[drankl]

No comment on the 600+ cases of males dominating in women's sports then? It's all right there on the page you scrolled all the way down to get to the non-athletic competitions.

That's 242 winning places which women lost to men in cycling, 117 in track and field, 65 in mountain biking, 43 in disc golf, 38 in swimming, 20 in powerlifting, and the rest in a wide variety of other sports.

197 first place podium spots that women athletes have lost to men, 177 second places lost, and 168 third places.

Do you still believe this is not a problem for female athletes, even after being shown data proving otherwise?

[romafirst3]

Do you know how many sports competitions are run every year? Do you see how low level these competitions are? How many are at the national level? How many would you expect if there was no performance difference between trans women and women?

You would expect 1% of competitors to win 1% of competitions but the numbers you are showing are nowhere near there.

Also these are pathetically low level competitions to base an argument on, I want to reiterate that point. Most of these are just local disc golf competitions or masters golf tournaments. Is there a signal top tier Olympic competition represented in your list.

[drankl]

> You would expect 1% of competitors to win 1% of competitions but the numbers you are showing are nowhere near there.

Even just one of these men competing in a women's sporting event is a problem, in the same way that even one athlete doping is a problem. It's unfair and adversely affects every other competitor in the event. So while that website shows hundreds of women displaced from the winning spots, the overall impact is likely more in the thousands or even tens of thousands, depending on how many competitors were in each event.

The more fundamental principle is that women's sports exist to celebrate female athletic excellence, and for women to have spaces to compete fairly and safely against each other, at all levels of competition. Allowing males to compete entirely undermines this.

[romafirst3]

It’s not unfair because there doesn’t seem to be an advantage in the data to being a trans woman in sport.

When it shows in the data then we can talk about it.

The other stuff is the real issue for you I think. Maybe that is just something you’ll have to reflect on a little bit more.

Is it only celebrating women you like or people you relate to or is there room for trans woman in female sports. I think they should be included because it’s the human thing to do.

I think a lot of conservative types not long ago didn’t think women should even be playing sports, so it’s ironic that the sanctity of female sports is so important now.

[drankl]

There is a wealth of data that shows the male performance advantage in sports. The difference is so stark that even the most elite female athletes are at a disadvantage compared to teenage boys: https://boysvswomen.com

This male advantage remains even for those who choose to lower their testosterone levels; they retain strength and muscle mass above women, and their overall skeletal structure remains intact too: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7846503

One can also easily see the difference when comparing equivalent female and male competitions. For example, here's a graph of weights lifted in a decade of World Masters events, combining both W35 and M35 - it's very obvious which data point is the male competing in the women's event: https://b.thumbs.redditmedia.com/JrzQoA6fWKtYdm8auCMj6RKil0Y...

What all the data we have so far shows is that allowing males to compete in women's sports disadvantages women and shatters their athletic opportunities.

> I think they should be included because it's the human thing to do.

Women are human too you know. Their needs matter as much as those of men, and more so in female-centered spaces. Women's sports don't exist to be a therapeutic setting for men who desire to be women. They're for female athletes, who deserve the same opportunity as male athletes to enjoy fair competition and have their athletic excellence celebrated.

> I think a lot of conservative types not long ago didn't think women should even be playing sports, so it's ironic that the sanctity of female sports is so important now.

It's important for female athletes regardless of what opinions conservatives may or may not have about this issue.

[romafirst3]

There is no advantage that shows up in the data to show that trans athletes have an advantage in sports.

If there were we would see trans-athletes winning lots of medals. They don't. In fact there just aren't that many athletes. This is a giant nothing-burger.

There is another argument that says trans-athletes can be disadvantaged by having a skeletal structure which their hormone system can not properly power and this is actually hinders their athletic performance. Either way as I said, there aren't any trans athletes winning medals so I don't think we really have anything to be concerned about.

As for your concern about female sports I have my doubts about whether or not you are sincere but I'll pretend you are.

Perhaps it is easier for you to think of Female sports as "a protected category for people who do not have male levels of testosterone". This is what it effectively is anyway because of inter-sex humans. We monitor people's testosterone (whether that is right or wrong is another issue) and we decide if they are allowed compete in female sport. The exact same process can be applied to trans-athletes.

[drankl]

There is plenty of data which shows the sex-based performance gap is so large that, even when impaired by long-term testosterone suppression, male athletes still have a significant performance advantage over female athletes. Please read the review I linked in my previous comment.

I also linked you data which shows that males have won hundreds of medals in women's competitions, and provided you a case study in the form of a very illustrative graph showing the performance of trans-identifying male weightlifter Laurel Hubbard in the World Masters, compared to both female and male cohorts, which places him solidly in the latter despite competing against the former - for which he 'won' a gold medal.

> Perhaps it is easier for you to think of female sports as "a protected category for people who do not have male levels of testosterone".

No, it's a protected category for female athletes, despite some sporting bodies undermining this in recent years. Testosterone suppression does not unbuild a male, nor does it convert his male body to a female body. All you end up with is a somewhat weakened male, yet one who still retains significant advantage from his testosterone-driven male development.

A female athlete who doped with androgens for years wouldn't be allowed to compete in women's sports even if she's ceased doping, for obvious reasons. Yet somehow it's considered acceptable for male athletes who've had the effects of testosterone in utero, post-natally and throughout puberty to do so, as long as they start androgen suppression as adults - or, for some competitions, do nothing more than 'identify as female'. This double standard makes no sense whatsoever, is clearly unfair, and is an insult to women.