so there needs to be a question as to where we draw a line to hurt as few people as possible.
The only thing that doesn't makes sense to me about this reasoning is that it doesn't happen to cis women who share the same characteristics (because of their genetic heritage, ethnicity, etc.). It's only about trans women, and still every particularly tall or broad-shouldered cis woman who has ever competed in Olympics has never been cast out because of this. I can dig your reasoning, sure, but the fact that it's only about trans women (as it seems to be for everyone else's) makes it fishy at least.
@@alkalinefeline2504 I get you. I think it might help to start from a basic set of precepts, here are mine: 1. Athletic greatness is created by some combination of physical characteristics, and hard work. 2. We care about athletic greatness because it reflects some aesthetic and valuable idea of human potential. 3. "Maleness" however defined, appears to confer a substantial, and statistically obvious physical advantage in most, or at least many, sporting events. This is independent of weight or height, or long arms or shoulders. You simply cannot put a professional 135 lb. female boxer against a professional 135 lb. male boxer, or a 5'10 male sprinter against a 5'10" female one. 4. Truly elite athletes (Olympians and the like) are vanishingly rare. Something like one in a million. 5. As a result of 1, 3, and 4 If men and women competed in the same sports against one another, women would have relatively very very few opportunities, but this violates the premise of 2, why we like sports, because it means that half of human beings begin at a substantial disadvantage that would prove decisive at the highest levels. That's not human greatness or potential, and limits our scope of athletic inspiration. 6. As a result of 5, we create women's sports, an intentional form of discrimination to protect a class of people. This requires a line based on what constitutes "maleness". 7. 6 means that women's sports requires isolating "maleness" and removing it from the competitive pool, but maleness isn't a pure binary, it's a gray area. Because of the need for 6, but the reality of 7, a line must exist, and that line will hurt some people. The people that exist within the grey area will be hurt, and those people will be trans, or people like Semenya that don't fit. It stinks. Could we devise some other system, like the "levels" one that Mia brings up? Maybe, but I feel like that explicitly places women's sports as the lesser, and I don't like that. Britney Griner is just as special as Shaq, FloJo is just as impressive as Bolt. I don't want FloJo to have the AA record and Bolt to have the AAA record.
@@alkalinefeline2504 Way way way TL,DR; I think women's sports is valuable, but requires drawing a line on maleness, and that line is going to be a painful one. I think we should think about how to make it less painful as much as we can, but I don't think there's a perfect solution.
I think another factor to consider is that many trans people in the past (70s to 90s) typically began transitioning as grown adults. Anywhere between early 20s to late 30s. So, they went through cis puberty. Whereas trans people from our generation (millenials and slightly after, so 00s up to 2010) started transitioning basically hormonally and surgically at age 18. Still completed cis puberty.... but they interceptes that 2nd wave of adult puberty that we hit in our mid-20s.b And most recently, trans teens start puberty blockers - meaning they hit "pause" on cis puberty. And when they're 18, they can still reevaluate decide to move forward as trans or cis. Basically what I'm getting at is your "if she had been cis" comparisons. Those comparisons only matter because trans folk have had *no choice* in the past but to *endure* cis puberty. Puberty blockers effectively undermines this factor. If a trans teen hits pause on cis puberty, then continues to transition at 18.... they essentially **never went through cis puberty.** So we don't have to wonder what their bodily framework would have been if "they had been cis." Therefore, as trans care becomes more accessible, this "trans people in sports" dilemna will continue to be come less and less relevant. Trans people from
@@jjava.bean5 Obviously we'd have to keep track of the actual data on that (whether cis puberty is the delineating factor), but on the face of it, that seems totally reasonable, and if it bears out that would be *amazing*. Even in your scenario, though, we would still need a line. If someone transitions in their 20's, are they out? Do we still use testosterone levels to say who had an advantage? I just don't see how you don't end up with a line.
So my major is Anthropological Sciences and in one of my classes on human evolution we're discussing how estrogen-induced primary puberty results in a pelvic orientation that reduces the biomechanical efficiency of bipedalism by, among other effects, reducing the efficiency of the hamstring muscle group. I wonder if that accounts for the difference in running performance among trans women; testosterone-induced primary puberty would have resulted in a more efficient pelvic orientation which is largely set in place by age 18 (although not completely so until age 25). Wish we had more research on this to look at!
it's never just one thing... there is a sense of arrogance that we humans have thinking we can just tweak a design that's been developing for god knows how many years and expect almost an immediate and drastic change of course that almost never meets the expectation, but hey you have to start somewhere at the end of the day....In overall I think the biggest dissonance is in women's MMA I think there is a strong case for this sport and testosterone is definitely one of the major elements and how it effects the body in the womb ect.
My major is Kinesiology (with a focus on physiology) and I am minoring in biology to supplement my major. Adding onto your points about bone structure, I’m studying how myonuclei (muscle fiber nuclei) are affected by training and how even with detraining (or changes in hormonal balances - shifting towards the topic of trans inclusion in sports) myonuclei can still remain which gives the advantage of improved muscle protein production/adaptations. Myonuclei can also be affected by puberty/hormonal balances with lasting effects being present potentially after hormonal changes. I firmly believe that the binary sports system (male/female) we have is outdated and needs to change. I also absolutely want trans inclusivity in sports. I believe that a less binary system could benefit all competitors (especially those underrepresented by the male-dominated sports media/industry - women/trans people). The stance I have accepted is that the debate surrounding trans inclusivity in sports shows how more areas of research need to be dedicated to sex-difference research (sex does not mean gender of course). Overall I think that more research needs to be done before either “side” (trans inclusive/exclusive) can make a responsible ruling on the topic. Also greater sex difference research is important for medical reasons as most research is male dominated still meaning that if women/trans people/intersex people seek medical attention or answers we are applying evidence that, while mostly generalizable (general non-gonadal anatomy is relatively similar), the nuance involving sex-based differences is lacking.
@@Kate-fc5ht Your major is in kinesiology and you don't think humans are a binary sex. What other sexes are there, Kate? You know full well why sports are segregated . You're just content letting males like Lia Thomas compete in women's sports.
Vividly remember the ruckus the transphobes made when Laurel Hubbard was nominated as the representative for New Zealand, and the radio silence when she ended up not even placing in the top three
It’s not transphobic to point out that she still took an Olympic spot off a biological woman that worked harder than Hubbard did. And if there is no advantage, is it just a coincidence that Hubbard had retired for 8 years, and was 43 years old at the time of entering. Calling people transphobia for disagreeing does not do you any favours; just completely diminishes the meaning of the term
@@1ellisd1 You could make the argument for anyone qualifying for the olympics because of course there are people left out. Strangely there is nowhere near as much fuzz against olympians like Elizabeth Swaney (look her up) than there is against trans olympians (and intersex olympians like Caster Semenya). Do you see how that might be transphobic ?
@@1ellisd1 athletes are not always in their position because they worked the hardest. Never in the history of the entire world has anyone gone to the Olympics because they worked the hardest. We establish in the video that there are many socioeconomic factors that play into professional athleticism. Tom Brady is 44, age has nothing to do with skill. Being retired does not mean no attention to physical health.
@@1ellisd1 this only holds if you think cis women are worth more a therefore uniquely more deserving. All olympians take a spot away from someone else 🤷... so yeah that is transphobic if you see no advantage and its just the transient property of being trans that makes someone lesser....
Genuine question, did you actually look into the US women's soccer suit? The claim that gender discrimination took place, in the way you describe, didn't happen. The Women's team was offered the same pay structure as the Men's team, yet they decided to take a different deal. A deal that guaranteed pay, rather than the Pay for Play deal the men took. Because the women wanted the benefits of an essentially salaried structure. And the men had something like a commissioned structure. The USWST lost out on the opportunity for maximum gain (per game). In which case the man would have made more IF they win the Cup in the men's league. Also, if a guy was on the bench the entire game, he wouldn't be paid. Vise versa every woman on that bench was guaranteed compensation and more.
What's the timestamp of that part of the video? I don't remember it Nvm, found it. 42:05. I think she likely doesn't know the full story of that particular case, but the screenshot was included for its relevant headline. If that headline is a misrepresentation of the story, that is unfortunate though it doesn't invalidate the point she's making (as long as other similar scenarios exist, which I am certain there are). Thanks for clarifying about that particular story. Misrepresentation and distortion is bad no matter who is doing it.
@@evanmagill9114 42:00, she didn't go very far in actually communicating the example she provided. Kinda felt like she was trying to use it as context rather than evidence.
@@millykendrill5301 Honestly, this can more easily be boiled down to the simple fact that the prize pool is different. Can we agree that if the women and men's teams (of the world specifically) generated the same amount of revenue, and had the same pay structure. That they would make the same amount? Nobody can argue that mens sports produce more money because overall viewership is higher for men's sports, versus it's female counterpart. And that difference in viewership can be explained a few ways. But in this example its mostly that given there are 16 men's teams in the world, and 12 women's teams. It would make sense that the prize pool is different because there is objectively more to watch. More teams more games. Also, the reason why there are more men's football teams than women's football teams in the world, is because men we're able to participate decades sooner. Rather than just thirty years ago for women. Take that as you will but it's just that.
@@millykendrill5301 Hey look, you wont be getting any fight from me regarding Christianity or its everlasting harm. I've been an atheist before I knew the word atheist. But I believe fairness comes down to what's expected. And I believe what's expected, when it come down to biological differences in physical competition. Is that the most exciting, athletic, or intense the sport or activity is. The more people will want to watch that sport or activity. I think that its fair that your average male basketball player gets paid more than your average female basketball player. I only think that's fair NOW because (I cant see anyone arguing against this genuinely), men's basketball is much more intense and exciting to watch. So it should be expected for male players to be paid more on average. The way to change that expectation, is by bringing the same level of excitement, and there for viewership. I gave basketball as an example of "fair" discrimination because currently, the WNBA and NBA both have their rims set at the height of ten feet. With that, and the difference in height. Male players average 6'5, Female players average ~6', I don't think equality is necessarily benefiting the female players here. Simply lowering the rim in the WNBA would allow higher activity and ironically raising the ceiling for competition. And this has been suggested many times before that it would raise viewership allowing for "equal" pay. I don't think denigrating or purposefully casting a shadow over man will bring more of the limelight to women. Reparation's shouldn't come through discrimination, rather it come through incentivization.
@@Baasudei I somewhat see what you're getting at. The only explanation I might have for the difference in structure and viable income is the lack of support for Women's soccer. Currently the USWST outperformed the men in basically every aspect. And yet they still earn millions less than the men for winning the league. Despite that, I find the women's lawsuit to be a rather firstworld problem given some countries don't even allow, or even have a women's soccer team. And for the Women's team to have the same opportunities, the rest of the world has to catch-up with America's albeit imperfect, but more than most inclusivity for women in sports. An analogy akin to this situation is like McDonald's to a new up-and-coming food chain. McDs being Mens football, and Women football being the other. We already know McDs is well established, it's in every state, city town, and country basically. But that new up and comer is still looking to widen it's reach. Allowing it to pay and offer greater opportunities for it's workers (in this analogy let's assume McDs actually payed it's workers well too). In the US, if the new chain becomes the most sought after fast food joint in the country. It still won't be as well established as McDonald's is. So for the new restaurant to ask for the same structure and pay even, when the world hasn't decided to invest interest the same as the US. It becomes unreasonable.
One thing I didn't see mentioned in the video is how bone structure plays a role in "art sports" like figure skating, taekwondo etc. Bone structure is definitely something someone who went through male puberty would retain some of. In figure skating, adult women find it borderline impossible to do a quad jump in a sport where doing quads is now necessary to be competitive. Only prepubescent girls and men can do it because the hip:shoulder ratio is very important for getting all four rotations in. I really am only interested in figure skating when it comes to sports with art elements, but art sports in particular are affected by the biological differences between cismen and ciswomen because some forms and movements will be more difficult for women and some will be more difficult for men (but generally women, because the sports are primarily controlled, developed and mandated by men). My theory is that a trans woman would be able to do quad jumps IF they transitioned somewhere significantly past their male puberty started in a sport where currently only female teenagers can compete competitively due to the sport being designed around men.
@@redtankgirl5 the taking in of oxygen doesnt really apply cause the amount of oxygen intake into the blood after transition, is the same as cis women. homolygy does change with hormones. trans women after 4 months of hrt will have the same homology, and that is what actually gets effected when it comes to oxygen intake. dopers will take drugs that help to increase their oxygen intake which raises the homology. the homolgy levels after hrt are no higher than cis women, so this argument has no weight to it
Unless they actually decide to raise the competition minimum age, I don't really see the issue considering those teenagers are already competing. Like trans women being better than the subset of women that aren't as good as others seem weird to care about vs. being better than all female athletes in a sport. Also, quads aren't only affected by bone structure, fat distribution plays a key role as well and accounts for most of the mass difference, considering trans women will gain a more female fat pattern as well I think the advantage would be much more mild than you are suggesting.
I'm surprised marksmanship and archery aren't mentioned when comparing womens and men's sports. In the olympics, the women's division is actually almost at exactly the same level as the men's, and maybe even a little better.
@@sparingharbor2600 It's kinda pointless to argue with these people because they clearly want to ignore everything that doesn't fit their ideology and/or haven't played and watched sports in their lifes. There's a reason biological males are better at most sports and saying there isn't and letting men compete with women is a very efficient way to take away womens rights, it's disgusting.
Women have all the advantage in dog sledding, horse jumping, dressage, and eventing. They compete against men in sports where having LESS weight is a tremendous advantage. Nobody complains or makes excuses when women win. It should be the same when girls/women compete against trans athletes.
One reason I can see for separating by "women" and "men" in sports, is to prevent the sport from falling into becoming dominated by one group or the other. If you're a girl, and see more male than female athletes doing a certain sport, chances are lower that you'll become interested in pursuing that sport yourself, than if you were a boy (statistically speaking, of course), and vice versa. And if the distribution of people doing a certain sport begins to shift in one direction, the distribution among prominent athletes will, ignoring other factors, tend to shift accordingly, which amplifies the issue further, i.e. we have a positive feedback loop. And obviously, there's nothing inherent about gender about this problem, but as it stands, who we look up to, who we identify with and want to emulate, tends to be very strongly influenced by gender. But of course, by that logic it would also make sense to separate by other characteristics that strongly inform a persons identity, which might not actually be such a bad idea, if done right (which of course is a big if, given the history of the women's division of sports being treated as a side show). In that regard, it's not really much of a question where trans people should be allowed to compete. It's not like a child forming their interests has much of an eye for chromosomes and whatever else transphobes tend to get hung up about. And even in terms of presentation, it's not like athletes are generally super normative in their appearance anyway.
we use to separate black people from white people in US American sports history. The transition to allowing more talented black people was slow but today, see, it's all even
@@ama-gii wasn't that because of racism? So they had 2 different sections not because of biology reasons but because of discrimination. In the transgender case people don't want to discriminate them, but keep it as fair as possible for the women. So if black people would have an overall advantage in sport it would have made sense to have a black and white section. So you cannot compare black&white with transgender.
“By the logic it would also make sense to separate by other characteristics that strongly inform a persons identity”. And that’s where your mistaken. The division in sport is not contingent on identity, it’s contingent on the material biological reality of sex differences which majorly determine the capacity for athletic performance.
The class argument is pretty lame. Yes, many people are prevented from joining because they cannot affoard the time to aggressively practice, but that’s an accessibility problem, not a performance one. If an impoverished person trained as much as a rich person, they would be performing at an equal level on average. The same cannot he said about sex. You can give the hormone level argument, which is valid, but that makes the class element entirely moot
There are a lot of decent footballers who originate in Africa and were risen in poverty, it is actually a career path for many. In reality, vast majority football players come with a poverty background, but of course the "severity" of poverty varies from country to country, but there are just so few football starts who were raised in an upper class family
Mia absolutely nails this nuanced and complex subject. I say this as someone with a keen interest in sports physiology, watches womens cycling & football and could probably write 16 pages (front & back) about the other more pressing issues before you get to Trans Women.
its not complex at all, lia does have biological adavntages bcs she went through puberty as man with a male body, trained as a man with a male body in athletics, and only recently decided to identify as a woman but still has that male body and many of the advantages.
@@V1sual3y3z I've not come across one and sadly your target audience might not care either, a TL:DR might look like general biology (essentially top sports people are born not trained) and current hormone levels are more important then pubity (in some cases, but not others), so it returns to it depends, some traints cis female usually have are better for some sports, same for cis males, but then you have other cirteria like number of people doing a sport, as in the more people do a sport, for more years the better that group become - too many variables to say it's just one thing, sports fitness, training, coaching is billion doller industry for a reason ! Also never underestimate the defelection, "I/My Team/ My Fav athlete" lost because everyone else cheated
I had a discussion on this topic with a friend about a year back and after a lot of back and forth, we thought a good solution to allow trans or gender-non-conforming people to compete in sports would be to organize it on something other than the arbitrary basis of gender. We thought a system that groups competitors based on height and weight or something might work better. It might even level the playing field for what types of bodies tend to get excluded from sports. Plus I've been in some sports in high school where a number of disordered eating habits were being normalized among the higher performing athletes. I would imagine this would only intensify for people who make their living on their athleticism. So there might be an added benefit to shifting the system with which we organize sports because instead of encouraging athletes to obsess about becoming the "biggest" or the "leanest", it would instead shift the focus onto less dangerous pursuits like finding a better technique. edit: obviously not a perfect solution. I mean it's a tricky problem. I just thought that if we're going to organize sports for the sake of a somewhat "fair" playing field, it might as well be on objective physical size instead of the nebulous concepts of gender and sex that are actually way more complicated than a binary, even on the scientific side of things.
While I’m not gonna argue with this suggestion, I think it would probably be far better than the gender segregated system currently at play, I don’t think it’s an ideal suggestion and will create a lot of additional toxic aspects to sports, such as athletes monitoring their bodies far more intensely to get categorized into a class most beneficial to them or intentionally losing or gaining weight in the span of a short period of time for the same purpose. Maybe not, maybe things will get better or stay the same but it’s something to take into consideration before implementing a system like this.
The best part is it already exists! There are weight groups in Boxing and other martial arts. The leg length can be used for athletics, the height in basketball and volleyball. And in most cases, it's probably very difficult to switch the category.
Yes! This is exactly where I came to too Bcos atm even a lot of athletes have unfair advantages due to their biological divergence Lile michael phelps' feet and pretty much any other athlete that broke records (yes there are exceptions but its the exception to the "rule") It would make way more sense to group sports but some other metric than gender (alone?)
This should tell you how advantaged men are in sports All “male” sports are already all gender inclusive. There are zero restrictions on gender for “male” sports. They aren’t male sports, they are simply “the best in the category.” That happens to be men near 100 percent of the time, giving the illusion of a gender restriction
I think it should depend on the sport. It is clear that there is an advantage, there's a reason you don't hear this same hype over trans men in men's sports... its because they don't win, because they have the disadvantage. Personally I have no horse in this race, but I do think a persons rights should not come at the cost of another's.
HRT reduces Performance by 10-15%, pretty much equal to a cis Woman in contrast to a Man. If there are allowed in the Sport and dont dominate, thats it. No further Question needed.
@@Sunaki1000 I’m not convinced that’s true as such a broad statement! And if it were why is the opposite not true? Also if that were true then puberty blockers wouldn’t be a thing, there are certain things you can’t undo. Also 10-15% of what bone density, muscle mass, what?
@@paddy1144 Performance, it reduces your Times by that. Well Pupertyblockers are for more then just Musclemass. The Bones are affected by HRT, but also just so much, and it may varry from person to Person. Bodyhair, Facestructure... Look up some before after, its basicly Shapeshifting. The Data are all here you just have to look them up. I give you a good Example how Pwople sould treat Trans Athlets. In the Pokemon Videogame Competetive Play, every new Pokemon gets added into the Over Used Tier and gets banned, or drops into lower Tiers depending on Usage. If 10 Trans Athlets and 90 Cis Athlets Perform and the top 10 is 7 Trans, and three Cis, then bann the Trans and make a new Tier just for them. Super simple, exclusively based on Data alone, not Speculation, or Potencial. And Athlets are not performing exclusively in important Tornaments, if the Trans overperform in Training alone, thats allready enough Time to avoid unfair Placements.
@@Sunaki1000 what? You didn’t give me an example, you just state some broad sweeping statement. Performance times.. seriously this is ludicrous. Your telling me a male runner will get slower because of taking oestrogen and will end up on a level playing field? They should already be in their own category.
But don't male bodies have bigger lungs, muscles and hearts? And isn't that a pretty huge advantage in majority of sports? Skulle uppskatta ett svar bc seems pretty relevant och har nästan bara sätt argument som pratar om kromosomer och testosteron
"After reviewing dozens of studies, the researchers concluded the use of estrogen by transgender women may be associated with an increased risk of heart attack and ischemic stroke. On the other hand, the use of testosterone by transgender men did not seem to increase cardiovascular risk." Estrogen replacement can effect your muscles and structure of your body as testosterone does, but trans woman pose greater risk of heart issues, plus not all cis men have decent amounts of testosterone where they may have smaller muscles or less dense bones, cis men don't always have bigger lungs, bigger muscles, or bigger hearts, not all cis men have average bone density or muscle percentage or metabolism etc etc, cis bodies can have advantages but also have disadvantages, having larger lungs aren't always a net positive, just as denser bones or larger muscles aren't always good either, this is why trans woman should be included, because trans woman are far and few between and just as not perfect as everyone else, people will have better advantages than others, but trans woman will not be effecting this people are arguing it is, trans people aren't magically perfectly bodied or have tip top shape organs etc, just as every other cis person, infact it's be more likely a cis woman is healthier with more means of keeping healthy organs just because there is more cis woman than trans woman and with a smaller number of trans woman especially with already medical treatment your more likely to compete against a trans woman with a medical disadvantage than a trans woman with a large advantage, especially cause not all trans woman play sports, and typically people with already pre existing medical conditions such as treating with estrogen can impose disadvantages against trans woman, if cis men wanted to win more medals cis men would not pretend to be trans woman to win, they would rig their own games or push harder etc, cis men wouldn't fake being trans of their entire life just to win a sport, trans woman belong in sports and it's as simple as that
@@xkozyTV Wow, you referenced one study. Unfortunately for you, estrogen doesn't erase male puberty and Hubbard threw his Olympic run. He had no problem depriving two Samoan women out of their own medals. Male privilege is OK provided said male IDs as a woman.
