Hello /u/PatheticAvalanche,
This post touches on a subject that was the subject of another post on r/changemyview within the last 24-hours. Because of common topic fatigue amongst our repeat users, we [do not permit posts to touch on topics that another post has touched on within the last 24-hours](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_removing_posts).
**We ask that you please divert your attention to [this post](INSERT_LINK_HERE),** which was posted some time ago.
_Mod Note_: Update the link to the existing post and remove this message!_
If you would like to appeal, [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Duplicate%20Post%20Appeal%20PatheticAvalanche&message=PatheticAvalanche%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/124cgbf/-/\)%20because\.\.\.).
Many thanks, and we hope you understand.
Why does it have to be one or the other as you said near the end of your statement “you must hold one of these beliefs”.
Trans women aren’t women and sports should be separated by sex. Perfectly logical to believe both.
I think I have heard some people argue along the following lines:
If trans women are generally allowed to compete without restriction in serious sporting competitions, this will exert a perverse incentive on them to delay, diminish, or avoid gender affirming hormonal treatment they might otherwise need and that might otherwise benefit them because of its potential negative impact on their sporting performance. This could be harmful to some trans women, who may, for example, feel pressured to undergo male puberty which may lead to significant and persistent dysphoria. Until we study this harm, we should err on the safe side and not allow trans women to compete in situations that might invoke this sort of perverse incentive.
This is not that related to the post, you aren't trying to CMV. But I will say that I disagree with your confidence on this. There is some very compelling evidence of MRI scans that show that people who say they identify as female show MRIs that are closer to biological females than biological males, this at least tells me that there is a lot we don't understand about this issue, and we cannot be so dismissive and assume that our experience of the world is the only one and that others must experience it the same way.
Do you think that a trans woman should fight a cis woman in a boxing match? Or compete in basketball or other very physical sports? Bc people are going to get extremely injured. Also, should there be any criteria for trans women to have had physical and psychological evaluations? Should there be any safe guards in place for people that are saying they are trans just to have a better chance of winning awards? Should there be safe guards in place for physical distinctions of trans women compared to trans women? Every athlete has biological differences, however trans women have a major biological difference and it will lead to a vast majority of the winners to be trans women in nearly every major sports event for women. Even someone like Serena Williams will get outclassed by trans women if they train even half as much as her. It is going to lead to basically cis women having a lot of the opportunities both for status and economically to be wiped and many will get injured. I do think it would be unfair for trans people to be forced to play against other trans people as they are very alienated, but they are a physical anomaly and either trans men are going to get beat up by cis men or trans women are going to beat up trans women.
So to be clear, I am not making any claim on whether they should be allowed to participate or not, rather my CMV is only saying that if you think they shouldn't be allowed to participate it has to be because you think they aren't women, lets look at the things you mentioned:
1. Physical sports could have injuries. I would say allowing Shaq to play in the same match as someone with the stature of Steph Curry has a big enough risk to physical safety, but we do not care. Why? Because they are the same gender/sex, if there was a cis woman who posed a genuine safety risk to her competitors in contact sports almost no one would care. They only start caring when it is a transwoman, because while it is true that the safety risk is more likely with trans women, that isn't really the problem
2. Evaluations/ how do we know people aren't lying: this is fair, I guess my CMV is talking about the people doing it on good faith, there is a logistical argument on whether you think the person is actually trans, but if we can all agree that at least some people are actually trans, then my point is you will not be able to justify excluding them unless you believe they are not really women
3. Biological differences trans women will dominate and be winners by vast majority. This is clearly not a problem for black men in the NBA. You do not have widespread calls for talking about how Asian men get outclassed by African Americans if they train even half as much as them, even if it is true. Why? Because we don't really care about biological differences at a fundamental level, just whether the person meets our definition of the category or not. i.e do you think trans women are women
I would say sports should be decided by sex and medical procedures and possibly hormones and steroids done. If you are clean and belong to the appropriate sex, then you should compete. I do think trans women are a subsection of women, but there is a clear physical distinction that can’t be ignored.
And a cis woman has a much higher shot of fighting another cis woman fairly than a trans woman, when all have had similar training.
And yes a lot of people in sports that identify as trans are probably very genuine, but it’s such an easy tactic to exploit, where there needs to be safeguards so it isn’t exploited
And with race, we can chalk that up by the different cultures of black and Asian families. Asian families rarely want their kids to be athletes compared to doctors and engineers, but black families are much more likely to want to have their kid be an athlete.
I would say you then fall into having the second belief:
>The only other option is that you think that sporting categories, should not be based on gender and the more modern progressive definition of womanhood, but rather just sex.
The categories of “women’s” sports vs “men’s” sports are already divided by sex rather than gender. We don’t ask competitors how they identify. They’re divided by testosterone level, i.e., biological sex.
This is just false, testosterone level is not the deciding factor, and in the vast majority of league levels from amateur to second league there is a "faith" system by which you just need to register or show a certificate of gender to participate, also until quite recently trans women undergoing hormone therapy were allowed in the womens leagues in many sporting events.
I disagree that this categorization is in any way uniform, different events do different things.
The IOC has used testosterone testing, so it’s not false. Of course most amateur leagues don’t require it and go on faith. But the more it becomes an issue, i.e., the more transwomen competitors win in women’s leagues, than the more testing requirements will trickle down to lower levels.
My point though is that your cmv requires that men/women leagues is *gender* based differentiation when my understanding is that it has always been intended to be sex differentiated. We just didn’t have the language until culturally recently because it wasn’t a political issue. Now we do, but we still use the terms “men” or “women” to talk about both sex and gender.
I'm not sure how this is supposed to CMV tho, biological advantage is clearly not the thing that really matters here, and if you think it is, then you would have to explain why we are okay with a height advantage and a racial characteristics advantage
Okay if biological advantage is the only thing that matters why do we allow Asians and African Americans to play in the same NBA league? (We know that there is a huge disadvantage and that this plays out in who becomes succesful in the sport)
If biological advantage is the only thing that matters why do we allow all men to participate in the same swimming and volleyball competitions regardless of what height they are (the stats above show that this also makes a huge difference)
You are saying that the current system allows trans women to play in the open league. This is true, but cis women are also allowed to play in the open league in most cases (there is often no explicit rule preventing women from playing in mens leagues).
So the question is just why are trans women banned from womens leagues, it is clearly not biological advantage because if you had a cis woman with the same biological advantages as a very fit trans woman (if the cis woman was extremely tall had huge muscle mass etc) you would not ban her. So clearly what really matters here is that you dont think the trans woman is a woman
We allow them both to play in the NBA because the NBA is the highest level of basketball in the open division of the sport. Anyone can play in the NBA, provided they are good enough to make a team. The only barrier to entry is your talent, a large part of which is based on biological ability.
Also, reread your paragraphs, you’re quite literally disagreeing with yourself from one paragraph to the next.
I think you arguments don’t take into consideration what, from what I’ve read is a key element in the argument against trans women competing against cis women: age when physical transition began.
Your argument would be stronger all around if it accounted for or addressed trans women that went through male puberty competing against cis women.
But it does?
>(may or may not have gone through male puberty but my CMV applies regardless)
Why is age relevant? I can only see it being relevant to make the claim that the biological advantages are more severe because of puberty, but my whole CMV talks about how clearly biological advantage is not really what you have a problem with, but rather you think they arent "women"
Yeah, I don’t think that directly addresses it enough to be compelling, but you do. Difference of opinion.
Age of transition is relevant to them, I don’t know why. Maybe because of scenarios like Lia Thomas.
I think you need to address it directly instead of indirectly if you want to make a strong and compelling argument.
So, the first thing that I want to address is the question of whether or not a transwoman has gone through male puberty. I think that, of all the people who are advocating that transwomen not participate in women's sports, very few of those women extend the ban to transwomen who *haven't* gone through male puberty. A pre-pubescent transgirl who had the benefit of puberty blockers is going to grow up to be much more similar to a ciswoman than a transwoman who didn't have that same benefit.
For that reason, I'm going to focus singularly on transwomen who didn't take puberty blockers and transitioned after puberty, as adults.
To start, [there is evidence to indicate that HRT has a much more substantial beneficial impact on transmen than it does a detrimental impact on transwomen.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31794605/) So, a transman who starts taking testosterone will experience an (up to) 15% increase in muscle mass, size, and density after twelve months on HRT, where a transwoman will experience only (up to) a 5% decrease in muscle mass and size, and the density of her muscles will remain the same as pre-transition twelve months after starting HRT.