@@xkozyTV “not all cis men have bigger lungs, denser bones, etc” yeah and not all cis men have two legs either, however we aren’t talking about what if’s, on average men are more suited for athletics, and a woman who transitioned post puberty is going to have a pretty significant advantage, transitory therapy does not decrease bone density, lung size, amount of muscles fibers, amount of red blood cells,etc. why not set up leagues where women and consent to compete against post transition women?
29:00 as a former Swimmer I can say that this is just not true. Michael Phelps had an ideal body for swimming, but there's tons with a similar body. There's nothing special about his body that gave him an advantage. He competed against numerous swimmer with an equal if not better body. It unfortunately shows, that you have limited knowledge of this topic.
I'm a 68 year old woman, progressive thinker and all that entails including that no one should be abused or taken advantage of. But I don't think trans women athletes should be allowed to participate in women's sports. Nothing to do with 'numbers' but because 'men's' muscles and body type is different than women's giving each different capabilities, strengths and weaknesses.
Fantastic video! The sports issue hits me oddly because if I had continued competing in gymnastics (I had to quit because epilepsy, yay), I would have ended up being completely excluded from the sport I trained in. I'm AFAB, but I started training in gymnastics when I was four years old and in the girls' events. Floor, beam, vault, unparallel bars. It's a constant source of depression that even if I wasn't epileptic and forced to quit because it was too dangerous, I would have been kicked out of the events I trained in if I had come out as a trans man at the time. Gymnastics is so gendered that it isn't even the same sport; all of the events are different except floor (and even that has very different presentation). It doesn't matter if any woman, even a cis woman, is amazing at pommel horse; she's not allowed to compete in that event.
As a kid I was pretty upset that I couldn’t do the pommel horse, rings, etc. I had very strong arms and hated the balance beam, so I was jealous of the boys. The thing that made me quit was the leotards that you had to wear to be on the high school team - way too revealing for my comfort and would have required a lot of hair removal in certain areas. I really wish it weren’t so gendered from a young age :(
@@soul5049 Beam was my favorite event, but I liked practicing on the pommel horse. The coaches didn't mind me using it while waiting for my mom or my uncle to pick me up. But I couldn't compete on it, which sucked. The leotards didn't bother me personally, but I completely understand why they would. Tons of trans masc people and cis women alike are uncomfortable competing in them. My thing was how cheerleader-ish the women's floor routines are. No other event is treated that way. Either do it for everyone, or don't at all.
@@soul5049 OMG this is so recognisable. I was in a gymnastics group (nothing high level, it was just for me staying agile and flexible, though I was good at it) that at one point either had a low new member count or there was something with a lot of children being ill or something, I don't really know. The trainers decided to mix the group up so the boys would do the girls exercises and the exercises the boys normally did and vice versa. Interestingly, the boys were all quickly put off by this, while the girls were hyped. I was the only one who in her head felt like "YEEEEES!!! FINALLY, FINALLY I CAN BE ON THE BALANCE BEAM!" Having returned to recreational gymnastics in 2018, unfortunately, that little voice in my head of "You don't belong on that thing" is still there and I really had to bring myself over to even walk towards one, even with encouragement from some of the women in the recreational group. One day, due to my presence there was a little debate about "boys exercises" and "girls exercises" and the girls decided to try some of the boys and vice-versa. Even more interesting, most girls were capable of pulling off some of the boy exercises much better than the boys were able to do the same with the girls exercises.
Also the worst argument here is everyone is talking about averages....that's not the problem! Sports records relies on the extremes. It's extremely unfair that an average man can transition to a woman and now be break records and compete and usually beat all the cis women who are considered extremely well amongst the average woman. That's the problem, it's unfair for cis women, and when trans are told it's not fair to cis women they just say it's unfair to them to be not allowed. That's why there needs to be an open class so everyone is included, while still having the traditional sports classes too, because that is what appeals to the average person.
Things started going downhill after caitlin Jenner got the woman of the year award!!!! What a slap in the face to all women that was! Just recently caitlin admitted he wasn't a woman but she accepted the award!
Oh yea, women everywhere were hugely insulted by that decision. The Glamour magazine Woman of the Year award is highly respected, and looked to by most women as the pinnacle of achievement in womanhood. Women have never really recovered after this.
I watch ninja warrior (German edition) with my family and up until two seasons ago there were basically no women. Not because women were forbidden, but because as Mia said: the place wasn't welcoming. Then they changed the rules in a way that up until the final round, there would always be at least two women who qualified for the next round. After that change we saw amazing women athletes and last season we had the first woman who qualified for the finals on her own. The whole sport became more welcoming for women. And I think that's what we should be our goal. Even if the solutions will look quite different for different contexts (sports, professionalism, country, ...).
That's actually the only solution that I've seen that focuses on the main problem: the vicious circle of role models being scarce in the public eye. "Stuffing women's athletes into their own corner" (because that removes any physical disadvantage) doesn't actually help them compete for what's ACTUALLY most important in professional competitions: audience attention. Sadly it doesn't naturally apply to team sports. You could require each team to have a women athletes quota; or you could keep all-men and all-women teams and have a quota for how many of each are guaranteed a place in the finals or whatever. But everything gets messy if only some teams are mixed-gender. (And there will still be sports like weightlifting or boxing where weight categories or league levels are necessary.)
i wanna preface this by saying i oppose the current attempts to oppress trans people vehemently. and not to rely on anecdotal evidence but if you grew up afab you know there’s a point in growing up where it might be from just play wrestling with a guy or something of that nature and u realize males are just much stronger on average. even small short guys you think you could over power. it makes no sense for sports to be gender segregated but they should be sex segregated. ik there’s starts and things that make it complicated but just to say “well it wasn’t fair anyways” is so messed up. not that she says that but i’ve been hearing people say that. if trans women can participate in any sport like some people advocate for then your basically saying there’s no space for females in sports at all. and that’s so wrong.
Great video. The Michael Phelps section hits at a point in the argument that I'd love to see more people really think about and expand on. It boils down to this: you will never, ever see anyone try to restrict a male athletes "natural advantage" . In fact, those men are the ones who get paid the most, invested in the most, and essentially are extremely sought after by recruiters, coaches, etc. My sport of choice is baseball, and when you look at who actually gets signed to the Major Leagues nowadays, it is almost all very tall men which naturally athletic builds and who have what we call the "raw player" potential- essentially a guy who looks like he can hit bombs, because home runs are more exciting than purely contact hitters. It's even an open secret that some men, despite their outstanding performance, don't get picked up due to being a "bad body" - essentially, too ugly for the camera. Is it discrimination that a short man, especially 5'5" and below, has basically 0 chance at ever moving up in the leagues? Or a guy with a particularly large potbelly? Even if these men have their own talents that they could bring to the team? What about basketball, the most notorious sport for which players are always being looked at as their height first? You would NEVER see a sports pundit or league arguing that we need to cap maximum basketball player height to make sure it's fair for men under 6'10" or something. You will never see someone arguing that male swimmers can't compete if they have arms past a certain length. To me the whole argument, as you pointed out, is obviously concern trolling for the integrity of women's sports, something that is easy to see for various reasons. And related to that, it comes off as people trying to protect the IDEA of Women's Sports: aka sports where everyone playing is actually weak and inferior, basically a pity genre of athletics. Anyone who threatens that idea by being very good, coming close to or beating men's records, etc. is seen as a threat not to WOMEN, but to the idea of needing to segregate athletes by sex in the first place. Bringing it back to baseball, look at what happened Jackie Mitchell, the woman who famously struck out Babe Ruth. Because of her, the commissioner of baseball at the time banned women from competing entirely. If you go down the Wikipedia rabbithole like I did, you'll find that there were other women like her as well with similar stories. Baseball didn't open itself back up to women until 60 years later in 1993. As you said, life has never been fair, and sports is almost a celebration of that unfairness. Sure there could be trans women with advantages from male puberty; there are also cis women with their own genetic advantages, because surprise surprise, people are actually very diverse. Despite what people will tell you, there is currently no science that points to any 1 single advantage that ALL trans women would have over ALL cis women, that a cis woman could never have. Height, red blood cell count, lung capacity, muscle density, etc., literally none of those things can be traced to some single "male" or "female" essence that would be consistent over the entirety of the world's population.
‘Freak’ is literally used to compliment male athletes. People literally say “that guy does stuff no one else could,” as praise. Fairness isn’t the point. Sport is always going to be dominated by the outliers. And yeah, the problem with trans women fundamentally boils down to them not being seen as women. Otherwise, them happening to be trans would be a valid backstory for them to have an advantage. You would see an article about “top 5 women athletes with crazy natural advantages” and it would be “cis woman where no one in her family has been under 6’3” in 200 years, cis woman with unusually high testosterone, cis woman with hyper flexibility, trans woman with some ‘male-like’ left over traits, cis woman who had two parents be top athletes in the same sport she chose.” Trans women are women, their different developmental path and personal history is a part of who they are
Also, a lot of the "problems" with trans athletes could go away within a generation or two if trans kids were allowed to take hormone blockers. No male puberty means there's not even a chance for those "problems" to arise
This is a year late but never mind. "you will never, ever see anyone try to restrict a male athletes "natural advantage"" is not correct there are weight categories in many sports. If you don't want a female category that's fine but if you do then you need to define male advantage and basically that's testicles and going through male puberty. This is something that cis women don't have and so it is a universal advantage. That's not to say that all men will be better at sport than all women. There are other factors but the best men are better than the best cis women in most sports because, as I said, they have testicles and went through male puberty.
@@simmorg290 there is so much wrong with your comment but i'm just gonna say: testicles don't give you any kind of advantage in anything other than uh... having testicles. you sound silly
@Sim Morg Using testicles as the reason that cis men are better in sports when they're the weakest/most sensitive appendage that there is and there are literally _protection cups_ for is kind of funny tbh. Cis women have testosterone too, (and some women have a Y chromosome - imagine that!) but it's not like it's being made by a ballsack.
This is the first time I've heard the argument that women's sports have been limited very much because the science, information, and environment they grow up in is woefully undervalued compared to men's. It's such an elegantly simple answer. Thank you
That is certainly part of our but not all of it. Men have higher variance, higher agression, larger size, and higher competitive desires on average than women. Sport is more closely tied to men for a reason. Because historically men compete against other men physically as part of the male dominance hierarchy. Because men were the ones actually outside using their physical skills to protect and provide. This doesn't mean that we should not watch women's sports. But if you look at the women competing in sports, they are usually quite masculinized. This is because typical women are high in the traits of agreeableness, and being people oriented. So women tend to cooperate even in their intense hierarchy where they compete for male attention. In short, there is a big reason why male sports have supremacy over female sports. Women have supremacy over other facets of life. That's why there are so many female doctors, novelists, and singers.
@@Bradley_Lute This felt... Ill-natured and slightly sexist. It is the patriarchal ways our society functions that kept it as men = sports, women = less physically active activities (if you ask me, being a housewife and sole parent is far from not being physically active). Also, it was literally prohibited and medically advised at times for women not to be active, because it would "strain the uterus" (from the top of my head) and it was especially not allowed when they were on their periods (Oh, no! Blood!). A few of your points were very biased to your opinion, such as "But if you look at the women competing in sports, they are usually quite masculinized." That point was annoyingly so close to being a full interpretation and application of previously mentioned points about men, that perhaps they aren't "masculinised," they're just muscly because they're athletes, and physical activity builds muscle. Muscle is not a gendered thing. Everyone has muscle, even if they've atrophied. Noting the changes in tense, you started off as past continuous tense when talking about the men, but referred to the very traditional, sexist ideas that "...typical women are high in the traits of agreeableness, and being people oriented." in present continuous tense. Maybe I'm reaching, but I thought that well represented this comment of yours in that you're excluding what's not seen as justifiable comments and generalisations about men in the past, but didn't have that same train of thought and care when using outdated thoughts and words to describe the present and future women in their behaviours. To "compete for male attention" has not been referred to as such for decades, and only ever in a derogatory and infantilising manner if referenced to today.
@@user-dg3ug7ny5d you are free to characterize my words as sexist. I don't think so. True, women were barred from sports for a long time. But at the same timen it wasn't until the sports bra was invented that women could truly play sports. Yes, women in sports are often masculinized, even apart from the obvious muscle they would build. There are a lot of lesbians in sports. A lot of masc lesbians. I get that there is this whole history of women being excluded, but there are obvious reasons why that is the case. Women were designed by the environment long before humans to be more domestic and men were designed to be hunters. This is why men are 1.2 times the height. Muscle mass. Bone density. And yes behavior influences it a lot. Because we have to be adaptable to a changing environment. I think you were reading too far into my use of tenses. That was merely my train of thought talking about why men evolved to compete. Sports is an extension of men's ability to work together in groups to hunt for prey and to war. Of course it's going to be a male dominant thing. Meanwhile, we are culturally obsessed with women's dance and figure skating. Sure these are tropey as heck and men and women are the most egalitarian we've been arguably ever. But there is still some beauty in the symbolism of the gender roles. Women havent stopped being the sex that gets pregnant, the sex that carefully makes a small amount of high quality eggs. And men haven't stopped being the physically larger, more aggressive sex that makes an abundance of cheap sperm. Our gametes have a huge amount to do with our behavior and decisions and we evolved in response to each other to compliment each other perfectly. Like the Japanese Yin and Yang. I'm saying this all as a guy that is quite egalitarian. Anyone should be free to live their truth as long as they aren't hurting others. But we are all different and we will undoubtedly offend.
@@Bradley_Lute I'm just going to say, that outlook is extremely Anglo-centric. In my country, the Indigenous Peoples function in a completely different hierarchy and have done so continuously for 40,000+ years. What you provided isn't valid evidence when it culturally only refers to Anglo-centric communities, as it seeks to generalise the whole human race and dominant two sexes. What are "True women," though? If you identify as a woman, you're a woman.
@@Bradley_Lute I have so many questions... What the heck is 'true women' supposed to mean? Since when is there such a thing as a 'fake' woman? Since when does lesbian = masculine? What is the beauty in the 'symbolism of the gender roles', where by 'gender roles' you refer to Anglo-centric ones, as previously mentioned? Since when are women 'competing for male attention'? Like... women don't exist solely to be chosen by men.
I’m glad the video brought up the androgen sensitivity factor. As a cis man, I can admit that women’s sports isn’t an issue that’s constantly on my mind, I just don’t like when people call something fair when it’s not fair. The best argument to be made is that transwomen in women’s sport isn’t fair and that sports don’t have to be fair. If women as a whole agree on that then it’s not my place to be outraged on their behalf.
It is extremely obvious you have never played in professional sports by how flippant you are about certain aspects. It's even more obvious, although you are trying to be just in your opinion, you're biased. We simply do not have enough clinical data to show any solid conclusions. But for me, there are a few things you said that are getting my goat. Women have not been doing the "sport" long enough to level out with men? Please, which sport are you talking about? This is a very odd point. Did you factor in the steroids that athletes use? And, most studies through decades of data show that it's only in long distance running where biology tends to not matter. But, you took one study that says men only do better in running? I believe that transwomen are women. I also know that transwomen have a biological step up over cis women. Here's something to think about, transwomen are crushing records; why have no transmen competing with men crushed not one? This needs further research and compassion but definitely more research not at the expense of others. Most importantly, you have misunderstood what fairness in sports means. It is about fairness in equity not equality. That is why heavyweight boxers do not compete with lightweights.
As a South African, the Caster Semenya thing made me so mad. If we're so dedicated to "fairness", why aren't we testing Michael Phelps for seal/dolphin genes and upping his lactic acid production?
Can you not see the difference between your what you are arguing?? Caster is intersex. There is an obvious difference in physicality between intersex and non-intersex people. As a group they would lie between males and females in the distribution of physical traits. Michael Phelps on the other hand is a biological male competing with biological males. His physical advantage is purely the result of superior genetics to all other males. In fact, we see clustering of certain physical and mental traits in all sports. And notice we don't tend to see trans men compete with cis men. Because they are at an obvious physical disadvantage. No amount of word salad will make it so trans and intersex women as a group will be on par with cis women.
@@Bradley_Lute both Phelps and caster have "superior genetics". You are just arbitrarily deciding which genetic traits are acceptable and which are not
@@x23-w1oCaster is neither male or female. Phelps is a male. These are literally the only traits we are controlling for in sport. And the only reason we are doing that for is the obvious advantages certain groups have over others. Trans and intersex people of both genders lie intermediate to the physically intermediate between the two sexes. If you are a trans woman who is physically superior to all cis women, then you have to assume it's because you are trans. Because you were born male.
I love how you both addressed the popular talking points and reframed the subject to explore other perspectives and solutions. Also your voice is very calming, which helps me pay better attention.
When I was in high school I could beat most of the boys, mostly because I matured quite early. They eventually caught up of course but I was still able to hold my own. Of course, this was only when they let me play at lunch because I wasn't allowed to actually compete with or against them. Even then, I still vividly remember being commenting as to whether I was or should have been born a boy. When I did occasionally play with other girls they would complain I was too strong or rough when I was just playing the game. I was thicker than nearly all the other girls and was visibly muscular, but I was very much born and still am female. My entire childhood consisted of people holding me back to the point where when I actually got given an opportunity to play for real, I turned it down because I thought more people would dislike me. Basically, there was enough crying about my cis body already, and most transwomen probably have lower test etc than I do I detest, to this day, the concept that women are 'weaker' in every shape and form because of this. Yes of course I know it's true, and it pains me no end to know I'll never be able to lift as much as I'd like, but quite a lot of it comes down to women either being held back or not being allowed to compete on an even field. There's still pressure for women to be thin, even when there sports require brute strength. You only need to look at the incredible feats of Simone Biles or Serena Williams to see how incredible women can be if their bodies are allowed to just be. Our training programs are adapted from men's, our professional athletes are poorly paid if at all. A lot of girls are still discouraged from sport entirely or taught to be more conservative, take less risks. The whole scenario leads me to believe that the gap between men and women isn't as large as people think. Transwomen should definitely be allowed to compete and personally, even if there is a slight advantage, that would make me want to do better as an athlete, not pout in the corner and complain.
Serena Williams could never hope to compete in men's professional tennis. And the question of how much of these differences are biological (hormonal, developmental) versus "women either being held back or not being allowed to compete on an even field" is a totally open question. There is a lot of transphobia on one side to be sure, but also wishful-thinking and hand waving on the other. But it's quite clear that there are developmental advantages that persist even after hormone replacement therapy (organ size, bone structure, muscle development, etc). Just how substantial are these differences, is there a fair way to account for them (there already is a ton of 'unfair' genetic variance that already exists among individuals without considering this topic). I dunno, maybe. It seems to me that if trans-women are highly overrepresented in high-level sports, there's clearly something unfair happening. But any solution that would remedy that would likely exclude them too. So it's tough.
Well you make a very good point. While we can say that in average men are stronger than women, the fact is any world champion women in any given sport is indeed stronger than overall average men. Even in sprint running where men have undeniable anatomic advantage, the world record for a women is 10"49, how many men in the world can do better than that ? maybe 200 among 4billion men. What that tell is reasoning on averages when it comes to sport performance is a non sens. High levels athlètes are living proof that there is exceptions. We should let exceptional people a place to thrive and find a place in our society and we should all be sorry that it hasn't been the case for you at school. Plus if any kid like to play a particular sport, just let him/her play no matter the genre/performance considerations.
Your case is different. You want to compete with men as a genetic woman. While all the issues I hear about are genetically born men wanting to complete in women's fields and easily breaking women's records. There isn't a rush of trans men wanting to compete in men's sports. I wonder why? Also if you really want to compete in a man's sport now can't you just go try out? If you have the potential to be as good as you say you are while competing against men then I'm sure a coach would love to have you. The goal is to win games.
@@AB-py6jl there are many trans men who want to compete in mens sports, they just dont get as much attention for many reasons (trans men in general are often ignored, and they arent typically breaking records and stuff)
There is also the argument that girl's youth sports is lacking good trainers. In contact heavy sports, there is a much higher statistic of injuries in womens' sports than in mens', because they don't grow up learning how to handle falls and tackles etc. properly. But even if trans women who might have grown up in boy's sport teams might have an advantage there, this is actually an argument to invest more in girls' youth sports, and promote women's sports as much as men's sports on TV and make the earnings of all people involved in womens' sports the same as mens'. Sadly, i have never seen radfems in this argument arguing for women instead of against women.
'Make the earnings of all people involved in women's sports the same as men's I don't know how people keep using this same stupid point every single time. It's actually Incredible.
hey, so I fully agree on much of this, however Males do have significantly higher levels of testosterone, as well as being more sensitive to it, but this simply contributes to that 38% difference between men and women weightlifters. I would like to say that the reason Trans Men in those data charts performed better than Cis men because the body reacts differently to exogenous testosterone than it does endogenous testosterone, and testosterone differences are one of the big reasons for differences in muscle growth and size between men and women. I also know that transitioning male to female doesn't strip that much muscle off the body if done while maintaining a consistent and healthy exercise routine, so that could also be part of the apparent advantage trans women have over Cis women in certain sports, but like to said that doesn't make much of a difference in most sports, not to mention the sociocultural inequalities between the sexes in sports.
also testosterone readings may be a complete misnomer for the actual level of testosterone available for the body to use just because people have varying levels of sex hormone binding globulin.
"I also know that transitioning male to female doesn't strip that much muscle off the body if done while maintaining a consistent and healthy exercise routine" That's not true. Those data charts are from soldiers who HAVE to keep a healthy exercise routine, and there's no difference between trans and cis women in the strength exercises.
@@62koalalover please take a statistics class lol. Believe whatever you’re going to but the testosterone cut off limit currently established and enforced by WADA is 10nmol/l, which is roughly 280 NG/DL, (the standard unit for measuring blood levels) now the reference range for healthy males is between 200 and 1000, it varies depending on where you are, and the reference range for healthy females is 10-50, again varying depending on location. Do you really think it’s 100% fair that one select segment of the population competing gets to compete with up to 7 times the testosterone of the Cis women they’re competing against? Testosterone is a PED, that’s why it’s banned. I’m not against trans people competing whatsoever, Im all for it, the current guidelines are just not based on up to date science. There are cos women with naturally higher test levels than the limit, and as we’ve seen they’re also being banned from competition, which is fucked up. I don’t have a solution to this problem, but if one is going to come and work across the board it will have to be based on the data.