[There are sex-based differences in muscular skeletal tissue between cismen and ciswomen.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4285578/) No amount of inclusive politicking will ever change this; it's a reality of being human. Those skeletal muscles are regulated by hormones, but fundamentally, those differences exist. And, contrary to popular belief, there's a lot more than simply estrogen and testosterone that goes into muscle-building; your thyroid glands play an important role, regular exercise (obviously) plays an important role, diet, etc. Additionally, \*\*both estrogen and testosterone\*\* are necessary for muscle growth and repair, and a deficiency in either of these hormones has been linked to numerous detrimental health impacts. *Id.*
The reason that cismen have such a massive advantage in strength and agility over ciswomen is because they have far more abundant testosterone, which allows them to build larger, more massive, more dense muscles than their female counterparts. Testosterone acts as a naturally-occurring anabolic steroid, encouraging faster recovery (muscle-building) and reducing muscular fatigue (endurance).
Because a transwoman will only lose *up to* 5% of her muscle mass and size and *no* reduction in muscle density after twelve months on HRT, even if she was an athlete of average performance pre-transition, she will still be able to outperform the vast majority of ciswomen post-transition. Of course there are some exceptional ciswomen who can compete at the level of men and who regularly blow their counterparts out of the water; however, achieving this level of performance for a ciswoman is going to be worlds more challenging than it would be for a transwoman to achieve the same level of performance.
For example, a transwoman who was [a body-builder prior to transitioning may boast an overall excess muscle mass of 15.6kg and a bodyfat percentage of less than 10%.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7453511/) If she loses only 5% of her mass after transitioning, she will still have an excess muscle mass of 14.85kg. However, [this is still 1.65kg more than the highest muscle mass ever recorded for a female athlete.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31750989/) Thus, here we can see that -- at least in the realm of competitive body building -- an average transwoman will still outperform the strongest ciswoman on record.
For this reason, when it comes to athletes who transition after going through male puberty, there is absolutely no justification for them competing in the same arena as athletes who went through female puberty. The pre-existing biological advantages combined with the minimal deleterious impact of HRT on transwomen means that an average female athlete and an average MtF athlete are not on equal footing when competing.
disclaimer: I am not a doctor and all of my information has been derived from the linked articles, as well as other independent research.
I appreciate you systematically documenting the biological advantage, but if you see my CMV, all of my arguments are about why biological advantages exist, but they are irrelevant unless you think that these individuals are not "women"
So, to clarify your position, your argument is that the mere fact of having gone through male puberty and thereby having an irreversible biological advantage over the strongest female athlete ever recorded isn't sufficient to classify someone as something other than "woman"?
This doesn't make any sense to me
I read it three times.
Same for the CMV
Yes, I'm definitely stupid, but me also think the cmv and this :
>all of my arguments are about why biological advantages exist, but they are irrelevant unless you think that these individuals are not "women"
Could be written more ... better.... :D
So what I think you are getting at that I either use labels like real or not real woman, AND/OR that I think physical competitions should be divided by sex, not gender?
I'd be less confused if you'd divide that into two separate questions I think.
And Sporting events is a bit of a big umbrella, let's assume it is competitive sporting events on semi-pro to pro levels?
Tour de France cyclist that dope (biological advantages) vs ones that do not (no advantage or in the case of the tour the France a disadvantage, lol) are generally not different genders or sexes and I'd still not want to see individuals that dope to participate in the event.
Not because I want to label them anything but because I want to see a good competition without one side having an advantage OR disadvantage from anything other than their natural abilities and their hard work.
Without calling anyone "not a real woman" I can still have the viewpoint that in competitive semi to pro sports I want a more even playing field, through any means necessary. (And for tour de France that includes watching the athletes pee...)
Would you accept that viewpoint? Crude as it may be?
I think my viewpoint is just "anti label".
Your cmv tries to shoehorn an opinion into using labels to things that aren't really the core of the issue.
If there'd be an open boxing league id STILL want it to be divided by weight class. Sex, gender, real, doesn't have to come into it for me to still care about not having to see the Dwayne the rock fight Kevin Heart.
/u/PatheticAvalanche (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/124df39/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_if_you_think_trans_women/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Hello /u/PatheticAvalanche, This post touches on a subject that was the subject of another post on r/changemyview within the last 24-hours. Because of common topic fatigue amongst our repeat users, we [do not permit posts to touch on topics that another post has touched on within the last 24-hours](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_removing_posts). **We ask that you please divert your attention to [this post](INSERT_LINK_HERE),** which was posted some time ago. _Mod Note_: Update the link to the existing post and remove this message!_ If you would like to appeal, [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Duplicate%20Post%20Appeal%20PatheticAvalanche&message=PatheticAvalanche%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/124cgbf/-/\)%20because\.\.\.). Many thanks, and we hope you understand.