@@Bolts_Films Trans women on hrt have the same levels of testosterone as cis women, and they perform the same in stength based exercises in the data you mentioned. Also if there are cis women being excluded by the testosterone requirements then why do you think that level is unreasonably high for trans women?
Thank you so much for this actually. I've always felt ill-equipped to handle any dialogue around this topic, and I've been waiting for an informed trans creator to speak about it, and you've offered just the nuanced perspective I'd expect of you. I'm definitely sharing this one around!
Well how about this. Allowing transgender women in women's sports today would still exclude many trans women that don't do hormone therapy so inevitably this will lead to more out cry about not being inclusive enough. So once transgendered women that meet certain hormone levels can participate the next step would have to be allowing all transgender women to participate, because progressivism. The only real solution would be start transwomen competitions.
@@cantarguewithstupid policy that makes sense for super-duper elite athletes doesn't necessarily make sense for ordinary people. At the highest levels of sport, microscopic differences determine success, and getting even a tiny boost from an inborn characteristic can be decisive and lead to enormous monetary and reputational advantage, but at the "ordinary person" level (basically anything less competitive than high-level college sports) there's a much greater degree of variance, and vastly lesser rewards for success. To use a crude example, a 5'9" transwoman on a highschool basketball team (who might have been 5'4" had she been cis) will be substantially less disruptive to the competitive balance of said league, than a 7'0" transwoman on a WNBA roster (who might have been 6'8" had she been cis), and any potential competitive disruption in the former case will hurt the other athletes far far less in the former case than the latter
@@John-nt3dk I wouldn't agree with that. High school athletics has been separated in to men's and women's for a reason, otherwise if it doesn't matter then don't separate. These students are competing for scholarships or other reasons. This is all the more reason to not allow trans people to compete in biologically differentiated sports. There is a reason that transwomen are required to meet certain criteria to compete because it is not a gender differentiation it is a sex differentiation. Also , along the lines that you have said any genetic advantage helps a person compete only argues against transwomen compete in women's sports because they are more likely to have distinct natural biological advantages that women don't have. Therefore a different league for trans individuals needs to be made.
@Jiwon Chang I fell like you and slippery slope maya don't understand what you are saying. It is not a slippery slope argument because there is evidence to support this direction as a highly probably event. Just because you are using logic and deduction does not make likely future events invalid. Now your strawman claim. What I stated is not an over exaggeration of future events based on what we have seen happen and what is happening. The example is based on many facts that we have already seen happen. Transwomen are now competing against women from high school to the olympics. Also transwomen are able to compete at some levels without needing any testosterone levels checked or hormones injected or what ever. There is a big movement saying that transwomen are the exact same as women. So with that here is a push to say that women have penises and testicles. Well if women can also have penises and testicles then why the hell are they being "discriminated" agains because of testosterone levels in the first place???? using facts to draw conclusions is not a logical fallacy in and of itself.
I find this very interesting because I know that Olympic target shooting is gender segregated for some reason. Also, target shooting competition does have similar skill classes to that discribed at 46:33.
A question I have though is if this is to do with being transphobic and not to do with fairness why does no one seem to care about female to males being able to compete in male sports? If this was mainly about transphobes then surely the opposite would be equally as argued but I rarely ever see people arguing that women that transition to men shouldn't be able to compete in mens sports. Personally I have the opinion that more research needs to be done as I think in some sports non cis females would have an advantage over cis females and other sports their wouldn't be an advantage. I think it needs to be taken on a sport by sport basis. At the moment we don't have a large data pool to actually know what advantage they might or might not get in each sports. Reason being as Trans has only really been more widely accepted in modern times. Thus we don't have a huge pool of trans atheletes and especially high end top atheletes competing at the top of each sport to get the data. I think trans atheletes should be allowed to compete right now in order to find out in each sport if there is an advantage. Also I don't feel that it's that people would have a problem with trans atheletes winning I mean of course some always would. For me personally It would more matter how much they are winning by. IE if a trans athelete came and destroyed the world record in weightlifting by a huge amount then this would be a problem and would show a clear discrepancy. If they won by a smaller margin I think it wouldn't be as much of an issue.
@UCvjc_aP-Otjt0LTNURJpYNw The Hubbard situation is brought up often from both sides of the argument personally I feel as though it's rather a moot point. Hubbard before transitioning was at a level that while decent at junior she never would have qualified to be a male weight lifter in the olympics or any high end adult competition. Also she was 44 years of age which is fairly old for an athlete to be competing. I wouldn't have expected her to break many records and I feel this was rather over dramatised by the transphobic community to over egg the point. She whilst a capable weightlifter before her transition was never a high end top of the range world class athlete to start with and this is where the real problem would present itself. For example lets say we took a male athelete who always finishes last competing against male atheletes at olympic level and we put him as a male in a womens weightlifting competition if that male then finished 2nd or 1st this is where the issue is. The real presentation of this issue and one we haven't seen yet due to the fact there are so few trans atheletes competing would be if someone at the top top level of their sport transitioned to the opposite sex. So if the male weightlifting world record holder transitioned to a female and then the following year entered a competition I think it would be highly likely that he would destroy the current female weightlifting world record. If the current UFC mens world champion transitioned to a female and 6 months later entered womens UFC they would destroy the competition. Same thing for boxing ect. This is when it becomes a huge issue at the high end of sport. There are some sports where I think it wouldn't be an issue but we need to figure out which ones they are until then we should let trans atheletes compete until we can actually figure out what the data points to.
Because (a) trans men are routinely erased/ignored, and (b) that conversation wouldn't support their point. Transphobes also don't bring up the fact that their desired bathroom laws would end with bearded, burly trans men in women's change rooms, because they know that this makes them look far, far worse than they think the presence of trans women in women's change rooms makes trans rights activists look.
I dont think there has been nearly enough study in depth on the issue or variety. I have absolutely no issue with someone who started hormone blockers before puberty who is trans from doing sports but im not sure those who transitioned after puberty. 2 of my trans women friends had this very arguement and most of the arguements have to do with male vs female puberty. They asked me and i said it needs to be studied and verified that there is absolutely no adavantage and my friend replied thats transphobic and this is a problem i noticed in the community. I noticed this about the trans community is that they are very afraid of just getting studies out there about trans women in sports because of the possible backlash it may have. there was one women in the UK brave enough to do a single study which a study published in 2021 by a professor in Loughborough university said its complicated and NEEDS further study because there is still too little info to make a decision. The professor doing this is a leader in researching this field. They did say in that study that men to women who are non-athletic are significantly stronger than cis females and leaner which also may impact women's sports in a way but we do not know that because the trans community is kind of hindering the studies with calling it transphobic. the biggest problem of this is the lack of information and I think its doing way more harm to the trans community than good. If someone wants to transition I am all for accepting them for who they are but sports is a competitive thing and if there are any uncertainties we should air them out and get rid of them as fast as possible because then if the results show yeah there is no difference than many people may feel more comfortable with trans women competing. personally with the inclusion of trans people in sports i think we need to rethink how sports are done in case there are inherent advantages that trans people do get. right now we do not actually know anything on this issue. I think for now let them compete but they should make sure a ton of studies are done on transgender athletes to air out this issue. it was an interesting discussion but someone with higher than normal testosterone levels and a hermaphrodite are completely different from someone who made voluntary choice to become another gender and this needs to be studied and we need more info before letting all trans people be banned from womens sports. that being said the trans community has to stop hindering the scientific community getting to the crux of the question so everyone can be satisfied when the real answer comes out. I did really like the video and found it very interesting.
honestly, just implement a scientific limit record all the highest values of each trait in biological athletes, and ensure trans athletes dont exceed any, this maximises the chance a trans victory is skill rather than inherent advantage
This was really illuminating on the more historic side of sports. I suppose it's easy to not realize how new cis gender female sports are given the patriarchal domination which has existed across the time of societies on sports. I know in the past, I was less worried about the competition aspect of various genders playing together and thought more about cases such as American football where it could be straight up dangerous for a 200-300 pound cis gender man to tackle his perfectly healthy but significantly smaller female counterpart. Really not sure how much the biological muscle structure changes for trans people due to hormones. Even cisgender athletes come in various shapes and sizes here though. These issues are just as much about cis gender sexism as they are about transphobia so of course many out there are just afraid of what they don't understand. We can't better understand if we don't strive to not only learn more, but adjust overall accepted attitudes in sports over what makes everything fair and/or safe.
@@blacktigerpaw1 it's a little bit of both with sex and gender in sports with the segregation. There's the science to it such as how Myth Busters experienced with the "throw like a girl" trope (kind of bleeds into gender attitudes) and found that both sexes instinctually throw differently (females tend to instinctually throw so as not to disrupt the middle area where baby grows if there is one.) Yeah! Put men in women's sports and women in men sports! Why not? Keep the locker rooms separate since we are not mature enough for that yet. Cis and trans in the same locker rooms as the exception. Both Jessie Gender and Mia Mulder did a good job convincing me certain sports like maybe soccer have no reason to not be interested. Can set up weight class divisions for safety if necessary.
@@blacktigerpaw1 she is biological male yes. I do not refute biology, let the experts that spent so much time in school learning these things speak on that, if we can trust them not to be paid off by interest groups, lobbyists, etc anyway. Women can take on men pretty well at fencing I hear. There should just be some questioning of what's acceptable sometimes. While I'm not much of an athlete myself, I am a 5'3 cis gender female of 210 pounds that can mostly keep up with an all cis gender male stocking crew at a grocery store and there's only a handful of merchandise they're better equiped to deal with them me. There are some very notable women of certain sports that train hard enough to equal some guys. There are still stigmas that women should be not entirely unlike victorian ladies of yesteryear which greatly influence gender norms too. A women's body is capable of athleticism simply, so shouldn't athleticism be a feminine thing and therefore not remove her sex or gender from her?
@@trigjones so you're a health expert or you just use Google to tell you about B.M.I.? If being a size sixteen makes me obese, then I am proudly obese. Some women are thin like a lot of runners and some are a bit more thick, both body types are healthy.
Also quick thing, about the requirements of trans women with participating in women's competition, doesn't require 2 year hormone therapy, they require 1 year of testosterone being 10 (or 5) nmol/L. Problem, Height, bone density and muscles stay. That is the problem, trans women keep their height and bone density 100% (muscles less sure). Males have a large advantage no matter what, meaning even if someone transitioned in their early adulthood, they still would have the advantage puberty gave them cause they would be able to grow more muscle, and would have larger bone density. Also about life not being fair, true, doesn't mean it should be more unfair. Reason sex testing only happens in women's sport, is cause there isn't as much advantage of being a trans man in men's sport. Also cis women not being allowed to compete cause their natural body, is cause they are outliers (the ones you mentioned).
You shouldn’t use outliers to prove a point. Plus, claiming that trans women only retained a biological advantage in running- without going in-depth into the study- fails to explain what general advantages go into such a catch-all sport. Faster recovery? Better agility? A higher smooth-muscle reparation rate? I don’t have a strong opinion on this subject, but it’s clear that this video was not thoroughly fact-checked, nor did you present any original ideas.
this was perhaps the worst ideological wordsallad in a long time. So the only reason Mike Powell jumps 8,95m and Galina Chistyakova jumps 7,52 is becuse women overall hasnt been practicing/competing long jump as long as men has. It has absolutley nothing to do with biological differences. Its clear she dosent care much about sports, have no interest in it, she only care about trans rights and nothing else and dosent give a damm about the conseqences for womens sports. Nor does she care about womens rights, or any other groups rights, only trans rights.
It is most fair for the division to be made between sex rather then gender. I know that doesn't solve all issues. Hopefully as society gets better more transgender people have access to puberty blockers and then hormones into adulthood which I think will change this issue again.
Two things I feel from your amazingly well-done thorough deconstruction of this topic is, first, that I had a cis girl friend who was super athletic. Cause I was 6'5", now 6'3" after coming out and hurt as well as vaginoplasty, but anyhow she said you like playing with me, and friends basketball, so come out and try out. And did, wasn't out then socially, but, I played for about two years and during that time there was a guy, well call him Mark. And, mark was probably the star athlete, played soccer and football and basketball, and always as the two-three if not top athlete, yet, when we'd practice, and we'd intermural practice, cause I went to a small private school, she'd often I'd say 90% of the time win against Mike if they went one on one. And she wasn't masculine, a tomboy sure, but when she'd put on a dress and glam it up, all would look at her, and wow she's gorgeous. And mike was "cut", muscular, and the star athlete, and yet, cause I was friends with him, he even said yah my girlfriend was just an amazing athlete he could barely beat. So a woman can kick men's asses, but second, I hated when people would want me to play sports cause I was tall when I didn't like sports, and still don't, so if I play sports cause I'm tall is that not "fair." Ugh, just go read "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut. I don't get why when in high school it was played cause you were tall but then in athletic post-high school or college it's seen as unfair, so which is it, fair or unfair to be tall? Personally, I get sick of being tall and always having to bend down then people having to carry a bench or boxes to reach up (just kidding).
This video did a really good job of building up its argument I was effortlessly led from "Well this seems like a relatively simple problem with a bit of nuance" to "Oh My God Sports Are A Lie"
Thank you for taking the time to make this video. As a 46 year old, former (way former) collegiate athlete, cis woman, I was so happy to see this-concise and informative. I appreciate all the work you put into this.
Beyond the specific strength difference, men in general are more trained at sports, and are bigger. A world record male weightlifter may be 33% stronger than the world record female weightlifter at 81 kg, but an average male weightlifter is probably 55% stronger than the average female weightlifter disregarding weight, and the average man is probably twice as strong as the average woman, because men are much more likely to lift weights.
Why not simply having a separate trans men and women category? At least for individual sports, the Paralympics solved the problem of different types of diseases/injuries with having people compete at the same time but for different categories, exactly to limit the unfairness in the sports.
Cuz no one's gonna watch trans men/women compete. Even in women's sports, a lot of them have less view than men's sports. Now imagine trans. Who's gonna fund everything?
There's also the issue that such a solution doesn't properly identify the issue in question. If you want to make more categories then realistically you're gonna start in the realm of separate weight classes, which is what boxing and other martial arts sports do.
@@zenfae8373 you do understand that they are already funded right? It's just having a different final podium in the end, not a whole Trans-Olympics. And I would guarantee trans-women would start being watched more than women sports in a few years cause spectacle is what sells. Even racists in the 50s loved watching black athletes compete. Hell, they do it right now
@@baning23 might be possible but I doubt that people are gonna watch trans athletes more than women. And if that happens, , then I'll feel bad for women cuz they're currently fighting for equal pay with male athletes, just to have another category generate more money and have better paid athletes. Women are getting the short end of the stick here, unless trans athletes have the same or less views than women.
thank you so much for citing your sources in the description! I'm writing a paper on gender segregation in sports and this video served as a perfect resource :)
Very educational video: had to crack my 45 year old chemistry book to understand some of your answers to questions I had never even thought of but that's okay, it's why I have lugged books all over the country most of my life as portable computers have only been a thing relatively recently. Enjoyed the historical context as well.
Thank you so much Mia, I always felt uncomfortable about this theme because the only people that tried to explain this discussion soundly and reasonably were on the trans exclusionary side, while most people in favor of trans people would be more willing to scream "TRANSPHOBE!" instead of explaining why it could be transphobic. So, thank you very much for the great, explanation, from the bottom of my heart 🖤
"It has become popular among Republican lawmakers and some thinkers (I spit out my coffee before you could finish with) around Europe" Excellent video.
This is the best video on the topic on youtube. Usually we have transphobes on one side and well-meaning but utterly uninformed people who boldly claim "there is no biological difference between cis and transwomen" and "men and women are on equal footing" on the other. There obviously are differences, height being the most obvious one. Trying to deny that just makes you look dumb and ignorant. The point is that there are potential differences but ... maybe that's alright? Maybe we should be okay with some level of unfairness? We are okay with some other causes of unfair results, like Phelps' arms, so why not this one? Also, fair to whom? Because fighting this is in itself unfair to those trans athletes. tldr: Great video. Great nuancing. (a word I just made up)
Also, female athletes who have naturally higher testosterone levels inherently have an advantage. Life is unfair, you can train harder and better than someone and still be worse than them due to genetics. Top athletes in a sport already have a genetic advantage over their peers. Yes, they're very talented, but there's a reason why taller people dominate in basketball, you can simply just be worse or better than someone at a sport because of the birth lottery.
yes why not just pump athletes full of drugs and see how high they can really jump? fairness exists to see how much the human body can naturally accomplish, if you have someone born as a man demonstrating how high a natural female body can jump, well.... either get a 3rd category, or catalog all the highest values of female athletes and make sure trans women dont exceed any of those values
I finally thought of a reason that trans women shouldn’t use women’s bathrooms. They might leave the toilet seat up, and that’s a little annoying. Source: my trans woman friend always leaves the seat up when they come over. In case it isn’t obvious this is supposed to be a joke. Well, I mean she does leave the toilet seat up. Other than that it’s a joke.
No shit! The definition of discriminate is: differentiate. Trans women are different from cis women in sports! Especially so if they've undergone male puberty. The left is so fkin delusional about this! You idiots are playing into TERF hands when you want to eliminate gendered categories, because that inevitably destroys women's sports!
I've had this argument with people before, where they think going through male puberty is some sort of unfair advantage in sports, and I just flip the argument to force them to acknowledge that trans girls shouldn't be denied gender confirming hormone therapy and forced to go through male puberty.
Those two opinions aren’t mutually exclusive. It is possible for someone to think that trans women have an unfair advantage in some sports AND ALSO think that their gender identity should be respected.
First of all those two points are completely different, secondly why would you be proud to flip the argument to something unrelated? Sounds like you're just being a dick.
kids can't make life altering permanent decisions by themselves and that's how it should be because a lot of times the gender dysphoria confusion goes away with puberty as your hormones start to change and it shows you how good being a man or being a woman is that doesn't mean men should be given an opportunity to compete against women.
Because most people assume there are no advantages in sports for somebody who has been born a biological female “because men are better faster and stronger”
Because trans-men in sports are not politically convenient for transphobes. The whole debate is about attacking trans people, so anything that doesn't contribute to that goal gets ignored.
In Australia there was a big row about a trans women who wanted to complete in our version of football. Even though the women's football league is like 50percent LGBTQ already, she wasn't allowed to play.
I mean cis women who are lesbian, gay or bi still have the biology of a cis woman. Sports isn’t about gender expression, it’s about sex, your biology. And unfortunately, trans women will never have the same biology as cis women. We should still validate their chosen gender identity of course, but it is just a biological fact that trans women have an advantage in certain sports over cis women due to their biology. It’s a shame that so many people use this to be transphobic.
Yeah because AFL is a dangerous AF sport and a 6ft3 100kg person would fucking kill the real women. You're talking about someone who is 2cm shorter than Nat Fyfe and 20kg heavier....like come on!! She plays handball. Go look at some photos of Hannah playing against the women and tell me it's fair.
@@ivandankob7112 She is purposely saying LGBTQ to include transgenders, when she's really talking about lesbians which there a lot of in women's sports. Trying to make it seem normal that men are in womens sports
Maybe treat testosterone amount:sensitivity like sports with weight divisions, ignoring gender altogether (Edit: similar to Jane English's idea) Also, unless there's something serious to gain (money, scholarship, ect) it doesn't matter and there shouldn't be a division But I'm not convinced that CW should have to compete against TW for sports scholarships or professional team spots when the TW can benefit from bone density, heart size, leverage (height and wingspan), grip (hand size), etc (Edit: I'm not *strictly* opposed; I just remain unconvinced on a sport to sport basis)
This is just an excuse to undermine transwomen. By potentially placing transwomen against men, you are putting them at a disadvantage, thereby once again discriminating against us.
@@millykendrill5301 The whole point of the testosterone amount to sensitivity ratio would be to group whoever has a similar range competes together If a cis man and a transwoman have a similar testosterone ratio, they will be equivalent (in that regard) That said , a cisman with transwoman testosterone levels likely has some kind of endocrine dysfunction This means that the cisman with transwoman testosterone levels won't be as fast, strong, etc as a cisman with "normal" levels (on average) But this approach would pit *every gender* against *every gender* Ciswomen with higher than average testosterone levels would compete against cismen with lower than average testosterone levels It's not about specifically disadvantaging transwomen and more about identifying a metric that transcends our cultural definition of gender However, under this system transwomen would generally compete against each other, ciswomen with high testosterone ratios and cismen with low testosterone ratios (I was also a HS wrestler, so treating testosterone ratios as a weight class just makes sense to me) I could see classes like this: Low Cis Woman Avg Cis Woman High Cis Woman/Low Cis Man Avg Cis Man High Cis Man
@@millykendrill5301 with testosterone levels you would have cis women in mens sports as well. If a trans woman has more tea tester one than a cis woman should have they should be in the male category along with cis women with internal testes. Ideally gender wouldn’t matter at all
i get what youre saying, but i hope youre aware also that eliminates trans women from competing with cis women in professional sports almost completely lol. i do agree that it should be in categories based on physical ability as opposed to gender or sex, but testosterone is not this hormone that is so integral to determining sports abilities. SO much of sports abilities come down to class (like what mia talks about in the video) and biological advantages that arent hormones, but things like height/muscle mass/lactic acid production/etc. and saying that "well trans women can compete with cis women, as long as its not for money or scholarships!" eliminates trans women from having the same opportunities as cis women... which is 1) transphobic and 2) kind of where trans sports politics are at rn.