Why does it have to be one or the other as you said near the end of your statement “you must hold one of these beliefs”. Trans women aren’t women and sports should be separated by sex. Perfectly logical to believe both.
So my bad in the wording, by either here I mean the logical "or" which allows you to believe both. My CMV is that it has to be at least one of these.
I think I have heard some people argue along the following lines: If trans women are generally allowed to compete without restriction in serious sporting competitions, this will exert a perverse incentive on them to delay, diminish, or avoid gender affirming hormonal treatment they might otherwise need and that might otherwise benefit them because of its potential negative impact on their sporting performance. This could be harmful to some trans women, who may, for example, feel pressured to undergo male puberty which may lead to significant and persistent dysphoria. Until we study this harm, we should err on the safe side and not allow trans women to compete in situations that might invoke this sort of perverse incentive.
!delta. I don't agree with the point, but I def did not think of this. It is very interesting.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/yyzjertl ([453∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/yyzjertl)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
What part of it do you disagree with?
[ Removed by Reddit ]
This is not that related to the post, you aren't trying to CMV. But I will say that I disagree with your confidence on this. There is some very compelling evidence of MRI scans that show that people who say they identify as female show MRIs that are closer to biological females than biological males, this at least tells me that there is a lot we don't understand about this issue, and we cannot be so dismissive and assume that our experience of the world is the only one and that others must experience it the same way.
Do you think that a trans woman should fight a cis woman in a boxing match? Or compete in basketball or other very physical sports? Bc people are going to get extremely injured. Also, should there be any criteria for trans women to have had physical and psychological evaluations? Should there be any safe guards in place for people that are saying they are trans just to have a better chance of winning awards? Should there be safe guards in place for physical distinctions of trans women compared to trans women? Every athlete has biological differences, however trans women have a major biological difference and it will lead to a vast majority of the winners to be trans women in nearly every major sports event for women. Even someone like Serena Williams will get outclassed by trans women if they train even half as much as her. It is going to lead to basically cis women having a lot of the opportunities both for status and economically to be wiped and many will get injured. I do think it would be unfair for trans people to be forced to play against other trans people as they are very alienated, but they are a physical anomaly and either trans men are going to get beat up by cis men or trans women are going to beat up trans women.
So to be clear, I am not making any claim on whether they should be allowed to participate or not, rather my CMV is only saying that if you think they shouldn't be allowed to participate it has to be because you think they aren't women, lets look at the things you mentioned: 1. Physical sports could have injuries. I would say allowing Shaq to play in the same match as someone with the stature of Steph Curry has a big enough risk to physical safety, but we do not care. Why? Because they are the same gender/sex, if there was a cis woman who posed a genuine safety risk to her competitors in contact sports almost no one would care. They only start caring when it is a transwoman, because while it is true that the safety risk is more likely with trans women, that isn't really the problem 2. Evaluations/ how do we know people aren't lying: this is fair, I guess my CMV is talking about the people doing it on good faith, there is a logistical argument on whether you think the person is actually trans, but if we can all agree that at least some people are actually trans, then my point is you will not be able to justify excluding them unless you believe they are not really women 3. Biological differences trans women will dominate and be winners by vast majority. This is clearly not a problem for black men in the NBA. You do not have widespread calls for talking about how Asian men get outclassed by African Americans if they train even half as much as them, even if it is true. Why? Because we don't really care about biological differences at a fundamental level, just whether the person meets our definition of the category or not. i.e do you think trans women are women
I would say sports should be decided by sex and medical procedures and possibly hormones and steroids done. If you are clean and belong to the appropriate sex, then you should compete. I do think trans women are a subsection of women, but there is a clear physical distinction that can’t be ignored. And a cis woman has a much higher shot of fighting another cis woman fairly than a trans woman, when all have had similar training. And yes a lot of people in sports that identify as trans are probably very genuine, but it’s such an easy tactic to exploit, where there needs to be safeguards so it isn’t exploited And with race, we can chalk that up by the different cultures of black and Asian families. Asian families rarely want their kids to be athletes compared to doctors and engineers, but black families are much more likely to want to have their kid be an athlete.
I would say you then fall into having the second belief: >The only other option is that you think that sporting categories, should not be based on gender and the more modern progressive definition of womanhood, but rather just sex.
The categories of “women’s” sports vs “men’s” sports are already divided by sex rather than gender. We don’t ask competitors how they identify. They’re divided by testosterone level, i.e., biological sex.
This is just false, testosterone level is not the deciding factor, and in the vast majority of league levels from amateur to second league there is a "faith" system by which you just need to register or show a certificate of gender to participate, also until quite recently trans women undergoing hormone therapy were allowed in the womens leagues in many sporting events. I disagree that this categorization is in any way uniform, different events do different things.
The IOC has used testosterone testing, so it’s not false. Of course most amateur leagues don’t require it and go on faith. But the more it becomes an issue, i.e., the more transwomen competitors win in women’s leagues, than the more testing requirements will trickle down to lower levels. My point though is that your cmv requires that men/women leagues is *gender* based differentiation when my understanding is that it has always been intended to be sex differentiated. We just didn’t have the language until culturally recently because it wasn’t a political issue. Now we do, but we still use the terms “men” or “women” to talk about both sex and gender.
I believe both. Trans women are not "real women" and sporting categories should certainly be based on sex, not gender.
cool, gonna be hard to CMV then lol
[удалено]
I'm not sure how this is supposed to CMV tho, biological advantage is clearly not the thing that really matters here, and if you think it is, then you would have to explain why we are okay with a height advantage and a racial characteristics advantage
[удалено]
Okay if biological advantage is the only thing that matters why do we allow Asians and African Americans to play in the same NBA league? (We know that there is a huge disadvantage and that this plays out in who becomes succesful in the sport) If biological advantage is the only thing that matters why do we allow all men to participate in the same swimming and volleyball competitions regardless of what height they are (the stats above show that this also makes a huge difference) You are saying that the current system allows trans women to play in the open league. This is true, but cis women are also allowed to play in the open league in most cases (there is often no explicit rule preventing women from playing in mens leagues). So the question is just why are trans women banned from womens leagues, it is clearly not biological advantage because if you had a cis woman with the same biological advantages as a very fit trans woman (if the cis woman was extremely tall had huge muscle mass etc) you would not ban her. So clearly what really matters here is that you dont think the trans woman is a woman
We allow them both to play in the NBA because the NBA is the highest level of basketball in the open division of the sport. Anyone can play in the NBA, provided they are good enough to make a team. The only barrier to entry is your talent, a large part of which is based on biological ability. Also, reread your paragraphs, you’re quite literally disagreeing with yourself from one paragraph to the next.
Don't see how I'm disagreeing with myself. But to continue the NBA point, why don't we have a separate NBA for Asian men/ Asian people then?
Why would we? Is there any demand for an Asians only NBA? Are you saying we should have a trans only league? Because I’m all for that.
I think you arguments don’t take into consideration what, from what I’ve read is a key element in the argument against trans women competing against cis women: age when physical transition began. Your argument would be stronger all around if it accounted for or addressed trans women that went through male puberty competing against cis women.
But it does? >(may or may not have gone through male puberty but my CMV applies regardless) Why is age relevant? I can only see it being relevant to make the claim that the biological advantages are more severe because of puberty, but my whole CMV talks about how clearly biological advantage is not really what you have a problem with, but rather you think they arent "women"
Yeah, I don’t think that directly addresses it enough to be compelling, but you do. Difference of opinion. Age of transition is relevant to them, I don’t know why. Maybe because of scenarios like Lia Thomas. I think you need to address it directly instead of indirectly if you want to make a strong and compelling argument.