What happened to Mokgadi Caster Semenya is one in a long line of reasons I don't compete in sports. I'm a chimera resulting from an absorbed fraternal twin who happens to be tall and athletic "despite" being, ostensibly, female. Getting called a mannish freak already put me off of any competition with women, the idea of the public getting all up in my business for having the audacity to win would... Well, they'd probably find me hanging by a belt, to be totally, brutally honest. Truth be told, I'm not interested in competition as a general concept anymore. It's all so tiresome.
tfw they banned trans people in chess which is the weakest transphobic argument anyway and already heavily discriminates cis women 🤡🤡ridiculous. love this video though, such a great breakdown of how flawed division is in sports
This video brought up a lot of arguments I've used before that I think I could add more examples to. As someone who has competed in combat sports I always found the arguments about 'fairness' rather silly. 'fairness' has always been a secondary concern in terms of sports, compared to whether or not the people participating enjoy it, and whether or not people enjoy watching it (or paying to watch it). Of course the perception of 'fairness' is important to both athletes and the audience, but it's kind of arbitrary. It goes beyond just Michael Phelps. Take my preferred sport, kickboxing for example. There are numerous famous examples of open weight matches between fighters of hugely different weight classes. These david-vs-goliath matches clearly involve a physical advantage on the part of the larger fighter. Yet they still happen and I typically don't see complaints when they do happen between two consenting fighters from people who oppose the presence of trans women in sports.. Trans-women may have an advantage in bone density if they transitioned post puberty... however I, as a cis-man have never had my bone density estimated before a fight. They don't do that when you weigh in. There are myriad aspects to unfairness that most people just don't think about when they get up in arms about trans women in sports. There are valid arguments to be made as to why there should be some segregations in sports, including gender however that is far from the majority of the ones I see online. Anyways, interesting video.
When discussing your favourite sport of kick boxing, you must be familiar with Lucia Rijker who was at one time the world's most dangerous female fighter on a pound-for-pound basis. She has been referred to as “The Most Dangerous Woman in the World,” and “Queen of Lightning” on many occasions. Rijker gained an international reputation as a kickboxer, fighting in Europe and Japan. She defeated then-world titleholder Cheryl Wheeler of the USA by decision in Amsterdam on October 6 1985 (and is considered responsible for helping to persuade Cheryl to retire, by breaking her nose in that fight. Her only defeat in a kickboxing ring was in a Muay Thai style exhibition match at Sporthalle Zuid in Amsterdam in October 1994, when Lucia fought 'unranked male' Somchai Jaidee, who knocked her out in the second round. She then gave up Thai to move to traditional boxing where she had another amazing and undefeated career against women. A deal was put together for her to box against a male once again and this time she declined.. When women compete against male biology in strength based sports they lose. Dr Vasi Naganathan has a research paper (PMID: 12830370) in which twins of opposite sex were compared in whom the effects of age, genes and environment are partially controlled for. DEXA derived bone mass density at the third lumbar vertebra (L3), femoral neck (FN) and forearm (1/3 radius) were compared between 82 opposite sex pairs aged 18-80. Bone mass density was significantly higher in males at all three sites (26-45.5%) That's just one of the many biological advantages of being male in strength based sports. Research has also shown that the difference in bone density between males is exceptionally small and in single digit percentages unlike the large divide between male and female bone density.
@@kidkarbon4775 Yes I'm aware of who Lucia Rijker is. But it is not true that women always lose against men, likewise it is also not true that trans-women always win against cis women in fights (Ediane Gomes in open kickboxing, Ashlee Evans-Smith in MMA). Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying men don't tend to have a significant advantage. They do, I know this firsthand. But there are a number of factors that lead most people to overestimate men, and underestimate women (The famous Ediane Gomes fight is an example of this). This is all tangential to my point, which is the double standard that is applied to women, as opposed to men in sports. Lucia Rijker lost against an unranked male Muay Thai fighter, and the takeaway most people have is that it was merely because he was male. Yet there is no rule that ranked fighters are by definition more skilled than unranked. I expect physical strength due to sexual dimorphism was definitely a factor. However, what about mentality and expectation? Two major factors in combat sports. Amongst male fighters, we still give less experienced fighters 'a puncher's chance', as you do not need to be stronger than an opponent to knock them out. But for some reason, no one applies this to the Lucia Rijker fight. I think this is largely due to biases we have about women in sports. We don't do the same thing to physically weaker men. Smaller opponents have beaten larger opponents (men and women) numerous times in combat sports through winning the mental game. If you're a fan of Lawrence Kenshin videos, let's use a male example. When Kaoklai (150lbs) KO'd Mighty Mo (250+lbs), and other bigger, stronger and often very skilled fighters did he prove that weight classes don't matter? Of course not. But the difference in strength between him and Mighty Mo was over 100lbs, there was a far greater difference in strength there than fit man and woman of the same weight. Yet no one complains about fights like this, or says it reflects badly on Mighty Mo (he's a beast on his own and has taken on some really tough fighters). Yet throw in the average 150lb fighter vs the average 250lb fighter, the bigger man wins. If two consenting cis-men with huge physical differences can fight without complaint, why can't consenting men and women, or trans-women and cis-women provided everyone knows what they're up against? On the note of that research paper: (PMID: 12830370) I don't think you actually read through and comprehended what that paper concludes. Here's an excerpt: "In conclusion, lower bone mass in females compared to males is more due to smaller size of bones rather than greater differences in densities. Variation in the sizes of the bones rather than differences in the densities of the bone therefore contribute to the lower skeletal mass in women." This runs counter to your claim, and suggests that men and women of the same weight have similar bone densities. Of course, men do still have an advantage in other ways, but Trans-women can actually mitigate both the bone density and muscular advantages by taking puberty blockers as a teenager.
youre comparing two competitors that qualify for their category, against ones that literally dont by that logic I should be able to steal someones spot in an Asian beauty contest despite not being Asian
@@Arionid idk what 'asian beauty contests' are actually gated by race, but if there's a beauty contest in asia, you're not asian and they let you in and the competitors are ok with it that shouldn't be a problem. My point is not to abolish weight classes or sex based divisions. It's a case by case thing. My point is the arguments about "fairness" don't really apply to spectator sports. Especially when everyone is consenting.
First of all, love the video, totally subscribed! Second, it’s so on the head, the part that taxonomy in this area can be overdone so easily. Modern Homo sapiens aren’t thought to be so sexually dimorphic as past species of humans. That being said, we still have a TON of genetic variation in terms of certain phylogenetic factors (I.e. body shape, size, hormone levels) but also our “dimorphism” is more of a sliding scale since there’s multiple chromosomal combinations one can have regarding sex. I am a cis woman, but I have a hormonal condition that requires the same medicine as my trans girlfriend. So why should I be considered cis by sports standards if I have hormone treatment nearly identical to my girlfriend, if, before treatment, both of us had higher levels of testosterone? It does reach a point where almost nobody gets to be a woman when so much specific criteria is placed on biological attributes. I like the fact you point out as well that women’s sports are much younger and that there’s simply a smaller pool of competition in them, which makes much more sense than “man strong, woman weak”, since, again, we don’t have a super strong sexual dimorphism in our species and the differences caused specifically by chromosomes and hormones aren’t as cut and dry as some people make them. Over all excellent video and I look forward to binging your other ones tonight haha
Sex is determined by the gametes we produce in biology. And the matter is biological, not genetic nor anatomic. There's no "dimorphism", there's a dimorphism as there're only two kind of gametes. Sex is bimodal biologically. And if we use the gametes as the standard to determine sex, it's because it's the most stable parameter: you can have plenty of genetic variation, and there're even more anatomic variation (basically, each individual has a specific sex). Sexual dimorphism in mankind is strong enough to justify the development of sexism through ages. When you know that around 30% of genes have their expression that differ because of the sex, that's massive in term of differences.
This comment gives me hope. I'm a transgender girl who hasn't been able to start hormones (and probably won't be able to if a Repub wins the presidential election in November 2024), so I'm always afraid I'll never be able to find a partner who just *accepts* me.
I think it's an issue where a case-by-case approach for competitive play, depending on the sport, would be the best solution, in lieu of more 'blanket' approaches. For example, someone like me, who went through a full AMAB puberty, is going to have certain advantages that someone who started HRT at 15 simply won't have. Again, competitive fairness needs must be the end goal. However, if it isn't meaningfully competitive (and I'm talking individualised and at the national or world level), then a blanket exclusion policy would be inappropriate. My having an AMAB puberty isn't going to single-handedly carry your local women's pub football team to the Women's World Cup. The key thing to always remember here is that most people with a... negative interest in this are going to be strongly biased in favour of a universal exclusion policy by virtue of their own hostile prejudices, science be damned, and they can and should be omitted from any serious discussion on this matter.
@@markcangila1613 if we're going by that logic than why not get rid of weight brackets? So what if that's totally unfair for people born smaller apparently that doesn't matter anymore. And you know what? while we're at it why not just combine mens and women's circuits if apparently it doesn't matter. And you know what? why not just let children competete too so what if they don't stand a chance after all its not like these rules have reasons behind them. I could keep going but I won't.
@@markcangila1613 if you don’t understand the difference between freak genetics like phelps (and all high level swimmers not just him) and a systemic advantage every single trans women will have is just cringe
This video is fuckin incredible. One thing transphobes seem to forget is the “gift” some athletes have like when you mentioned Michael Phelps. This works with cis women too. A solid example would be the world of Pro Wrestling (WWE, AEW etc). There are many examples of cis women wrestlers just being “built different.” Look to someone like Jade Cargill, Nia Jax, Beth Phoenix. They are much larger and more beefed up than a good chunk of their respective women’s roster. Compare them to people like Alexa Bliss, Kacy Catanzaro and Riho. But as soon as Nyla Rose beats the shit out of someone in a segment, everyone loses their minds because shes trans. No bro its because shes fuckin huge. And the same argument was never leveled towards the likes of the other women i mentioned. Im glad im not transphobic anymore, i overcame that awhile ago and videos like this help reinforce my support youre kicking ass queen keep it up.
The reason we have women's sports isn't about hormones or any other sex characteristic - it's because of patriarchy forcing women out. Baseball changed its rules to be for men only in a right hurry after a female pitcher wiped the floor with murderers' row, and the commissioner at the time claimed it was for women's own good when it was obviously done to preserve men's egos. We need women's sports to be able to keep celebrating the achievement of people often excluded by sexist society. And to properly fulfill that goal, trans women obviously have to be welcome.
Given the amount of sports science aka substance abuse, the whole argument about cheating is generally useless. I'm for an honest take what You want, be who You want open category. Also, I think that most televised competitions are kind of a flesh market to begin with.
Only Mia would segue from "what even is sports" directly to "the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire"
How can you talk about one without the other?
I wrote a scientific paper about the dehuminization of refugees and after my introduction I started with: „In ancient Rome there was a type of person called the Homo Sacer“
It was at this point that I realised I was writing a leftist paper.
@@michimatsch5862 you should have just cited agamben… if you didn’t, that’s not very honest
@@michimatsch5862 To be fair, pretty much any scientific paper is leftist, because reality has a well known leftist bias.
@@Soemrjruur I did. A lot of my work was based on him. I just didn't wanna bother anyone with people they may not know.
Also cited Mbembe for obvious reasons.
I analyzed whether various projects by the German government can end the state of Homo Sacer and "living death" for the refugees.
Every time this debate pops up I always see an article about a trans student who won the Texas girls wrestling competition 2 years in a row. People will point to it and say the athlete in question had an unfair advantage due to "biological sex". Thing is, that student was a trans boy forced to compete in the girls division by the UIL regulations. Even in cases of trans men succeeding in sports, it is used as a weapon against trans women. The athlete in question, it should be noted, has been quoted saying he'd rather potentially lose in the boys competition than win in the girls.
It is not doping to use a medication as directed by your doctor, as the boy was with his prescribed testosterone. UIL cannot prevent you from competing based on prescribed medications. That being said, you're clearly just a transphobic troll. I only responded in case someone who was less of a dungbeetle had a similar thought.
Ah shit you talked about him!
University Interscholastic League. It's the governing body for competitive extracurriculars in Texas
@@bobbsurname3140 what girl?
Why are you air quoting biological sex?
“What even is sports?” Then “THE FALL OF THE EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE” convinced me to subscribe.
Is it about the nika riots?
Im waiting for the vid to load. 😅
Not enough people know about the good old Eastern empire, shamefully called Byzantium by 18th Century historians.
the breadtube/K-pop tube crossover we’ve been waiting for
@@pahwraith fsfffcbvgvvgggácx
Why do so many people overreact to trans people? All they gotta do is mind their business if it bothers them so much. Transgender women just want to be treated like women.
The women's division in chess exists for the original reason you mentioned. Because chess is historically dominated by men for sexist reasons and that has lead to many more men than women still in chess today. I explained this to my daughter recently very much the same way you explained it. If you have 1000 men and 100 women all playing chess and there is no advantage, the odds are the best chess player who is actually playing will be a man. So they have a women's division to encourage more women to play. But some of the top women choose not to play in that category. And when they get to parity in numbers, there will be no reason for separate divisions anymore because obviously there is no inherent advantage.
While this is largely right, eliminating the inherent advantage probably won't lead to the phasing out of women's chess. Those organizing successful programmes to start girls playing chess are generally quite happy to push the line that girls do better in the all-girls environment. There seems to be pressure for further segregation even as the performance difference has shrunk radically in the last half century.
Strangely, women's bridge is more likely to go away at all but the top levels. But bridge has long had the difference that most players at the club level are women and the tournament-level difference that the rewards for gender-restricted (or age-restricted) competitions are lower than for open competition.
Chess also had divisions based on skill. And when we find it fancy, on age.
It's up to the organizers if they want a single category or not.
Either way, men don't belong to the female category the same way a 20 years old doesn't belong in the sub-16 category.
@@tarnw3301 Skill level and age categories aren't going anywhere because they correspond to real differences (at least usually). Gender differences, giving women specific titles and championships, may not last once parity is reached.
@@Sam_on_RUclips sex differences also are real.
But like with sports, chess is pretty much a family affair. A chess player normally has a support system, which might include a sister, a mother, a daughter, and if there's a female category, you bet it will be used the same way that a Novice category is used or the sub-14 category is used even though the Expert is open for everyone.
Of course, it all depends on the organizers, and how much prizes they can afford to give.
@@tarnw3301 Sex differences are real, what I meant is that they don't confer an inherent advantage in chess. The apparant advantage comes from the disparity in popularity of the game based on gender.
The "this athletic woman who has a personal, unique body type and also some of her body parts are more toned than others due to rigorous, olympic-level training IS NOT UP TO MY BEAUTY STANDARDS, therefore she must be trans" argument is gotta be my favourite.
the ability to identify potential predators is important
@@hepta5040 why yes I do hunt my own meat, how could you tell
That's not a thing that anyone says though. We oppose MEN in women's sports, not ugly women. I don't whether you're lying or stupid, but if you can point to someone actually saying it (or anything like it) then we can work that out.
@@XKenny77 "That's not a thing anyone says though" Go to ANY comment section in any video/photo of a black female athlete and you'll see exactly that.
@@LucasSantos-ss6ou That proves nothing at all about what gender critical people say, think and do. "Masculine" women are not anyone's idea of the problem.
I think we should just get rid of all categories and rules in sports, I want to see every sport dominated by 7'0, GMO, drugged up space marines.
Or kangaroos and cheatas in running. Let's get ride of the only human rules since society thinks trans MtF is allowed
YESSSS!! Throw them a ball and let’s see some blood! The worlds collapsing let’s go out like Tony Montana!
Id watch this sport. Closest I get is AFL and Chess boxing.
You can organize such a category without cancelling everyone else.
@@07Flash11MRC it's not a cancellation, it's a merger
The big thing I always noticed growing up as fitness loving young girl who tended to beat a lot of the competition throughout school and above; when you're against other women, it's just a sport, but the second you go against men, it became a man vs woman situation. You were no longer competing to win, you were competing to prove the worhtiness of women everywhere. It was such a bullshit extra level of stress. If you lost, the loss came with "well a woman was never going to beat a man", even if your loss had nothing to do with that.
I feel like it's often framed very much the same for trans gender people, but perhaps the other way around; a loss is a loss, but a win suddenly becomes "well they won because they're trans" and not because of their own merit, training and skill. There's such a weird us vs them mentality around sex, gender and sports/competition.
@@sparingharbor2600 i don't fully see how this is much by way of input. we already know sports is divided, that's what the entire video is about, and what we see when we observe amost any sport out there beyond a slim few. yes sports is divided, yes that's why people make it us vs them above the usual competitive nature. it's even worse for trans folk because they're literally only allowed to come in last place or there's fingers pointed.
@@sparingharbor2600 I love "person who didn't watch the video" comments. :)
@@sparingharbor2600 k
@Rock zen because it applied to multiple ones. If you'd like I'd happily list the school sports I experienced this, but I was under the impression the people reading wouldn't needed exact, literal details of every single fact.
Also I love ham, so not really sure how that's and insult. Spam too, unsurprisingly :)
Woman competes against Man. "It becomes a man vs a woman situation"...yup hit the nail on the head there
I absolutely FEEL the idea that cis women having fewer numbers of eligible competitors stunts their progress in sports. When I was a competitive martial artist, I was perceived as female and thus stuck in the women's competitive category, and by the time I hit black belt there would be competitions where I had nobody in my rank to compete against. The obvious solution should have been to stick me in with the men's competition of my rank, but instead I was forced to compete against women 3 to sometimes 4 ranks beneath mine in order to fill out a roster.
One year was so scant that the entire women's division was forced to compete with each other despite rank and this poor 14-year-old yellow belt was forced to go against me at 19yo, 2nd dan.
When I complained, I was told, "You would get hurt in the men's division (bullshit, because most of my sparring partners were men, and the judges knew that), and we trust you not to hurt the less experienced girls."
I ended up forfeiting the match because how fucking demoralizing to be a kid that's trying compete in a new skill in front of a crowd only to have the roster bracket you against someone closer to rank with your teacher than you.
Was it even a full contact tournament?
@@hairymcnipples Folk ages 12 and up were allowed to sign up for full contact I remember and I had signed up for that division, but with low sign up rates it wasn't uncommon for full contact to not be allowed for certain matches at judge's discretion. After I forfeit (& several heated conversations with all of the local dojang head masters) later tournaments allowed me to be in the men's division so long as I signed a waiver but full contact was never allowed.
Yeah, the highest ranked student (and 2nd highest instructor) at the tkd school I go to is a woman and always has to spar much lower ranked students than herself at tournaments. We ALL know that her skills are topnotch and there are maybe three students (all male) who have a chance of winning against her, but the board requires a "woman's bracket." When sparring in house we all line up for a chance to spar and learn from her. Sigh...
My father saw something different when he was learning martial arts. The wife and daughter of the guy running the dojo were both good fighters(daughter was a black belt I believe) and the daughter had multiple trophies from competitions. However, neither would fight a male student at their level. They only fought lower grade students(usually 2 or 3 levels lower than them) and even then they only won on technique. They couldn't hit with their full strength nor take a hit without getting injured.
@@Maverick-7508 What is the point of this story? Were they good fighters or did they only have trophies from beating up on lower ranks? Did they have unearned success because they were women or because they were the literal wife and child of the guy that ran the dojo? What were the association’s rules for types of competition they were required to participate in by rank? (Mine required full contact participation at least twice a year to earn blue belt and 6 times a year by the time you tested for black belt. However, many associations don’t require competition at all to advance in rank which obviously leads to those students being geared towards testing katas/forms and board breaks with very little focus on sparring. That’s important information to consider because if your dad’s school was from an association that was not competition geared since that means everyone in that school was probably a poor competitive performer because the experience was just never there -despite gender-.) Lastly, how does this anecdote contribute to support or denial of the point that woman’s sports are stunted by lack of competition?
I’m asking because based on how your dad would answer the above questions to steel-man this argument this contributes nothing to the point of women’s sports but it is a display of how student’s are unaware that they are in competition with dojo/dojangs that are held to different competitive standards and students that highly value competition in those associations that don’t will underperform in that setting. Presently, it sounds like your dad came across a case of nepotism on behalf of the dojo owner (which has nothing to do with gender) and somewhere in between then and now someone telling the story decided to be sexist about it.
i have a trans friend who played in a hockey League. they didn't have any rules against trans women competing but she still felt weird about it and ended up quitting organised sport altogether. really sad and i have to wonder how common that is.
@@xythiera7255 Yes you can. Women do it all the time, and they win pretty often. Also, trans women don't really have the exact same body as a man's
@@SevenPr1me Trans woman are still male, yeah. But they are also woman. Female and woman are terms that mean different things. To be honest, you can't really appropriate womanhood. And like, I feel like it's weird to say that Trans woman just put on makeup and a dress and do woman things that they are just suddenly a woman. They where always women. Literally any Trans woman will tell you that they understand this, but wear dresses and makeup because a. they like it and/or b. If they go by she/her, but still look like a man, it can get them hurt. Socially transitioning is almost always for safety.
@@SevenPr1me Not to also mention that if Trans people do professional sports they have to physically transition, and have their hormones under or over certain levels. Their bodies physically change. So technically, if you physically transition, yeah.
@@SevenPr1me And there are cis woman, who also don't have that ability? There is a difference between male and female and man and woman. Female is biology. Woman is the social construct. If you ask a transwoman, they'll say "a woman is someone who identifies as a woman". They won't give you a description of "a woman is a girly girl who wears dresses and makeup and likes pink". A female is a biological description (that by some definitions may not apply to biological females) and a woman is a social indication/description. Every woman, cis or trans, is different, and have different ways of identifying their womanhood. There is nothing detrimental about a cis woman fitting into a stereotype (liking pink, wearing dresses, blah blah), why is it suddenly detrimental to womanhood when transwoman do it?
@UCVNcWNkspMUSsUeTXnFxKUg Bro a boat isn't a social construct what are you on??? Here, think of it as money and currency. Money is literally a piece of paper. Physically, it is a piece of paper. But socially, we give money value. We, as a society have dictated how much things "cost". I could literally just give a service of mine for free, or I can charge money for it, and that money is usually dependant of my personal values and societal indicators of the price range I can give it, especially if my service is not within the mainstream market.
Also, not saying that Trans woman are mental. But if Trans people and third genders have existed for literally decades, don't you think that their is some pattern to it? That we SHOULD look into it and not dismiss it as "people be crazy". That emotions are just as much of a part of biology. Who says transeness isn't an untapped medical phenomenon that we could look into. Not to mention that the literal treatment for gender dysphoria, a condition that most trans people have, is transitioning, socially and/or medically.
The way Caster is restricted from participation in her sports category and is shunned as being not "correct" biologically and forced to take anti-androgens in order to compete, compared with how Michael is treated in the sporting world and the public eye, just screams misogyny to me. The effects of being a genetic outlier in sports as a man is celebrated, while as a woman it is vilified, viewed with heavy scrutiny, and results in incredible discrimination.
You are hilarious. Misogyny is such a bad faith argument. Caster is intersex and Phelps is a biological male. So Caster is competing in a category they don't technically belong in whereas Phelps is competing in a category he does belong in. It only matters when a person wins. I'm sure there are intersex men competing in men's sports but they won't be statistically likely to win. You sound like a misandrist and a misogynist at the same time denying that there are sex differences that matter to women on competition. Misogyny! That's the funniest thing I've heard. It's Misogynistic now to protect women's sports... SMH.
@@Bradley_Lute Getting lectured on good faith from someone pointedly they/theming the intersex lady and using an anti-trans dogwhistle to describe the dyadic guy, what a morning...
Yes I'm aware Michael's large innate biological advantage isn't related to his sex. (As far as we know; don't know if he's been genetically tested). That isn't the point. It's still a genetic unfair advantage over those he competes with. Caster is competing in the category concordant with her sex in every social sense, and is regarded with suspicion for the same reason (with unpleasant overtones of "how can a mere woman be so fast?").
I think a lot of what you've said suggests that you haven't watched the video, as it ignores a lot of the points built up there such as the reason for the sex segregation in sports, as well as the way female athletes are expected to conform to specific beauty standards to be seen as legitimate. The latter of which is misogyny, and I think it's certainly a large part of what led to Caster being ordered to get a sex test.
Though if you want to say "this is actually discrimination against intersex people" then yes, that too, I agree and it isn't acceptable.
Another point covered in the video is about those who say they're "protecting women's sports" and you've fallen right into the stereotype of single-mindedly focusing on a topic with discriminatory intent rather than genuinely wanting to address the issues such as reduced pay for female athletes and lack of funding in schools. Solving those is protecting women's sports, kicking out people who perform too well in their natural state is not.
@@scoreunder males shouldn’t compete with females.
@@miraann3997 Just watch the video that you are commenting under. Please!
@@scoreunder Michael Phelps is well within the male range of excellence. He's around 0.4 seconds ahead.
Lia Thomas is 14 seconds.
You want to eliminate women's sports for mediocre males while telling us *you care so much about guys like Nassar.*
Sport isn't about ""fair competition"" it's about devoting your body to Apollo.
He will bestow victory if your efforts pleaseth him.
INCREDIBLY BASED
MARS ME ADIUVAT!
Integrating this into my worldview from now on
wrong
@@samueldawkins they obviously never seriously competed at anything
This was really interesting. I think my favourite sport, equestrian showjumping, is a really interesting case study into the gender and class aspects of sport. The majority of equestrians (at least in my country) are women and it’s been decades since women were allowed into the sport, but the vast majority of the highest ranked riders in the world are men. Not because of any biological differences - since the sport is far more about technique than pure physical ability - but because of social factors. Pursuing a career in showjumping is so time-consuming that it’s virtually impossible to combine with raising children. Many equestrians therefore end up having to choose between the two, unless they happen to be married someone with no career ambitions of their own, who’s happy to stay home with the kids while their partner is away competing. For complex reasons I trust we’re all familiar with, it’s usually the women who are expected and taught to prioritise having children.
Furthermore, the dependency on sponsorship money (horses are terrifyingly expensive) means that the most visible, ie the highest ranked and most successful equestrians - and the minority who already happen to be filthy rich - are the ones who tend to get access to the best horses, making it even more difficult to make a comeback at the top level after taking time off to have kids. It would be the easiest thing in the world to take the statistics at face value and say that men are clearly better at showjumping than women, when the actual reasons are far more complicated than that.
Kinda useless for this conversation. Nobody is saying transwomen will dominate equestrians sports.
Equestrian sports are hardly even a human sport, you're training an animal first and foremost. It's like dog fighting or horse racing
@@amazin7006 You have completely missed the point of my comment. I was expanding on Mia's argument that things like gender roles or class, which have nothing to do with sports on paper, can actually have a huge impact on who can become a successful athlete. Mia spent a good portion of the video talking about how this isn't limited to just trans people. As for your second point: I take it you've never actually ridden a horse, so why don't you go take a few riding lessons, maybe try to jump a fence or two, and then come back and tell me if you still think it's not a "human" sport. I dare you.
@@idab9958 What matters most for an athlete is their genetic aptitude, everything else is secondary. Mia constantly lies and downplays the role of puberty and testosterone when it comes to athleticism because it's convenient for her unscientific argument.
"maybe try to jump a fence or two"
You're not jumping over a fence, the horse is. All you did was train it.
@@amazin7006 This is totally relavant. They're bringing it up because it's an example of a sport that isn't divided into seperate divisions based on gender of the participants. Also, equestrian sports are sports. They have to train the horses AND they're preforming along with the horse. The horse doesn't do it alone. Riding horses is punishing on your body, if you disagree with that I'm quite sure you've never done it.
i wish all horse abusers a very stampede
I say we ban sports instead. Problem solved.
or remove all rules and see just how fast a 7 foot space marine can run
Except that Russian MMA fighting where they let anyone, including 400 lb women and grandpas fight. It's all equal opportunity there. Bring back the colosseum for everyone!
How bout stop imparting u subjective self assessment on reality and act like an adult and not throw a tantrum cuz u cant win a medal...
@@Dimllll773 Medals are for kids. It shouldn't be possible to make a living doing something as worthless att playing games. The only good thing about sports are that it makes the idiots stabs up and declare themselves so the rest of us know who they are.
You touch on this, but I think the issue with some of these rules is that policy that makes sense for super-duper elite athletes doesn't necessarily make sense for ordinary people. At the highest levels of sport, microscopic differences determine success, and getting even a tiny boost from an inborn characteristic can be decisive and lead to enormous monetary and reputational advantage, but at the "ordinary person" level (basically anything less competitive than high-level college sports) there's a much greater degree of variance, and vastly lesser rewards for success. To use a crude example, a 5'9" transwoman on a highschool basketball team (who might have been 5'4" had she been cis) will be substantially less disruptive to the competitive balance of said league, than a 7'0" transwoman on a WNBA roster (who might have been 6'8" had she been cis), and any potential competitive disruption in the former case will hurt the other athletes far far less in the former case than the latter. If a line must be drawn (and I think it must be), we should draw it where it hurts the fewest people possible.
To my mind, this points to one set of rules for hyper elite athletics (maybe something like the IOC framework, and potentially with an additional category for trans people who don't want to meet those limits) and another for 99.999% of athletes who do it for fitness, enjoyment and personal growth (basically, compete as you identify). You're right that it's virtually impossible to draw a line that doesn't harm anybody (i.e. Semenya), so there needs to be a question as to where we draw a line to hurt as few people as possible.
The only thing that doesn't makes sense to me about this reasoning is that it doesn't happen to cis women who share the same characteristics (because of their genetic heritage, ethnicity, etc.).
It's only about trans women, and still every particularly tall or broad-shouldered cis woman who has ever competed in Olympics has never been cast out because of this.
I can dig your reasoning, sure, but the fact that it's only about trans women (as it seems to be for everyone else's) makes it fishy at least.
@@alkalinefeline2504 I get you. I think it might help to start from a basic set of precepts, here are mine:
1. Athletic greatness is created by some combination of physical characteristics, and hard work.
2. We care about athletic greatness because it reflects some aesthetic and valuable idea of human potential.
3. "Maleness" however defined, appears to confer a substantial, and statistically obvious physical advantage in most, or at least many, sporting events. This is independent of weight or height, or long arms or shoulders. You simply cannot put a professional 135 lb. female boxer against a professional 135 lb. male boxer, or a 5'10 male sprinter against a 5'10" female one.
4. Truly elite athletes (Olympians and the like) are vanishingly rare. Something like one in a million.
5. As a result of 1, 3, and 4 If men and women competed in the same sports against one another, women would have relatively very very few opportunities, but this violates the premise of 2, why we like sports, because it means that half of human beings begin at a substantial disadvantage that would prove decisive at the highest levels. That's not human greatness or potential, and limits our scope of athletic inspiration.
6. As a result of 5, we create women's sports, an intentional form of discrimination to protect a class of people. This requires a line based on what constitutes "maleness".
7. 6 means that women's sports requires isolating "maleness" and removing it from the competitive pool, but maleness isn't a pure binary, it's a gray area.
Because of the need for 6, but the reality of 7, a line must exist, and that line will hurt some people. The people that exist within the grey area will be hurt, and those people will be trans, or people like Semenya that don't fit. It stinks.
Could we devise some other system, like the "levels" one that Mia brings up? Maybe, but I feel like that explicitly places women's sports as the lesser, and I don't like that. Britney Griner is just as special as Shaq, FloJo is just as impressive as Bolt. I don't want FloJo to have the AA record and Bolt to have the AAA record.
@@alkalinefeline2504 Way way way TL,DR; I think women's sports is valuable, but requires drawing a line on maleness, and that line is going to be a painful one. I think we should think about how to make it less painful as much as we can, but I don't think there's a perfect solution.
I think another factor to consider is that many trans people in the past (70s to 90s) typically began transitioning as grown adults. Anywhere between early 20s to late 30s. So, they went through cis puberty.
Whereas trans people from our generation (millenials and slightly after, so 00s up to 2010) started transitioning basically hormonally and surgically at age 18. Still completed cis puberty.... but they interceptes that 2nd wave of adult puberty that we hit in our mid-20s.b
And most recently, trans teens start puberty blockers - meaning they hit "pause" on cis puberty. And when they're 18, they can still reevaluate decide to move forward as trans or cis.
Basically what I'm getting at is your "if she had been cis" comparisons.
Those comparisons only matter because trans folk have had *no choice* in the past but to *endure* cis puberty.
Puberty blockers effectively undermines this factor.
If a trans teen hits pause on cis puberty, then continues to transition at 18.... they essentially **never went through cis puberty.** So we don't have to wonder what their bodily framework would have been if "they had been cis."
Therefore, as trans care becomes more accessible, this "trans people in sports" dilemna will continue to be come less and less relevant.
Trans people from
@@jjava.bean5 Obviously we'd have to keep track of the actual data on that (whether cis puberty is the delineating factor), but on the face of it, that seems totally reasonable, and if it bears out that would be *amazing*. Even in your scenario, though, we would still need a line. If someone transitions in their 20's, are they out? Do we still use testosterone levels to say who had an advantage? I just don't see how you don't end up with a line.
So my major is Anthropological Sciences and in one of my classes on human evolution we're discussing how estrogen-induced primary puberty results in a pelvic orientation that reduces the biomechanical efficiency of bipedalism by, among other effects, reducing the efficiency of the hamstring muscle group. I wonder if that accounts for the difference in running performance among trans women; testosterone-induced primary puberty would have resulted in a more efficient pelvic orientation which is largely set in place by age 18 (although not completely so until age 25). Wish we had more research on this to look at!
it's never just one thing... there is a sense of arrogance that we humans have thinking we can just tweak a design that's been developing for god knows how many years and expect almost an immediate and drastic change of course that almost never meets the expectation, but hey you have to start somewhere at the end of the day....In overall I think the biggest dissonance is in women's MMA I think there is a strong case for this sport and testosterone is definitely one of the major elements and how it effects the body in the womb ect.
My major is Kinesiology (with a focus on physiology) and I am minoring in biology to supplement my major. Adding onto your points about bone structure, I’m studying how myonuclei (muscle fiber nuclei) are affected by training and how even with detraining (or changes in hormonal balances - shifting towards the topic of trans inclusion in sports) myonuclei can still remain which gives the advantage of improved muscle protein production/adaptations. Myonuclei can also be affected by puberty/hormonal balances with lasting effects being present potentially after hormonal changes.
I firmly believe that the binary sports system (male/female) we have is outdated and needs to change. I also absolutely want trans inclusivity in sports. I believe that a less binary system could benefit all competitors (especially those underrepresented by the male-dominated sports media/industry - women/trans people).
The stance I have accepted is that the debate surrounding trans inclusivity in sports shows how more areas of research need to be dedicated to sex-difference research (sex does not mean gender of course). Overall I think that more research needs to be done before either “side” (trans inclusive/exclusive) can make a responsible ruling on the topic. Also greater sex difference research is important for medical reasons as most research is male dominated still meaning that if women/trans people/intersex people seek medical attention or answers we are applying evidence that, while mostly generalizable (general non-gonadal anatomy is relatively similar), the nuance involving sex-based differences is lacking.
@@Kate-fc5ht that's incredible interesting, thank you for sharing!
Yeah, we pretty much established that a couple decades ago. It's the same reason women suffer a higher rate of disabling injuries as paratroopers.
@@Kate-fc5ht Your major is in kinesiology and you don't think humans are a binary sex.
What other sexes are there, Kate? You know full well why sports are segregated . You're just content letting males like Lia Thomas compete in women's sports.
Vividly remember the ruckus the transphobes made when Laurel Hubbard was nominated as the representative for New Zealand, and the radio silence when she ended up not even placing in the top three
It’s not transphobic to point out that she still took an Olympic spot off a biological woman that worked harder than Hubbard did. And if there is no advantage, is it just a coincidence that Hubbard had retired for 8 years, and was 43 years old at the time of entering. Calling people transphobia for disagreeing does not do you any favours; just completely diminishes the meaning of the term
@@1ellisd1 I have never called anyone transphobia
@@1ellisd1 You could make the argument for anyone qualifying for the olympics because of course there are people left out. Strangely there is nowhere near as much fuzz against olympians like Elizabeth Swaney (look her up) than there is against trans olympians (and intersex olympians like Caster Semenya). Do you see how that might be transphobic ?
@@1ellisd1 athletes are not always in their position because they worked the hardest. Never in the history of the entire world has anyone gone to the Olympics because they worked the hardest. We establish in the video that there are many socioeconomic factors that play into professional athleticism. Tom Brady is 44, age has nothing to do with skill. Being retired does not mean no attention to physical health.
@@1ellisd1 this only holds if you think cis women are worth more a therefore uniquely more deserving.
All olympians take a spot away from someone else 🤷... so yeah that is transphobic if you see no advantage and its just the transient property of being trans that makes someone lesser....
Genuine question, did you actually look into the US women's soccer suit? The claim that gender discrimination took place, in the way you describe, didn't happen.
The Women's team was offered the same pay structure as the Men's team, yet they decided to take a different deal. A deal that guaranteed pay, rather than the Pay for Play deal the men took. Because the women wanted the benefits of an essentially salaried structure. And the men had something like a commissioned structure. The USWST lost out on the opportunity for maximum gain (per game). In which case the man would have made more IF they win the Cup in the men's league.
Also, if a guy was on the bench the entire game, he wouldn't be paid. Vise versa every woman on that bench was guaranteed compensation and more.
What's the timestamp of that part of the video? I don't remember it
Nvm, found it. 42:05. I think she likely doesn't know the full story of that particular case, but the screenshot was included for its relevant headline. If that headline is a misrepresentation of the story, that is unfortunate though it doesn't invalidate the point she's making (as long as other similar scenarios exist, which I am certain there are).
Thanks for clarifying about that particular story. Misrepresentation and distortion is bad no matter who is doing it.
@@evanmagill9114 42:00, she didn't go very far in actually communicating the example she provided. Kinda felt like she was trying to use it as context rather than evidence.
@@millykendrill5301 Honestly, this can more easily be boiled down to the simple fact that the prize pool is different. Can we agree that if the women and men's teams (of the world specifically) generated the same amount of revenue, and had the same pay structure. That they would make the same amount? Nobody can argue that mens sports produce more money because overall viewership is higher for men's sports, versus it's female counterpart. And that difference in viewership can be explained a few ways.
But in this example its mostly that given there are 16 men's teams in the world, and 12 women's teams. It would make sense that the prize pool is different because there is objectively more to watch. More teams more games.
Also, the reason why there are more men's football teams than women's football teams in the world, is because men we're able to participate decades sooner. Rather than just thirty years ago for women. Take that as you will but it's just that.
@@millykendrill5301 Hey look, you wont be getting any fight from me regarding Christianity or its everlasting harm. I've been an atheist before I knew the word atheist.
But I believe fairness comes down to what's expected. And I believe what's expected, when it come down to biological differences in physical competition. Is that the most exciting, athletic, or intense the sport or activity is. The more people will want to watch that sport or activity.
I think that its fair that your average male basketball player gets paid more than your average female basketball player.
I only think that's fair NOW because (I cant see anyone arguing against this genuinely), men's basketball is much more intense and exciting to watch.
So it should be expected for male players to be paid more on average.
The way to change that expectation, is by bringing the same level of excitement, and there for viewership.
I gave basketball as an example of "fair" discrimination because currently, the WNBA and NBA both have their rims set at the height of ten feet.
With that, and the difference in height. Male players average 6'5, Female players average ~6', I don't think equality is necessarily benefiting the female players here. Simply lowering the rim in the WNBA would allow higher activity and ironically raising the ceiling for competition. And this has been suggested many times before that it would raise viewership allowing for "equal" pay.
I don't think denigrating or purposefully casting a shadow over man will bring more of the limelight to women.
Reparation's shouldn't come through discrimination, rather it come through incentivization.
@@Baasudei I somewhat see what you're getting at.
The only explanation I might have for the difference in structure and viable income is the lack of support for Women's soccer.
Currently the USWST outperformed the men in basically every aspect. And yet they still earn millions less than the men for winning the league.
Despite that, I find the women's lawsuit to be a rather firstworld problem given some countries don't even allow, or even have a women's soccer team. And for the Women's team to have the same opportunities, the rest of the world has to catch-up with America's albeit imperfect, but more than most inclusivity for women in sports.
An analogy akin to this situation is like McDonald's to a new up-and-coming food chain.
McDs being Mens football, and Women football being the other. We already know McDs is well established, it's in every state, city town, and country basically.
But that new up and comer is still looking to widen it's reach. Allowing it to pay and offer greater opportunities for it's workers (in this analogy let's assume McDs actually payed it's workers well too).
In the US, if the new chain becomes the most sought after fast food joint in the country. It still won't be as well established as McDonald's is. So for the new restaurant to ask for the same structure and pay even, when the world hasn't decided to invest interest the same as the US. It becomes unreasonable.
One thing I didn't see mentioned in the video is how bone structure plays a role in "art sports" like figure skating, taekwondo etc.
Bone structure is definitely something someone who went through male puberty would retain some of. In figure skating, adult women find it borderline impossible to do a quad jump in a sport where doing quads is now necessary to be competitive. Only prepubescent girls and men can do it because the hip:shoulder ratio is very important for getting all four rotations in. I really am only interested in figure skating when it comes to sports with art elements, but art sports in particular are affected by the biological differences between cismen and ciswomen because some forms and movements will be more difficult for women and some will be more difficult for men (but generally women, because the sports are primarily controlled, developed and mandated by men).
My theory is that a trans woman would be able to do quad jumps IF they transitioned somewhere significantly past their male puberty started in a sport where currently only female teenagers can compete competitively due to the sport being designed around men.
You're basically asking for a completely stunted male to do female feats.
She didn’t mention the larger capacity for oxygen intake either which is a great advantage in many sports like swimming and running to name a couple.
@@redtankgirl5 the taking in of oxygen doesnt really apply cause the amount of oxygen intake into the blood after transition, is the same as cis women. homolygy does change with hormones. trans women after 4 months of hrt will have the same homology, and that is what actually gets effected when it comes to oxygen intake. dopers will take drugs that help to increase their oxygen intake which raises the homology. the homolgy levels after hrt are no higher than cis women, so this argument has no weight to it
Unless they actually decide to raise the competition minimum age, I don't really see the issue considering those teenagers are already competing. Like trans women being better than the subset of women that aren't as good as others seem weird to care about vs. being better than all female athletes in a sport. Also, quads aren't only affected by bone structure, fat distribution plays a key role as well and accounts for most of the mass difference, considering trans women will gain a more female fat pattern as well I think the advantage would be much more mild than you are suggesting.
@@redtankgirl5 she didn't mention mens have more muscle, especialy pectoral muscle, and it change everything for almost all sports.
I'm surprised marksmanship and archery aren't mentioned when comparing womens and men's sports. In the olympics, the women's division is actually almost at exactly the same level as the men's, and maybe even a little better.
@@sparingharbor2600 It's kinda pointless to argue with these people because they clearly want to ignore everything that doesn't fit their ideology and/or haven't played and watched sports in their lifes. There's a reason biological males are better at most sports and saying there isn't and letting men compete with women is a very efficient way to take away womens rights, it's disgusting.
Women have all the advantage in dog sledding, horse jumping, dressage, and eventing. They compete against men in sports where having LESS weight is a tremendous advantage. Nobody complains or makes excuses when women win. It should be the same when girls/women compete against trans athletes.
One reason I can see for separating by "women" and "men" in sports, is to prevent the sport from falling into becoming dominated by one group or the other. If you're a girl, and see more male than female athletes doing a certain sport, chances are lower that you'll become interested in pursuing that sport yourself, than if you were a boy (statistically speaking, of course), and vice versa. And if the distribution of people doing a certain sport begins to shift in one direction, the distribution among prominent athletes will, ignoring other factors, tend to shift accordingly, which amplifies the issue further, i.e. we have a positive feedback loop.
And obviously, there's nothing inherent about gender about this problem, but as it stands, who we look up to, who we identify with and want to emulate, tends to be very strongly influenced by gender. But of course, by that logic it would also make sense to separate by other characteristics that strongly inform a persons identity, which might not actually be such a bad idea, if done right (which of course is a big if, given the history of the women's division of sports being treated as a side show).
In that regard, it's not really much of a question where trans people should be allowed to compete. It's not like a child forming their interests has much of an eye for chromosomes and whatever else transphobes tend to get hung up about. And even in terms of presentation, it's not like athletes are generally super normative in their appearance anyway.
we use to separate black people from white people in US American sports history. The transition to allowing more talented black people was slow but today, see, it's all even
Wow it's almost like you didn't watch the video.
@@ama-gii wasn't that because of racism? So they had 2 different sections not because of biology reasons but because of discrimination. In the transgender case people don't want to discriminate them, but keep it as fair as possible for the women.
So if black people would have an overall advantage in sport it would have made sense to have a black and white section. So you cannot compare black&white with transgender.
“By the logic it would also make sense to separate by other characteristics that strongly inform a persons identity”. And that’s where your mistaken. The division in sport is not contingent on identity, it’s contingent on the material biological reality of sex differences which majorly determine the capacity for athletic performance.
@@hatchibyebye except...it isn't. That's the point. The difference is almost entirely not physical.