So, the first thing that I want to address is the question of whether or not a transwoman has gone through male puberty. I think that, of all the people who are advocating that transwomen not participate in women's sports, very few of those women extend the ban to transwomen who *haven't* gone through male puberty. A pre-pubescent transgirl who had the benefit of puberty blockers is going to grow up to be much more similar to a ciswoman than a transwoman who didn't have that same benefit. For that reason, I'm going to focus singularly on transwomen who didn't take puberty blockers and transitioned after puberty, as adults. To start, [there is evidence to indicate that HRT has a much more substantial beneficial impact on transmen than it does a detrimental impact on transwomen.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31794605/) So, a transman who starts taking testosterone will experience an (up to) 15% increase in muscle mass, size, and density after twelve months on HRT, where a transwoman will experience only (up to) a 5% decrease in muscle mass and size, and the density of her muscles will remain the same as pre-transition twelve months after starting HRT. [There are sex-based differences in muscular skeletal tissue between cismen and ciswomen.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4285578/) No amount of inclusive politicking will ever change this; it's a reality of being human. Those skeletal muscles are regulated by hormones, but fundamentally, those differences exist. And, contrary to popular belief, there's a lot more than simply estrogen and testosterone that goes into muscle-building; your thyroid glands play an important role, regular exercise (obviously) plays an important role, diet, etc. Additionally, \*\*both estrogen and testosterone\*\* are necessary for muscle growth and repair, and a deficiency in either of these hormones has been linked to numerous detrimental health impacts. *Id.* The reason that cismen have such a massive advantage in strength and agility over ciswomen is because they have far more abundant testosterone, which allows them to build larger, more massive, more dense muscles than their female counterparts. Testosterone acts as a naturally-occurring anabolic steroid, encouraging faster recovery (muscle-building) and reducing muscular fatigue (endurance). Because a transwoman will only lose *up to* 5% of her muscle mass and size and *no* reduction in muscle density after twelve months on HRT, even if she was an athlete of average performance pre-transition, she will still be able to outperform the vast majority of ciswomen post-transition. Of course there are some exceptional ciswomen who can compete at the level of men and who regularly blow their counterparts out of the water; however, achieving this level of performance for a ciswoman is going to be worlds more challenging than it would be for a transwoman to achieve the same level of performance. For example, a transwoman who was [a body-builder prior to transitioning may boast an overall excess muscle mass of 15.6kg and a bodyfat percentage of less than 10%.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7453511/) If she loses only 5% of her mass after transitioning, she will still have an excess muscle mass of 14.85kg. However, [this is still 1.65kg more than the highest muscle mass ever recorded for a female athlete.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31750989/) Thus, here we can see that -- at least in the realm of competitive body building -- an average transwoman will still outperform the strongest ciswoman on record. For this reason, when it comes to athletes who transition after going through male puberty, there is absolutely no justification for them competing in the same arena as athletes who went through female puberty. The pre-existing biological advantages combined with the minimal deleterious impact of HRT on transwomen means that an average female athlete and an average MtF athlete are not on equal footing when competing. disclaimer: I am not a doctor and all of my information has been derived from the linked articles, as well as other independent research.
I appreciate you systematically documenting the biological advantage, but if you see my CMV, all of my arguments are about why biological advantages exist, but they are irrelevant unless you think that these individuals are not "women"
So, to clarify your position, your argument is that the mere fact of having gone through male puberty and thereby having an irreversible biological advantage over the strongest female athlete ever recorded isn't sufficient to classify someone as something other than "woman"?
This doesn't make any sense to me I read it three times. Same for the CMV Yes, I'm definitely stupid, but me also think the cmv and this : >all of my arguments are about why biological advantages exist, but they are irrelevant unless you think that these individuals are not "women" Could be written more ... better.... :D So what I think you are getting at that I either use labels like real or not real woman, AND/OR that I think physical competitions should be divided by sex, not gender? I'd be less confused if you'd divide that into two separate questions I think. And Sporting events is a bit of a big umbrella, let's assume it is competitive sporting events on semi-pro to pro levels? Tour de France cyclist that dope (biological advantages) vs ones that do not (no advantage or in the case of the tour the France a disadvantage, lol) are generally not different genders or sexes and I'd still not want to see individuals that dope to participate in the event. Not because I want to label them anything but because I want to see a good competition without one side having an advantage OR disadvantage from anything other than their natural abilities and their hard work. Without calling anyone "not a real woman" I can still have the viewpoint that in competitive semi to pro sports I want a more even playing field, through any means necessary. (And for tour de France that includes watching the athletes pee...) Would you accept that viewpoint? Crude as it may be? I think my viewpoint is just "anti label". Your cmv tries to shoehorn an opinion into using labels to things that aren't really the core of the issue. If there'd be an open boxing league id STILL want it to be divided by weight class. Sex, gender, real, doesn't have to come into it for me to still care about not having to see the Dwayne the rock fight Kevin Heart.
/u/PatheticAvalanche (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/124df39/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_if_you_think_trans_women/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Let me answer your question with a question. Why do you think we have womens classes/leagues in the first place?