The class argument is pretty lame. Yes, many people are prevented from joining because they cannot affoard the time to aggressively practice, but that’s an accessibility problem, not a performance one. If an impoverished person trained as much as a rich person, they would be performing at an equal level on average. The same cannot he said about sex. You can give the hormone level argument, which is valid, but that makes the class element entirely moot
There are a lot of decent footballers who originate in Africa and were risen in poverty, it is actually a career path for many. In reality, vast majority football players come with a poverty background, but of course the "severity" of poverty varies from country to country, but there are just so few football starts who were raised in an upper class family
Mia absolutely nails this nuanced and complex subject.
I say this as someone with a keen interest in sports physiology, watches womens cycling & football and could probably write 16 pages (front & back) about the other more pressing issues before you get to Trans Women.
Thank you so much!
its not complex at all, lia does have biological adavntages bcs she went through puberty as man with a male body, trained as a man with a male body in athletics, and only recently decided to identify as a woman but still has that male body and many of the advantages.
@@fabiofernandes9122 does not understand or follow sportsing, I can go into detail if a more serious, good faith poster would like me too.
@@yousufkazmi7842 no detail needed but would love some good, accessible sources of info to be able to share with others :)
@@V1sual3y3z I've not come across one and sadly your target audience might not care either,
a TL:DR might look like general biology (essentially top sports people are born not trained) and current hormone levels are more important then pubity (in some cases, but not others), so it returns to it depends, some traints cis female usually have are better for some sports, same for cis males, but then you have other cirteria like number of people doing a sport, as in the more people do a sport, for more years the better that group become - too many variables to say it's just one thing, sports fitness, training, coaching is billion doller industry for a reason !
Also never underestimate the defelection, "I/My Team/ My Fav athlete" lost because everyone else cheated
I had a discussion on this topic with a friend about a year back and after a lot of back and forth, we thought a good solution to allow trans or gender-non-conforming people to compete in sports would be to organize it on something other than the arbitrary basis of gender. We thought a system that groups competitors based on height and weight or something might work better. It might even level the playing field for what types of bodies tend to get excluded from sports. Plus I've been in some sports in high school where a number of disordered eating habits were being normalized among the higher performing athletes. I would imagine this would only intensify for people who make their living on their athleticism. So there might be an added benefit to shifting the system with which we organize sports because instead of encouraging athletes to obsess about becoming the "biggest" or the "leanest", it would instead shift the focus onto less dangerous pursuits like finding a better technique.
edit: obviously not a perfect solution. I mean it's a tricky problem. I just thought that if we're going to organize sports for the sake of a somewhat "fair" playing field, it might as well be on objective physical size instead of the nebulous concepts of gender and sex that are actually way more complicated than a binary, even on the scientific side of things.
While I’m not gonna argue with this suggestion, I think it would probably be far better than the gender segregated system currently at play, I don’t think it’s an ideal suggestion and will create a lot of additional toxic aspects to sports, such as athletes monitoring their bodies far more intensely to get categorized into a class most beneficial to them or intentionally losing or gaining weight in the span of a short period of time for the same purpose. Maybe not, maybe things will get better or stay the same but it’s something to take into consideration before implementing a system like this.
The best part is it already exists! There are weight groups in Boxing and other martial arts. The leg length can be used for athletics, the height in basketball and volleyball. And in most cases, it's probably very difficult to switch the category.
bingo, this is the solution
Women are not a smaller fatter man for fucks sake
Yes! This is exactly where I came to too
Bcos atm even a lot of athletes have unfair advantages due to their biological divergence
Lile michael phelps' feet and pretty much any other athlete that broke records (yes there are exceptions but its the exception to the "rule")
It would make way more sense to group sports but some other metric than gender (alone?)
This should tell you how advantaged men are in sports
All “male” sports are already all gender inclusive. There are zero restrictions on gender for “male” sports. They aren’t male sports, they are simply “the best in the category.” That happens to be men near 100 percent of the time, giving the illusion of a gender restriction
Including being best at being women lol
Why they don't do a trans sport so we can all be equal I know things are complicated but this not fair for woman's
I think it should depend on the sport.
It is clear that there is an advantage, there's a reason you don't hear this same hype over trans men in men's sports... its because they don't win, because they have the disadvantage.
Personally I have no horse in this race, but I do think a persons rights should not come at the cost of another's.
HRT reduces Performance by 10-15%, pretty much equal to a cis Woman in contrast to a Man.
If there are allowed in the Sport and dont dominate, thats it. No further Question needed.
@@Sunaki1000 I’m not convinced that’s true as such a broad statement! And if it were why is the opposite not true?
Also if that were true then puberty blockers wouldn’t be a thing, there are certain things you can’t undo. Also 10-15% of what bone density, muscle mass, what?
@@paddy1144 Performance, it reduces your Times by that.
Well Pupertyblockers are for more then just Musclemass.
The Bones are affected by HRT, but also just so much, and it may varry from person to Person.
Bodyhair, Facestructure...
Look up some before after, its basicly Shapeshifting.
The Data are all here you just have to look them up.
I give you a good Example how Pwople sould treat Trans Athlets. In the Pokemon Videogame Competetive Play, every new Pokemon gets added into the Over Used Tier and gets banned, or drops into lower Tiers depending on Usage. If 10 Trans Athlets and 90 Cis Athlets Perform and the top 10 is 7 Trans, and three Cis, then bann the Trans and make a new Tier just for them.
Super simple, exclusively based on Data alone, not Speculation, or Potencial.
And Athlets are not performing exclusively in important Tornaments, if the Trans overperform in Training alone, thats allready enough Time to avoid unfair Placements.
@@Sunaki1000 what? You didn’t give me an example, you just state some broad sweeping statement. Performance times.. seriously this is ludicrous.
Your telling me a male runner will get slower because of taking oestrogen and will end up on a level playing field? They should already be in their own category.
@@paddy1144 A female Runner whit a male Body.
And yes, it would be strongly reduced.
But don't male bodies have bigger lungs, muscles and hearts? And isn't that a pretty huge advantage in majority of sports? Skulle uppskatta ett svar bc seems pretty relevant och har nästan bara sätt argument som pratar om kromosomer och testosteron
"After reviewing dozens of studies, the researchers concluded the use of estrogen by transgender women may be associated with an increased risk of heart attack and ischemic stroke. On the other hand, the use of testosterone by transgender men did not seem to increase cardiovascular risk." Estrogen replacement can effect your muscles and structure of your body as testosterone does, but trans woman pose greater risk of heart issues, plus not all cis men have decent amounts of testosterone where they may have smaller muscles or less dense bones, cis men don't always have bigger lungs, bigger muscles, or bigger hearts, not all cis men have average bone density or muscle percentage or metabolism etc etc, cis bodies can have advantages but also have disadvantages, having larger lungs aren't always a net positive, just as denser bones or larger muscles aren't always good either, this is why trans woman should be included, because trans woman are far and few between and just as not perfect as everyone else, people will have better advantages than others, but trans woman will not be effecting this people are arguing it is, trans people aren't magically perfectly bodied or have tip top shape organs etc, just as every other cis person, infact it's be more likely a cis woman is healthier with more means of keeping healthy organs just because there is more cis woman than trans woman and with a smaller number of trans woman especially with already medical treatment your more likely to compete against a trans woman with a medical disadvantage than a trans woman with a large advantage, especially cause not all trans woman play sports, and typically people with already pre existing medical conditions such as treating with estrogen can impose disadvantages against trans woman, if cis men wanted to win more medals cis men would not pretend to be trans woman to win, they would rig their own games or push harder etc, cis men wouldn't fake being trans of their entire life just to win a sport, trans woman belong in sports and it's as simple as that
@@doandroidsdream1748 watch the fucking video? There's a means to finding sources right there but you didn't think of that did you?
@@xkozyTV Wow, you referenced one study.
Unfortunately for you, estrogen doesn't erase male puberty and Hubbard threw his Olympic run. He had no problem depriving two Samoan women out of their own medals.
Male privilege is OK provided said male IDs as a woman.
@@blacktigerpaw1 also WOW you referenced NO study 😀, what a sweet and bright individual, misgendering trans people because feewings ✨🙏
@@xkozyTV “not all cis men have bigger lungs, denser bones, etc” yeah and not all cis men have two legs either, however we aren’t talking about what if’s, on average men are more suited for athletics, and a woman who transitioned post puberty is going to have a pretty significant advantage, transitory therapy does not decrease bone density, lung size, amount of muscles fibers, amount of red blood cells,etc. why not set up leagues where women and consent to compete against post transition women?
29:00 as a former Swimmer I can say that this is just not true. Michael Phelps had an ideal body for swimming, but there's tons with a similar body. There's nothing special about his body that gave him an advantage. He competed against numerous swimmer with an equal if not better body.
It unfortunately shows, that you have limited knowledge of this topic.
As a current swimmer you're an idiot. "Body" doesn't mean physique here.
I'm a 68 year old woman, progressive thinker and all that entails including that no one should be abused or taken advantage of. But I don't think trans women athletes should be allowed to participate in women's sports. Nothing to do with 'numbers' but because 'men's' muscles and body type is different than women's giving each different capabilities, strengths and weaknesses.
Fantastic video!
The sports issue hits me oddly because if I had continued competing in gymnastics (I had to quit because epilepsy, yay), I would have ended up being completely excluded from the sport I trained in. I'm AFAB, but I started training in gymnastics when I was four years old and in the girls' events. Floor, beam, vault, unparallel bars.
It's a constant source of depression that even if I wasn't epileptic and forced to quit because it was too dangerous, I would have been kicked out of the events I trained in if I had come out as a trans man at the time.
Gymnastics is so gendered that it isn't even the same sport; all of the events are different except floor (and even that has very different presentation). It doesn't matter if any woman, even a cis woman, is amazing at pommel horse; she's not allowed to compete in that event.
As a kid I was pretty upset that I couldn’t do the pommel horse, rings, etc. I had very strong arms and hated the balance beam, so I was jealous of the boys. The thing that made me quit was the leotards that you had to wear to be on the high school team - way too revealing for my comfort and would have required a lot of hair removal in certain areas. I really wish it weren’t so gendered from a young age :(
@@soul5049 Beam was my favorite event, but I liked practicing on the pommel horse. The coaches didn't mind me using it while waiting for my mom or my uncle to pick me up. But I couldn't compete on it, which sucked.
The leotards didn't bother me personally, but I completely understand why they would. Tons of trans masc people and cis women alike are uncomfortable competing in them. My thing was how cheerleader-ish the women's floor routines are. No other event is treated that way. Either do it for everyone, or don't at all.
@@soul5049 OMG this is so recognisable. I was in a gymnastics group (nothing high level, it was just for me staying agile and flexible, though I was good at it) that at one point either had a low new member count or there was something with a lot of children being ill or something, I don't really know.
The trainers decided to mix the group up so the boys would do the girls exercises and the exercises the boys normally did and vice versa.
Interestingly, the boys were all quickly put off by this, while the girls were hyped.
I was the only one who in her head felt like "YEEEEES!!! FINALLY, FINALLY I CAN BE ON THE BALANCE BEAM!"
Having returned to recreational gymnastics in 2018, unfortunately, that little voice in my head of "You don't belong on that thing" is still there and I really had to bring myself over to even walk towards one, even with encouragement from some of the women in the recreational group.
One day, due to my presence there was a little debate about "boys exercises" and "girls exercises" and the girls decided to try some of the boys and vice-versa.
Even more interesting, most girls were capable of pulling off some of the boy exercises much better than the boys were able to do the same with the girls exercises.
Stunning and brave!!!!
Also the worst argument here is everyone is talking about averages....that's not the problem! Sports records relies on the extremes. It's extremely unfair that an average man can transition to a woman and now be break records and compete and usually beat all the cis women who are considered extremely well amongst the average woman. That's the problem, it's unfair for cis women, and when trans are told it's not fair to cis women they just say it's unfair to them to be not allowed. That's why there needs to be an open class so everyone is included, while still having the traditional sports classes too, because that is what appeals to the average person.
Today we're gonna talk about trans woman in sports:
1. The big bang
It’s not fair for trans woman to compete in cis woman sports.
Things started going downhill after caitlin Jenner got the woman of the year award!!!! What a slap in the face to all women that was! Just recently caitlin admitted he wasn't a woman but she accepted the award!
Oh yea, women everywhere were hugely insulted by that decision. The Glamour magazine Woman of the Year award is highly respected, and looked to by most women as the pinnacle of achievement in womanhood. Women have never really recovered after this.
I watch ninja warrior (German edition) with my family and up until two seasons ago there were basically no women. Not because women were forbidden, but because as Mia said: the place wasn't welcoming.
Then they changed the rules in a way that up until the final round, there would always be at least two women who qualified for the next round. After that change we saw amazing women athletes and last season we had the first woman who qualified for the finals on her own.
The whole sport became more welcoming for women. And I think that's what we should be our goal. Even if the solutions will look quite different for different contexts (sports, professionalism, country, ...).
That's actually the only solution that I've seen that focuses on the main problem: the vicious circle of role models being scarce in the public eye. "Stuffing women's athletes into their own corner" (because that removes any physical disadvantage) doesn't actually help them compete for what's ACTUALLY most important in professional competitions: audience attention.
Sadly it doesn't naturally apply to team sports. You could require each team to have a women athletes quota; or you could keep all-men and all-women teams and have a quota for how many of each are guaranteed a place in the finals or whatever. But everything gets messy if only some teams are mixed-gender.
(And there will still be sports like weightlifting or boxing where weight categories or league levels are necessary.)
What were the specific changes?
i wanna preface this by saying i oppose the current attempts to oppress trans people vehemently. and not to rely on anecdotal evidence but if you grew up afab you know there’s a point in growing up where it might be from just play wrestling with a guy or something of that nature and u realize males are just much stronger on average. even small short guys you think you could over power. it makes no sense for sports to be gender segregated but they should be sex segregated. ik there’s starts and things that make it complicated but just to say “well it wasn’t fair anyways” is so messed up. not that she says that but i’ve been hearing people say that. if trans women can participate in any sport like some people advocate for then your basically saying there’s no space for females in sports at all. and that’s so wrong.
Great video. The Michael Phelps section hits at a point in the argument that I'd love to see more people really think about and expand on. It boils down to this: you will never, ever see anyone try to restrict a male athletes "natural advantage" . In fact, those men are the ones who get paid the most, invested in the most, and essentially are extremely sought after by recruiters, coaches, etc. My sport of choice is baseball, and when you look at who actually gets signed to the Major Leagues nowadays, it is almost all very tall men which naturally athletic builds and who have what we call the "raw player" potential- essentially a guy who looks like he can hit bombs, because home runs are more exciting than purely contact hitters. It's even an open secret that some men, despite their outstanding performance, don't get picked up due to being a "bad body" - essentially, too ugly for the camera. Is it discrimination that a short man, especially 5'5" and below, has basically 0 chance at ever moving up in the leagues? Or a guy with a particularly large potbelly? Even if these men have their own talents that they could bring to the team? What about basketball, the most notorious sport for which players are always being looked at as their height first? You would NEVER see a sports pundit or league arguing that we need to cap maximum basketball player height to make sure it's fair for men under 6'10" or something. You will never see someone arguing that male swimmers can't compete if they have arms past a certain length. To me the whole argument, as you pointed out, is obviously concern trolling for the integrity of women's sports, something that is easy to see for various reasons. And related to that, it comes off as people trying to protect the IDEA of Women's Sports: aka sports where everyone playing is actually weak and inferior, basically a pity genre of athletics. Anyone who threatens that idea by being very good, coming close to or beating men's records, etc. is seen as a threat not to WOMEN, but to the idea of needing to segregate athletes by sex in the first place. Bringing it back to baseball, look at what happened Jackie Mitchell, the woman who famously struck out Babe Ruth. Because of her, the commissioner of baseball at the time banned women from competing entirely. If you go down the Wikipedia rabbithole like I did, you'll find that there were other women like her as well with similar stories. Baseball didn't open itself back up to women until 60 years later in 1993.
As you said, life has never been fair, and sports is almost a celebration of that unfairness. Sure there could be trans women with advantages from male puberty; there are also cis women with their own genetic advantages, because surprise surprise, people are actually very diverse. Despite what people will tell you, there is currently no science that points to any 1 single advantage that ALL trans women would have over ALL cis women, that a cis woman could never have. Height, red blood cell count, lung capacity, muscle density, etc., literally none of those things can be traced to some single "male" or "female" essence that would be consistent over the entirety of the world's population.
‘Freak’ is literally used to compliment male athletes. People literally say “that guy does stuff no one else could,” as praise. Fairness isn’t the point. Sport is always going to be dominated by the outliers.
And yeah, the problem with trans women fundamentally boils down to them not being seen as women. Otherwise, them happening to be trans would be a valid backstory for them to have an advantage. You would see an article about “top 5 women athletes with crazy natural advantages” and it would be “cis woman where no one in her family has been under 6’3” in 200 years, cis woman with unusually high testosterone, cis woman with hyper flexibility, trans woman with some ‘male-like’ left over traits, cis woman who had two parents be top athletes in the same sport she chose.”
Trans women are women, their different developmental path and personal history is a part of who they are
Also, a lot of the "problems" with trans athletes could go away within a generation or two if trans kids were allowed to take hormone blockers. No male puberty means there's not even a chance for those "problems" to arise
This is a year late but never mind. "you will never, ever see anyone try to restrict a male athletes "natural advantage"" is not correct there are weight categories in many sports. If you don't want a female category that's fine but if you do then you need to define male advantage and basically that's testicles and going through male puberty. This is something that cis women don't have and so it is a universal advantage. That's not to say that all men will be better at sport than all women. There are other factors but the best men are better than the best cis women in most sports because, as I said, they have testicles and went through male puberty.
@@simmorg290 there is so much wrong with your comment but i'm just gonna say: testicles don't give you any kind of advantage in anything other than uh... having testicles. you sound silly
@Sim Morg Using testicles as the reason that cis men are better in sports when they're the weakest/most sensitive appendage that there is and there are literally _protection cups_ for is kind of funny tbh. Cis women have testosterone too, (and some women have a Y chromosome - imagine that!) but it's not like it's being made by a ballsack.
This is the first time I've heard the argument that women's sports have been limited very much because the science, information, and environment they grow up in is woefully undervalued compared to men's. It's such an elegantly simple answer. Thank you
That is certainly part of our but not all of it. Men have higher variance, higher agression, larger size, and higher competitive desires on average than women. Sport is more closely tied to men for a reason. Because historically men compete against other men physically as part of the male dominance hierarchy. Because men were the ones actually outside using their physical skills to protect and provide. This doesn't mean that we should not watch women's sports. But if you look at the women competing in sports, they are usually quite masculinized. This is because typical women are high in the traits of agreeableness, and being people oriented. So women tend to cooperate even in their intense hierarchy where they compete for male attention. In short, there is a big reason why male sports have supremacy over female sports. Women have supremacy over other facets of life. That's why there are so many female doctors, novelists, and singers.
@@Bradley_Lute This felt... Ill-natured and slightly sexist. It is the patriarchal ways our society functions that kept it as men = sports, women = less physically active activities (if you ask me, being a housewife and sole parent is far from not being physically active). Also, it was literally prohibited and medically advised at times for women not to be active, because it would "strain the uterus" (from the top of my head) and it was especially not allowed when they were on their periods (Oh, no! Blood!). A few of your points were very biased to your opinion, such as "But if you look at the women competing in sports, they are usually quite masculinized." That point was annoyingly so close to being a full interpretation and application of previously mentioned points about men, that perhaps they aren't "masculinised," they're just muscly because they're athletes, and physical activity builds muscle. Muscle is not a gendered thing. Everyone has muscle, even if they've atrophied. Noting the changes in tense, you started off as past continuous tense when talking about the men, but referred to the very traditional, sexist ideas that "...typical women are high in the traits of agreeableness, and being people oriented." in present continuous tense. Maybe I'm reaching, but I thought that well represented this comment of yours in that you're excluding what's not seen as justifiable comments and generalisations about men in the past, but didn't have that same train of thought and care when using outdated thoughts and words to describe the present and future women in their behaviours. To "compete for male attention" has not been referred to as such for decades, and only ever in a derogatory and infantilising manner if referenced to today.
@@user-dg3ug7ny5d you are free to characterize my words as sexist. I don't think so. True, women were barred from sports for a long time. But at the same timen it wasn't until the sports bra was invented that women could truly play sports. Yes, women in sports are often masculinized, even apart from the obvious muscle they would build. There are a lot of lesbians in sports. A lot of masc lesbians. I get that there is this whole history of women being excluded, but there are obvious reasons why that is the case. Women were designed by the environment long before humans to be more domestic and men were designed to be hunters. This is why men are 1.2 times the height. Muscle mass. Bone density. And yes behavior influences it a lot. Because we have to be adaptable to a changing environment.
I think you were reading too far into my use of tenses. That was merely my train of thought talking about why men evolved to compete. Sports is an extension of men's ability to work together in groups to hunt for prey and to war. Of course it's going to be a male dominant thing. Meanwhile, we are culturally obsessed with women's dance and figure skating. Sure these are tropey as heck and men and women are the most egalitarian we've been arguably ever. But there is still some beauty in the symbolism of the gender roles. Women havent stopped being the sex that gets pregnant, the sex that carefully makes a small amount of high quality eggs. And men haven't stopped being the physically larger, more aggressive sex that makes an abundance of cheap sperm. Our gametes have a huge amount to do with our behavior and decisions and we evolved in response to each other to compliment each other perfectly. Like the Japanese Yin and Yang. I'm saying this all as a guy that is quite egalitarian. Anyone should be free to live their truth as long as they aren't hurting others. But we are all different and we will undoubtedly offend.
@@Bradley_Lute I'm just going to say, that outlook is extremely Anglo-centric. In my country, the Indigenous Peoples function in a completely different hierarchy and have done so continuously for 40,000+ years. What you provided isn't valid evidence when it culturally only refers to Anglo-centric communities, as it seeks to generalise the whole human race and dominant two sexes. What are "True women," though? If you identify as a woman, you're a woman.
@@Bradley_Lute I have so many questions...
What the heck is 'true women' supposed to mean? Since when is there such a thing as a 'fake' woman?
Since when does lesbian = masculine?
What is the beauty in the 'symbolism of the gender roles', where by 'gender roles' you refer to Anglo-centric ones, as previously mentioned?
Since when are women 'competing for male attention'? Like... women don't exist solely to be chosen by men.
I’m glad the video brought up the androgen sensitivity factor. As a cis man, I can admit that women’s sports isn’t an issue that’s constantly on my mind, I just don’t like when people call something fair when it’s not fair. The best argument to be made is that transwomen in women’s sport isn’t fair and that sports don’t have to be fair. If women as a whole agree on that then it’s not my place to be outraged on their behalf.
It is extremely obvious you have never played in professional sports by how flippant you are about certain aspects. It's even more obvious, although you are trying to be just in your opinion, you're biased. We simply do not have enough clinical data to show any solid conclusions. But for me, there are a few things you said that are getting my goat. Women have not been doing the "sport" long enough to level out with men? Please, which sport are you talking about? This is a very odd point. Did you factor in the steroids that athletes use? And, most studies through decades of data show that it's only in long distance running where biology tends to not matter. But, you took one study that says men only do better in running? I believe that transwomen are women. I also know that transwomen have a biological step up over cis women. Here's something to think about, transwomen are crushing records; why have no transmen competing with men crushed not one? This needs further research and compassion but definitely more research not at the expense of others.
Most importantly, you have misunderstood what fairness in sports means. It is about fairness in equity not equality. That is why heavyweight boxers do not compete with lightweights.
it would be interesting to see the success rate of trans men competing in men's division
0% even if they are on testosterone.
As a South African, the Caster Semenya thing made me so mad. If we're so dedicated to "fairness", why aren't we testing Michael Phelps for seal/dolphin genes and upping his lactic acid production?
Can you not see the difference between your what you are arguing?? Caster is intersex. There is an obvious difference in physicality between intersex and non-intersex people. As a group they would lie between males and females in the distribution of physical traits. Michael Phelps on the other hand is a biological male competing with biological males. His physical advantage is purely the result of superior genetics to all other males. In fact, we see clustering of certain physical and mental traits in all sports.
And notice we don't tend to see trans men compete with cis men. Because they are at an obvious physical disadvantage. No amount of word salad will make it so trans and intersex women as a group will be on par with cis women.
@@Bradley_Lute both Phelps and caster have "superior genetics". You are just arbitrarily deciding which genetic traits are acceptable and which are not
@@x23-w1oCaster is neither male or female. Phelps is a male. These are literally the only traits we are controlling for in sport. And the only reason we are doing that for is the obvious advantages certain groups have over others. Trans and intersex people of both genders lie intermediate to the physically intermediate between the two sexes. If you are a trans woman who is physically superior to all cis women, then you have to assume it's because you are trans. Because you were born male.
@@Bradley_Lute what about tall people?
@@Bradley_Lute dude didn't even watch the video and just went straight to the comments
I love how you both addressed the popular talking points and reframed the subject to explore other perspectives and solutions.
Also your voice is very calming, which helps me pay better attention.
trans dude superiority confirmed
When I was in high school I could beat most of the boys, mostly because I matured quite early. They eventually caught up of course but I was still able to hold my own. Of course, this was only when they let me play at lunch because I wasn't allowed to actually compete with or against them.
Even then, I still vividly remember being commenting as to whether I was or should have been born a boy. When I did occasionally play with other girls they would complain I was too strong or rough when I was just playing the game. I was thicker than nearly all the other girls and was visibly muscular, but I was very much born and still am female. My entire childhood consisted of people holding me back to the point where when I actually got given an opportunity to play for real, I turned it down because I thought more people would dislike me. Basically, there was enough crying about my cis body already, and most transwomen probably have lower test etc than I do
I detest, to this day, the concept that women are 'weaker' in every shape and form because of this. Yes of course I know it's true, and it pains me no end to know I'll never be able to lift as much as I'd like, but quite a lot of it comes down to women either being held back or not being allowed to compete on an even field. There's still pressure for women to be thin, even when there sports require brute strength. You only need to look at the incredible feats of Simone Biles or Serena Williams to see how incredible women can be if their bodies are allowed to just be. Our training programs are adapted from men's, our professional athletes are poorly paid if at all. A lot of girls are still discouraged from sport entirely or taught to be more conservative, take less risks.
The whole scenario leads me to believe that the gap between men and women isn't as large as people think. Transwomen should definitely be allowed to compete and personally, even if there is a slight advantage, that would make me want to do better as an athlete, not pout in the corner and complain.
Serena Williams could never hope to compete in men's professional tennis.
And the question of how much of these differences are biological (hormonal, developmental) versus "women either being held back or not being allowed to compete on an even field" is a totally open question. There is a lot of transphobia on one side to be sure, but also wishful-thinking and hand waving on the other. But it's quite clear that there are developmental advantages that persist even after hormone replacement therapy (organ size, bone structure, muscle development, etc). Just how substantial are these differences, is there a fair way to account for them (there already is a ton of 'unfair' genetic variance that already exists among individuals without considering this topic). I dunno, maybe. It seems to me that if trans-women are highly overrepresented in high-level sports, there's clearly something unfair happening. But any solution that would remedy that would likely exclude them too. So it's tough.
Well you make a very good point. While we can say that in average men are stronger than women, the fact is any world champion women in any given sport is indeed stronger than overall average men. Even in sprint running where men have undeniable anatomic advantage, the world record for a women is 10"49, how many men in the world can do better than that ? maybe 200 among 4billion men. What that tell is reasoning on averages when it comes to sport performance is a non sens. High levels athlètes are living proof that there is exceptions. We should let exceptional people a place to thrive and find a place in our society and we should all be sorry that it hasn't been the case for you at school. Plus if any kid like to play a particular sport, just let him/her play no matter the genre/performance considerations.
in olympic weightlifting males are 27-30% stronger than females even in the same weight class.
Your case is different. You want to compete with men as a genetic woman. While all the issues I hear about are genetically born men wanting to complete in women's fields and easily breaking women's records. There isn't a rush of trans men wanting to compete in men's sports. I wonder why?
Also if you really want to compete in a man's sport now can't you just go try out? If you have the potential to be as good as you say you are while competing against men then I'm sure a coach would love to have you. The goal is to win games.
@@AB-py6jl there are many trans men who want to compete in mens sports, they just dont get as much attention for many reasons (trans men in general are often ignored, and they arent typically breaking records and stuff)
was genuinely a bit sad when the tangent on greece under the ottoman empire was cut short :(
There is also the argument that girl's youth sports is lacking good trainers. In contact heavy sports, there is a much higher statistic of injuries in womens' sports than in mens', because they don't grow up learning how to handle falls and tackles etc. properly.
But even if trans women who might have grown up in boy's sport teams might have an advantage there, this is actually an argument to invest more in girls' youth sports, and promote women's sports as much as men's sports on TV and make the earnings of all people involved in womens' sports the same as mens'.
Sadly, i have never seen radfems in this argument arguing for women instead of against women.
You instead argue for the complete elimination of women's sports as you believe women are just smaller men. We are not the same.
@@blacktigerpaw1 That is literally the opposite of what i said
'Make the earnings of all people involved in women's sports the same as men's
I don't know how people keep using this same stupid point every single time. It's actually Incredible.
hey, so I fully agree on much of this, however Males do have significantly higher levels of testosterone, as well as being more sensitive to it, but this simply contributes to that 38% difference between men and women weightlifters. I would like to say that the reason Trans Men in those data charts performed better than Cis men because the body reacts differently to exogenous testosterone than it does endogenous testosterone, and testosterone differences are one of the big reasons for differences in muscle growth and size between men and women. I also know that transitioning male to female doesn't strip that much muscle off the body if done while maintaining a consistent and healthy exercise routine, so that could also be part of the apparent advantage trans women have over Cis women in certain sports, but like to said that doesn't make much of a difference in most sports, not to mention the sociocultural inequalities between the sexes in sports.
also testosterone readings may be a complete misnomer for the actual level of testosterone available for the body to use just because people have varying levels of sex hormone binding globulin.
@@Bolts_Films i dont agree or disagree but i just wanted to say this sounds intelligent
"I also know that transitioning male to female doesn't strip that much muscle off the body if done while maintaining a consistent and healthy exercise routine"
That's not true. Those data charts are from soldiers who HAVE to keep a healthy exercise routine, and there's no difference between trans and cis women in the strength exercises.
@@62koalalover please take a statistics class lol. Believe whatever you’re going to but the testosterone cut off limit currently established and enforced by WADA is 10nmol/l, which is roughly 280 NG/DL, (the standard unit for measuring blood levels) now the reference range for healthy males is between 200 and 1000, it varies depending on where you are, and the reference range for healthy females is 10-50, again varying depending on location. Do you really think it’s 100% fair that one select segment of the population competing gets to compete with up to 7 times the testosterone of the Cis women they’re competing against? Testosterone is a PED, that’s why it’s banned. I’m not against trans people competing whatsoever, Im all for it, the current guidelines are just not based on up to date science. There are cos women with naturally higher test levels than the limit, and as we’ve seen they’re also being banned from competition, which is fucked up. I don’t have a solution to this problem, but if one is going to come and work across the board it will have to be based on the data.
@@Bolts_Films Trans women on hrt have the same levels of testosterone as cis women, and they perform the same in stength based exercises in the data you mentioned. Also if there are cis women being excluded by the testosterone requirements then why do you think that level is unreasonably high for trans women?
Thank you so much for this actually. I've always felt ill-equipped to handle any dialogue around this topic, and I've been waiting for an informed trans creator to speak about it, and you've offered just the nuanced perspective I'd expect of you. I'm definitely sharing this one around!
Well how about this. Allowing transgender women in women's sports today would still exclude many trans women that don't do hormone therapy so inevitably this will lead to more out cry about not being inclusive enough. So once transgendered women that meet certain hormone levels can participate the next step would have to be allowing all transgender women to participate, because progressivism. The only real solution would be start transwomen competitions.
slipperry slope fallacy
@@-aexc- Not really a slippery slope when it is already happening in high school athletics.
@@cantarguewithstupid policy that makes sense for super-duper elite athletes doesn't necessarily make sense for ordinary people. At the highest levels of sport, microscopic differences determine success, and getting even a tiny boost from an inborn characteristic can be decisive and lead to enormous monetary and reputational advantage, but at the "ordinary person" level (basically anything less competitive than high-level college sports) there's a much greater degree of variance, and vastly lesser rewards for success. To use a crude example, a 5'9" transwoman on a highschool basketball team (who might have been 5'4" had she been cis) will be substantially less disruptive to the competitive balance of said league, than a 7'0" transwoman on a WNBA roster (who might have been 6'8" had she been cis), and any potential competitive disruption in the former case will hurt the other athletes far far less in the former case than the latter
@@John-nt3dk I wouldn't agree with that. High school athletics has been separated in to men's and women's for a reason, otherwise if it doesn't matter then don't separate. These students are competing for scholarships or other
reasons. This is all the more reason to not allow trans people to compete in biologically differentiated sports. There is a reason that transwomen are required to meet certain criteria to compete because it is not a gender differentiation it is a sex differentiation. Also , along the lines that you have said any genetic advantage helps a person compete only argues against transwomen compete in women's sports because they are more likely to have distinct natural biological advantages that women don't have. Therefore a different league for trans individuals needs to be made.
@Jiwon Chang I fell like you and slippery slope maya don't understand what you are saying. It is not a slippery slope argument because there is evidence to support this direction as a highly probably event. Just because you are using logic and deduction does not make likely future events invalid. Now your strawman claim. What I stated is not an over exaggeration of future events based on what we have seen happen and what is happening. The example is based on many facts that we have already seen happen. Transwomen are now competing against women from high school to the olympics. Also transwomen are able to compete at some levels without needing any testosterone levels checked or hormones injected or what ever. There is a big movement saying that transwomen are the exact same as women. So with that here is a push to say that women have penises and testicles. Well if women can also have penises and testicles then why the hell are they being "discriminated" agains because of testosterone levels in the first place???? using facts to draw conclusions is not a logical fallacy in and of itself.
damn a 53 minute video just to say no
But she said yes
I find this very interesting because I know that Olympic target shooting is gender segregated for some reason. Also, target shooting competition does have similar skill classes to that discribed at 46:33.
Misogyny.
A question I have though is if this is to do with being transphobic and not to do with fairness why does no one seem to care about female to males being able to compete in male sports?
If this was mainly about transphobes then surely the opposite would be equally as argued but I rarely ever see people arguing that women that transition to men shouldn't be able to compete in mens sports.
Personally I have the opinion that more research needs to be done as I think in some sports non cis females would have an advantage over cis females and other sports their wouldn't be an advantage.
I think it needs to be taken on a sport by sport basis.
At the moment we don't have a large data pool to actually know what advantage they might or might not get in each sports.
Reason being as Trans has only really been more widely accepted in modern times.
Thus we don't have a huge pool of trans atheletes and especially high end top atheletes competing at the top of each sport to get the data.
I think trans atheletes should be allowed to compete right now in order to find out in each sport if there is an advantage.
Also I don't feel that it's that people would have a problem with trans atheletes winning I mean of course some always would.
For me personally It would more matter how much they are winning by.
IE if a trans athelete came and destroyed the world record in weightlifting by a huge amount then this would be a problem and would show a clear discrepancy.
If they won by a smaller margin I think it wouldn't be as much of an issue.
@UCvjc_aP-Otjt0LTNURJpYNw The Hubbard situation is brought up often from both sides of the argument personally I feel as though it's rather a moot point.
Hubbard before transitioning was at a level that while decent at junior she never would have qualified to be a male weight lifter in the olympics or any high end adult competition.
Also she was 44 years of age which is fairly old for an athlete to be competing. I wouldn't have expected her to break many records and I feel this was rather over dramatised by the transphobic community to over egg the point.
She whilst a capable weightlifter before her transition was never a high end top of the range world class athlete to start with and this is where the real problem would present itself.
For example lets say we took a male athelete who always finishes last competing against male atheletes at olympic level and we put him as a male in a womens weightlifting competition if that male then finished 2nd or 1st this is where the issue is.
The real presentation of this issue and one we haven't seen yet due to the fact there are so few trans atheletes competing would be if someone at the top top level of their sport transitioned to the opposite sex.
So if the male weightlifting world record holder transitioned to a female and then the following year entered a competition I think it would be highly likely that he would destroy the current female weightlifting world record.
If the current UFC mens world champion transitioned to a female and 6 months later entered womens UFC they would destroy the competition. Same thing for boxing ect.
This is when it becomes a huge issue at the high end of sport.
There are some sports where I think it wouldn't be an issue but we need to figure out which ones they are until then we should let trans atheletes compete until we can actually figure out what the data points to.
They believe they simply don’t exist in sport or at a competitive level which isn’t true
Because (a) trans men are routinely erased/ignored, and (b) that conversation wouldn't support their point. Transphobes also don't bring up the fact that their desired bathroom laws would end with bearded, burly trans men in women's change rooms, because they know that this makes them look far, far worse than they think the presence of trans women in women's change rooms makes trans rights activists look.
Because they aren’t dominating mens sports, breaking records, and taking opportunities and money away from men.. lmao
@@miraann3997 If you read what I said I already covered that?
I dont think there has been nearly enough study in depth on the issue or variety. I have absolutely no issue with someone who started hormone blockers before puberty who is trans from doing sports but im not sure those who transitioned after puberty.
2 of my trans women friends had this very arguement and most of the arguements have to do with male vs female puberty. They asked me and i said it needs to be studied and verified that there is absolutely no adavantage and my friend replied thats transphobic and this is a problem i noticed in the community. I noticed this about the trans community is that they are very afraid of just getting studies out there about trans women in sports because of the possible backlash it may have.
there was one women in the UK brave enough to do a single study which a study published in 2021 by a professor in Loughborough university said its complicated and NEEDS further study because there is still too little info to make a decision. The professor doing this is a leader in researching this field. They did say in that study that men to women who are non-athletic are significantly stronger than cis females and leaner which also may impact women's sports in a way but we do not know that because the trans community is kind of hindering the studies with calling it transphobic. the biggest problem of this is the lack of information and I think its doing way more harm to the trans community than good.
If someone wants to transition I am all for accepting them for who they are but sports is a competitive thing and if there are any uncertainties we should air them out and get rid of them as fast as possible because then if the results show yeah there is no difference than many people may feel more comfortable with trans women competing. personally with the inclusion of trans people in sports i think we need to rethink how sports are done in case there are inherent advantages that trans people do get. right now we do not actually know anything on this issue.
I think for now let them compete but they should make sure a ton of studies are done on transgender athletes to air out this issue. it was an interesting discussion but someone with higher than normal testosterone levels and a hermaphrodite are completely different from someone who made voluntary choice to become another gender and this needs to be studied and we need more info before letting all trans people be banned from womens sports. that being said the trans community has to stop hindering the scientific community getting to the crux of the question so everyone can be satisfied when the real answer comes out.
I did really like the video and found it very interesting.
honestly, just implement a scientific limit
record all the highest values of each trait in biological athletes, and ensure trans athletes dont exceed any, this maximises the chance a trans victory is skill rather than inherent advantage
This was really illuminating on the more historic side of sports. I suppose it's easy to not realize how new cis gender female sports are given the patriarchal domination which has existed across the time of societies on sports.
I know in the past, I was less worried about the competition aspect of various genders playing together and thought more about cases such as American football where it could be straight up dangerous for a 200-300 pound cis gender man to tackle his perfectly healthy but significantly smaller female counterpart. Really not sure how much the biological muscle structure changes for trans people due to hormones. Even cisgender athletes come in various shapes and sizes here though. These issues are just as much about cis gender sexism as they are about transphobia so of course many out there are just afraid of what they don't understand. We can't better understand if we don't strive to not only learn more, but adjust overall accepted attitudes in sports over what makes everything fair and/or safe.
@@blacktigerpaw1 it's a little bit of both with sex and gender in sports with the segregation. There's the science to it such as how Myth Busters experienced with the "throw like a girl" trope (kind of bleeds into gender attitudes) and found that both sexes instinctually throw differently (females tend to instinctually throw so as not to disrupt the middle area where baby grows if there is one.)
Yeah! Put men in women's sports and women in men sports! Why not? Keep the locker rooms separate since we are not mature enough for that yet. Cis and trans in the same locker rooms as the exception. Both Jessie Gender and Mia Mulder did a good job convincing me certain sports like maybe soccer have no reason to not be interested. Can set up weight class divisions for safety if necessary.
@@blacktigerpaw1 she is biological male yes. I do not refute biology, let the experts that spent so much time in school learning these things speak on that, if we can trust them not to be paid off by interest groups, lobbyists, etc anyway.
Women can take on men pretty well at fencing I hear. There should just be some questioning of what's acceptable sometimes. While I'm not much of an athlete myself, I am a 5'3 cis gender female of 210 pounds that can mostly keep up with an all cis gender male stocking crew at a grocery store and there's only a handful of merchandise they're better equiped to deal with them me. There are some very notable women of certain sports that train hard enough to equal some guys. There are still stigmas that women should be not entirely unlike victorian ladies of yesteryear which greatly influence gender norms too. A women's body is capable of athleticism simply, so shouldn't athleticism be a feminine thing and therefore not remove her sex or gender from her?
@@blacktigerpaw1 I fit in a size 16 jean. I'm also married to a cisgender man and 6 months pregnant. Explain that?
@@trigjones so you're a health expert or you just use Google to tell you about B.M.I.? If being a size sixteen makes me obese, then I am proudly obese. Some women are thin like a lot of runners and some are a bit more thick, both body types are healthy.
@@trigjones my doctor's have said nothing about my weight, I'll refer to them thank you very much
Also quick thing, about the requirements of trans women with participating in women's competition, doesn't require 2 year hormone therapy, they require 1 year of testosterone being 10 (or 5) nmol/L.
Problem, Height, bone density and muscles stay. That is the problem, trans women keep their height and bone density 100% (muscles less sure). Males have a large advantage no matter what, meaning even if someone transitioned in their early adulthood, they still would have the advantage puberty gave them cause they would be able to grow more muscle, and would have larger bone density.
Also about life not being fair, true, doesn't mean it should be more unfair. Reason sex testing only happens in women's sport, is cause there isn't as much advantage of being a trans man in men's sport. Also cis women not being allowed to compete cause their natural body, is cause they are outliers (the ones you mentioned).
You shouldn’t use outliers to prove a point. Plus, claiming that trans women only retained a biological advantage in running- without going in-depth into the study- fails to explain what general advantages go into such a catch-all sport. Faster recovery? Better agility? A higher smooth-muscle reparation rate? I don’t have a strong opinion on this subject, but it’s clear that this video was not thoroughly fact-checked, nor did you present any original ideas.
this was perhaps the worst ideological wordsallad in a long time.
So the only reason Mike Powell jumps 8,95m and Galina Chistyakova jumps 7,52 is becuse women overall hasnt been practicing/competing long jump as long as men has. It has absolutley nothing to do with biological differences.
Its clear she dosent care much about sports, have no interest in it, she only care about trans rights and nothing else and dosent give a damm about the conseqences for womens sports. Nor does she care about womens rights, or any other groups rights, only trans rights.
It is most fair for the division to be made between sex rather then gender. I know that doesn't solve all issues. Hopefully as society gets better more transgender people have access to puberty blockers and then hormones into adulthood which I think will change this issue again.
We should do with sports what e-sports have done with speedruns: any%, all bosses, glitchless, etc
I don't see how that would go, could you give me an example?
@@penguin776 Trans women compete against each other lol
Two things I feel from your amazingly well-done thorough deconstruction of this topic is, first, that I had a cis girl friend who was super athletic. Cause I was 6'5", now 6'3" after coming out and hurt as well as vaginoplasty, but anyhow she said you like playing with me, and friends basketball, so come out and try out. And did, wasn't out then socially, but, I played for about two years and during that time there was a guy, well call him Mark. And, mark was probably the star athlete, played soccer and football and basketball, and always as the two-three if not top athlete, yet, when we'd practice, and we'd intermural practice, cause I went to a small private school, she'd often I'd say 90% of the time win against Mike if they went one on one. And she wasn't masculine, a tomboy sure, but when she'd put on a dress and glam it up, all would look at her, and wow she's gorgeous. And mike was "cut", muscular, and the star athlete, and yet, cause I was friends with him, he even said yah my girlfriend was just an amazing athlete he could barely beat. So a woman can kick men's asses, but second, I hated when people would want me to play sports cause I was tall when I didn't like sports, and still don't, so if I play sports cause I'm tall is that not "fair." Ugh, just go read "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut. I don't get why when in high school it was played cause you were tall but then in athletic post-high school or college it's seen as unfair, so which is it, fair or unfair to be tall? Personally, I get sick of being tall and always having to bend down then people having to carry a bench or boxes to reach up (just kidding).
This video did a really good job of building up its argument
I was effortlessly led from "Well this seems like a relatively simple problem with a bit of nuance" to "Oh My God Sports Are A Lie"
Thank you for taking the time to make this video. As a 46 year old, former (way former) collegiate athlete, cis woman, I was so happy to see this-concise and informative. I appreciate all the work you put into this.
as an averagely-heighted volleyball player, height-segregated volleyball would be kinda dope
Hell yeah, the midget league and we could play on a table tennis table
Beyond the specific strength difference, men in general are more trained at sports, and are bigger. A world record male weightlifter may be 33% stronger than the world record female weightlifter at 81 kg, but an average male weightlifter is probably 55% stronger than the average female weightlifter disregarding weight, and the average man is probably twice as strong as the average woman, because men are much more likely to lift weights.
Why not simply having a separate trans men and women category? At least for individual sports, the Paralympics solved the problem of different types of diseases/injuries with having people compete at the same time but for different categories, exactly to limit the unfairness in the sports.
Cuz no one's gonna watch trans men/women compete. Even in women's sports, a lot of them have less view than men's sports. Now imagine trans. Who's gonna fund everything?
There's also the issue that such a solution doesn't properly identify the issue in question. If you want to make more categories then realistically you're gonna start in the realm of separate weight classes, which is what boxing and other martial arts sports do.
@@zenfae8373 you do understand that they are already funded right? It's just having a different final podium in the end, not a whole Trans-Olympics. And I would guarantee trans-women would start being watched more than women sports in a few years cause spectacle is what sells. Even racists in the 50s loved watching black athletes compete. Hell, they do it right now
@@johnlarken4744 hmm what do weight classes have to do with the problem in question?
@@baning23 might be possible but I doubt that people are gonna watch trans athletes more than women. And if that happens, , then I'll feel bad for women cuz they're currently fighting for equal pay with male athletes, just to have another category generate more money and have better paid athletes.
Women are getting the short end of the stick here, unless trans athletes have the same or less views than women.
My state just passed a ban on trans girls playing high school and college sports just a few hours ago. This is good timing.
That's awful :(
I think given a 150cm woman and a 200cm woman, as rare as those are, can compete in the same sport.
Allowing a trans woman isn't that unfair probably.
thank you so much for citing your sources in the description! I'm writing a paper on gender segregation in sports and this video served as a perfect resource :)
can you send it if i give you my instagram?
Don't forget the peer reviewed study that found even olympic level female athletes had the same grip strength as the 50th percentile man.
Nfl/nba/nhl/mlb have no restrictions againtmst women playing in the league....cmon ladies step it up
Biological males should compete in men's sport. Or there should be a transgender male and transgender female categories.
Mia is 2 metres tall?! Wouldnt that make her 6 foot 7 and among the tallest women in the world?
no thats 6'5 still pretty tall
@@shay4261 it would make Mia 6.5 feet but not 6'5".
american units are weird. 0.5 feet is not 5 inches in other words.
I'm only 174 cm tall.
Very educational video: had to crack my 45 year old chemistry book to understand some of your answers to questions I had never even thought of but that's okay, it's why I have lugged books all over the country most of my life as portable computers have only been a thing relatively recently. Enjoyed the historical context as well.
Thank you so much Mia, I always felt uncomfortable about this theme because the only people that tried to explain this discussion soundly and reasonably were on the trans exclusionary side, while most people in favor of trans people would be more willing to scream "TRANSPHOBE!" instead of explaining why it could be transphobic. So, thank you very much for the great, explanation, from the bottom of my heart 🖤
No. If you feel energetic just take a run on the hills and then drop down the local caff.
"It has become popular among Republican lawmakers and some thinkers (I spit out my coffee before you could finish with) around Europe" Excellent video.
This is the best video on the topic on youtube.
Usually we have transphobes on one side and well-meaning but utterly uninformed people who boldly claim "there is no biological difference between cis and transwomen" and "men and women are on equal footing" on the other. There obviously are differences, height being the most obvious one. Trying to deny that just makes you look dumb and ignorant.
The point is that there are potential differences but ... maybe that's alright? Maybe we should be okay with some level of unfairness? We are okay with some other causes of unfair results, like Phelps' arms, so why not this one? Also, fair to whom? Because fighting this is in itself unfair to those trans athletes.
tldr: Great video. Great nuancing. (a word I just made up)
Also, female athletes who have naturally higher testosterone levels inherently have an advantage. Life is unfair, you can train harder and better than someone and still be worse than them due to genetics. Top athletes in a sport already have a genetic advantage over their peers. Yes, they're very talented, but there's a reason why taller people dominate in basketball, you can simply just be worse or better than someone at a sport because of the birth lottery.
@@floofzykitty5072 yeah but they're still biological women... it's not the same
yes why not just pump athletes full of drugs and see how high they can really jump?
fairness exists to see how much the human body can naturally accomplish, if you have someone born as a man demonstrating how high a natural female body can jump, well....
either get a 3rd category, or catalog all the highest values of female athletes and make sure trans women dont exceed any of those values
I finally thought of a reason that trans women shouldn’t use women’s bathrooms. They might leave the toilet seat up, and that’s a little annoying.
Source: my trans woman friend always leaves the seat up when they come over.
In case it isn’t obvious this is supposed to be a joke. Well, I mean she does leave the toilet seat up. Other than that it’s a joke.
Let's get real here. The only time people even care about women's sports is when they want to discriminate against trans women.
No shit! The definition of discriminate is: differentiate. Trans women are different from cis women in sports! Especially so if they've undergone male puberty. The left is so fkin delusional about this! You idiots are playing into TERF hands when you want to eliminate gendered categories, because that inevitably destroys women's sports!
7:50 so you're saying that the choice of, say, a 100 m distance for running was a factor favouring men? How does this make sense?
We need to go further! No women in the olympics! only naked men like the good old days! (especially if the men will wrestle)
🤣😂that is not a bad idea LOL
I've had this argument with people before, where they think going through male puberty is some sort of unfair advantage in sports, and I just flip the argument to force them to acknowledge that trans girls shouldn't be denied gender confirming hormone therapy and forced to go through male puberty.
Those two opinions aren’t mutually exclusive. It is possible for someone to think that trans women have an unfair advantage in some sports AND ALSO think that their gender identity should be respected.
First of all those two points are completely different, secondly why would you be proud to flip the argument to something unrelated? Sounds like you're just being a dick.
kids can't make life altering permanent decisions by themselves and that's how it should be because a lot of times the gender dysphoria confusion goes away with puberty as your hormones start to change and it shows you how good being a man or being a woman is that doesn't mean men should be given an opportunity to compete against women.
One question: why is this topic almost exclusively about trans-women in women sports, and not trans-men in men sports?
Because most people assume there are no advantages in sports for somebody who has been born a biological female “because men are better faster and stronger”
Because trans-men in sports are not politically convenient for transphobes. The whole debate is about attacking trans people, so anything that doesn't contribute to that goal gets ignored.
Just legalize steroids for cis-men :)
In Australia there was a big row about a trans women who wanted to complete in our version of football. Even though the women's football league is like 50percent LGBTQ already, she wasn't allowed to play.
I mean cis women who are lesbian, gay or bi still have the biology of a cis woman. Sports isn’t about gender expression, it’s about sex, your biology. And unfortunately, trans women will never have the same biology as cis women. We should still validate their chosen gender identity of course, but it is just a biological fact that trans women have an advantage in certain sports over cis women due to their biology. It’s a shame that so many people use this to be transphobic.
Yeah because AFL is a dangerous AF sport and a 6ft3 100kg person would fucking kill the real women. You're talking about someone who is 2cm shorter than Nat Fyfe and 20kg heavier....like come on!!
She plays handball. Go look at some photos of Hannah playing against the women and tell me it's fair.
Do you are think you are fooling people by saying that there are "lgbtq" participants, people know that they are not trans
@@iqtidarrahman2148 probably does not know what the abbrevation really means
@@ivandankob7112 She is purposely saying LGBTQ to include transgenders, when she's really talking about lesbians which there a lot of in women's sports. Trying to make it seem normal that men are in womens sports
Maybe treat testosterone amount:sensitivity like sports with weight divisions, ignoring gender altogether (Edit: similar to Jane English's idea)
Also, unless there's something serious to gain (money, scholarship, ect) it doesn't matter and there shouldn't be a division
But I'm not convinced that CW should have to compete against TW for sports scholarships or professional team spots when the TW can benefit from bone density, heart size, leverage (height and wingspan), grip (hand size), etc (Edit: I'm not *strictly* opposed; I just remain unconvinced on a sport to sport basis)
This is just an excuse to undermine transwomen. By potentially placing transwomen against men, you are putting them at a disadvantage, thereby once again discriminating against us.
@@millykendrill5301 The whole point of the testosterone amount to sensitivity ratio would be to group whoever has a similar range competes together
If a cis man and a transwoman have a similar testosterone ratio, they will be equivalent (in that regard)
That said , a cisman with transwoman testosterone levels likely has some kind of endocrine dysfunction
This means that the cisman with transwoman testosterone levels won't be as fast, strong, etc as a cisman with "normal" levels (on average)
But this approach would pit *every gender* against *every gender*
Ciswomen with higher than average testosterone levels would compete against cismen with lower than average testosterone levels
It's not about specifically disadvantaging transwomen and more about identifying a metric that transcends our cultural definition of gender
However, under this system transwomen would generally compete against each other, ciswomen with high testosterone ratios and cismen with low testosterone ratios
(I was also a HS wrestler, so treating testosterone ratios as a weight class just makes sense to me)
I could see classes like this:
Low Cis Woman
Avg Cis Woman
High Cis Woman/Low Cis Man
Avg Cis Man
High Cis Man
@@millykendrill5301 Very quiet when faced with a reasonable argument aren't you?
@@millykendrill5301 with testosterone levels you would have cis women in mens sports as well. If a trans woman has more tea tester one than a cis woman should have they should be in the male category along with cis women with internal testes. Ideally gender wouldn’t matter at all
i get what youre saying, but i hope youre aware also that eliminates trans women from competing with cis women in professional sports almost completely lol. i do agree that it should be in categories based on physical ability as opposed to gender or sex, but testosterone is not this hormone that is so integral to determining sports abilities. SO much of sports abilities come down to class (like what mia talks about in the video) and biological advantages that arent hormones, but things like height/muscle mass/lactic acid production/etc. and saying that "well trans women can compete with cis women, as long as its not for money or scholarships!" eliminates trans women from having the same opportunities as cis women... which is 1) transphobic and 2) kind of where trans sports politics are at rn.
Okay, I've had this open in my tabs for a few days. Can someone just tell me if it's horribly distressing to watch?
"let's talk about trans women in sports", "part 1, the fall of the roman empire".... I laughed, I cried, I peed a little
What happened to Mokgadi Caster Semenya is one in a long line of reasons I don't compete in sports.
I'm a chimera resulting from an absorbed fraternal twin who happens to be tall and athletic "despite" being, ostensibly, female.
Getting called a mannish freak already put me off of any competition with women, the idea of the public getting all up in my business for having the audacity to win would...
Well, they'd probably find me hanging by a belt, to be totally, brutally honest.
Truth be told, I'm not interested in competition as a general concept anymore.
It's all so tiresome.
tfw they banned trans people in chess which is the weakest transphobic argument anyway and already heavily discriminates cis women 🤡🤡ridiculous. love this video though, such a great breakdown of how flawed division is in sports
This video brought up a lot of arguments I've used before that I think I could add more examples to. As someone who has competed in combat sports I always found the arguments about 'fairness' rather silly. 'fairness' has always been a secondary concern in terms of sports, compared to whether or not the people participating enjoy it, and whether or not people enjoy watching it (or paying to watch it).
Of course the perception of 'fairness' is important to both athletes and the audience, but it's kind of arbitrary. It goes beyond just Michael Phelps. Take my preferred sport, kickboxing for example. There are numerous famous examples of open weight matches between fighters of hugely different weight classes. These david-vs-goliath matches clearly involve a physical advantage on the part of the larger fighter. Yet they still happen and I typically don't see complaints when they do happen between two consenting fighters from people who oppose the presence of trans women in sports..
Trans-women may have an advantage in bone density if they transitioned post puberty... however
I, as a cis-man have never had my bone density estimated before a fight. They don't do that when you weigh in. There are myriad aspects to unfairness that most people just don't think about when they get up in arms about trans women in sports. There are valid arguments to be made as to why there should be some segregations in sports, including gender however that is far from the majority of the ones I see online. Anyways, interesting video.
When discussing your favourite sport of kick boxing, you must be familiar with Lucia Rijker who was at one time the world's most dangerous female fighter on a pound-for-pound basis. She has been referred to as “The Most Dangerous Woman in the World,” and “Queen of Lightning” on many occasions.
Rijker gained an international reputation as a kickboxer, fighting in Europe and Japan. She defeated then-world titleholder Cheryl Wheeler of the USA by decision in Amsterdam on October 6 1985 (and is considered responsible for helping to persuade Cheryl to retire, by breaking her nose in that fight.
Her only defeat in a kickboxing ring was in a Muay Thai style exhibition match at Sporthalle Zuid in Amsterdam in October 1994, when Lucia fought 'unranked male' Somchai Jaidee, who knocked her out in the second round.
She then gave up Thai to move to traditional boxing where she had another amazing and undefeated career against women. A deal was put together for her to box against a male once again and this time she declined..
When women compete against male biology in strength based sports they lose.
Dr Vasi Naganathan has a research paper (PMID: 12830370) in which twins of opposite sex were compared in whom the effects of age, genes and environment are partially controlled for. DEXA derived bone mass density at the third lumbar vertebra (L3), femoral neck (FN) and forearm (1/3 radius) were compared between 82 opposite sex pairs aged 18-80. Bone mass density was significantly higher in males at all three sites (26-45.5%)
That's just one of the many biological advantages of being male in strength based sports. Research has also shown that the difference in bone density between males is exceptionally small and in single digit percentages unlike the large divide between male and female bone density.
@@kidkarbon4775 Yes I'm aware of who Lucia Rijker is. But it is not true that women always lose against men, likewise it is also not true that trans-women always win against cis women in fights (Ediane Gomes in open kickboxing, Ashlee Evans-Smith in MMA). Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying men don't tend to have a significant advantage. They do, I know this firsthand. But there are a number of factors that lead most people to overestimate men, and underestimate women (The famous Ediane Gomes fight is an example of this).
This is all tangential to my point, which is the double standard that is applied to women, as opposed to men in sports.
Lucia Rijker lost against an unranked male Muay Thai fighter, and the takeaway most people have is that it was merely because he was male. Yet there is no rule that ranked fighters are by definition more skilled than unranked. I expect physical strength due to sexual dimorphism was definitely a factor. However, what about mentality and expectation? Two major factors in combat sports. Amongst male fighters, we still give less experienced fighters 'a puncher's chance', as you do not need to be stronger than an opponent to knock them out. But for some reason, no one applies this to the Lucia Rijker fight. I think this is largely due to biases we have about women in sports. We don't do the same thing to physically weaker men. Smaller opponents have beaten larger opponents (men and women) numerous times in combat sports through winning the mental game.
If you're a fan of Lawrence Kenshin videos, let's use a male example. When Kaoklai (150lbs) KO'd Mighty Mo (250+lbs), and other bigger, stronger and often very skilled fighters did he prove that weight classes don't matter? Of course not. But the difference in strength between him and Mighty Mo was over 100lbs, there was a far greater difference in strength there than fit man and woman of the same weight. Yet no one complains about fights like this, or says it reflects badly on Mighty Mo (he's a beast on his own and has taken on some really tough fighters). Yet throw in the average 150lb fighter vs the average 250lb fighter, the bigger man wins.
If two consenting cis-men with huge physical differences can fight without complaint, why can't consenting men and women, or trans-women and cis-women provided everyone knows what they're up against?
On the note of that research paper: (PMID: 12830370)
I don't think you actually read through and comprehended what that paper concludes. Here's an excerpt:
"In conclusion, lower bone mass in females compared to males is more due to smaller size of bones rather than greater differences in densities. Variation in the sizes of the bones rather than differences in the densities of the bone therefore contribute to the lower skeletal mass in women."
This runs counter to your claim, and suggests that men and women of the same weight have similar bone densities. Of course, men do still have an advantage in other ways, but Trans-women can actually mitigate both the bone density and muscular advantages by taking puberty blockers as a teenager.
youre comparing two competitors that qualify for their category, against ones that literally dont
by that logic I should be able to steal someones spot in an Asian beauty contest despite not being Asian
@@Arionid idk what 'asian beauty contests' are actually gated by race, but if there's a beauty contest in asia, you're not asian and they let you in and the competitors are ok with it that shouldn't be a problem.
My point is not to abolish weight classes or sex based divisions. It's a case by case thing. My point is the arguments about "fairness" don't really apply to spectator sports. Especially when everyone is consenting.
@@blungus9574 I'm sure all the swimmers having to attempt to win medals over Lia Thomas consented to her presence
This is not a simple issue if you care about sporting integrity
Why not make a third league for intersex and trans?
The point of conservatives wasn't about trans people in sports, it was always about banning trans people from public life
First of all, love the video, totally subscribed!
Second, it’s so on the head, the part that taxonomy in this area can be overdone so easily. Modern Homo sapiens aren’t thought to be so sexually dimorphic as past species of humans. That being said, we still have a TON of genetic variation in terms of certain phylogenetic factors (I.e. body shape, size, hormone levels) but also our “dimorphism” is more of a sliding scale since there’s multiple chromosomal combinations one can have regarding sex.
I am a cis woman, but I have a hormonal condition that requires the same medicine as my trans girlfriend. So why should I be considered cis by sports standards if I have hormone treatment nearly identical to my girlfriend, if, before treatment, both of us had higher levels of testosterone? It does reach a point where almost nobody gets to be a woman when so much specific criteria is placed on biological attributes.
I like the fact you point out as well that women’s sports are much younger and that there’s simply a smaller pool of competition in them, which makes much more sense than “man strong, woman weak”, since, again, we don’t have a super strong sexual dimorphism in our species and the differences caused specifically by chromosomes and hormones aren’t as cut and dry as some people make them.
Over all excellent video and I look forward to binging your other ones tonight haha
Sex is determined by the gametes we produce in biology. And the matter is biological, not genetic nor anatomic. There's no "dimorphism", there's a dimorphism as there're only two kind of gametes. Sex is bimodal biologically. And if we use the gametes as the standard to determine sex, it's because it's the most stable parameter: you can have plenty of genetic variation, and there're even more anatomic variation (basically, each individual has a specific sex).
Sexual dimorphism in mankind is strong enough to justify the development of sexism through ages. When you know that around 30% of genes have their expression that differ because of the sex, that's massive in term of differences.
This comment gives me hope. I'm a transgender girl who hasn't been able to start hormones (and probably won't be able to if a Repub wins the presidential election in November 2024), so I'm always afraid I'll never be able to find a partner who just *accepts* me.
I think it's an issue where a case-by-case approach for competitive play, depending on the sport, would be the best solution, in lieu of more 'blanket' approaches.
For example, someone like me, who went through a full AMAB puberty, is going to have certain advantages that someone who started HRT at 15 simply won't have. Again, competitive fairness needs must be the end goal.
However, if it isn't meaningfully competitive (and I'm talking individualised and at the national or world level), then a blanket exclusion policy would be inappropriate. My having an AMAB puberty isn't going to single-handedly carry your local women's pub football team to the Women's World Cup.
The key thing to always remember here is that most people with a... negative interest in this are going to be strongly biased in favour of a universal exclusion policy by virtue of their own hostile prejudices, science be damned, and they can and should be omitted from any serious discussion on this matter.
Why need it be competitvely fair? Nothing is sports is - why not exclude phelps?
@@markcangila1613 if we're going by that logic than why not get rid of weight brackets? So what if that's totally unfair for people born smaller apparently that doesn't matter anymore. And you know what? while we're at it why not just combine mens and women's circuits if apparently it doesn't matter.
And you know what? why not just let children competete too so what if they don't stand a chance after all its not like these rules have reasons behind them.
I could keep going but I won't.
@@markcangila1613 if you don’t understand the difference between freak genetics like phelps (and all high level swimmers not just him) and a systemic advantage every single trans women will have is just cringe
Riley Gaines? Didn't come in 2nd in a women's race. She won with a dude in the pool.
If life isnt fair, surely it is fairER to discriminate against 1% of the population instead of 50%.
This video is fuckin incredible.
One thing transphobes seem to forget is the “gift” some athletes have like when you mentioned Michael Phelps. This works with cis women too. A solid example would be the world of Pro Wrestling (WWE, AEW etc). There are many examples of cis women wrestlers just being “built different.” Look to someone like Jade Cargill, Nia Jax, Beth Phoenix. They are much larger and more beefed up than a good chunk of their respective women’s roster. Compare them to people like Alexa Bliss, Kacy Catanzaro and Riho. But as soon as Nyla Rose beats the shit out of someone in a segment, everyone loses their minds because shes trans. No bro its because shes fuckin huge. And the same argument was never leveled towards the likes of the other women i mentioned.
Im glad im not transphobic anymore, i overcame that awhile ago and videos like this help reinforce my support youre kicking ass queen keep it up.
She's built huge cause she's a guy
@@-Scrapper- you missed the part where they listed cis women, does being a transphobe not come with reading comprehension?????
The reason we have women's sports isn't about hormones or any other sex characteristic - it's because of patriarchy forcing women out.
Baseball changed its rules to be for men only in a right hurry after a female pitcher wiped the floor with murderers' row, and the commissioner at the time claimed it was for women's own good when it was obviously done to preserve men's egos.
We need women's sports to be able to keep celebrating the achievement of people often excluded by sexist society. And to properly fulfill that goal, trans women obviously have to be welcome.
Bruh patriarchy ...really??
low key would watch you just give a 40 min history presentation
Given the amount of sports science aka substance abuse, the whole argument about cheating is generally useless. I'm for an honest take what You want, be who You want open category.
Also, I think that most televised competitions are kind of a flesh market to begin with.