A record number of athletes openly identifying as LGBTQ+ are competing in the 2024 Paris Olympics, a massive leap during a competition that organizers have pushed to center around inclusion and diversity.
There are 191 athletes publicly saying they are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer and nonbinary who are participating in the Games, according to Outsports, an organization that compiles a database of openly queer Olympians. The vast majority of the athletes are women.
That number has quashed the previous record of 186 out athletes counted at the COVID-19-delayed Tokyo Olympics held in 2021, and the count is only expected to grow at future Olympics.
“More and more people are coming out,” said Jim Buzinski, co-founder of Outsports. “They realize it’s important to be visible because there’s no other way to get representation.”
Removed by mod
Most cis sportswomen have naturally elevated “masculine” hormones. Trans women see many physical changes (like fat redistribution and changes in muscle n fat mass) after commencing hormone therapy. Therefore, the “advantage” that they have over cis women is negligible. It is in fact comparable to the advantage that some cis women have over other cis women (the hormone thing that I mentioned in my first sentence).
But no, being assholes towards trans people is cool, and there clearly aren’t other issues to worry about. /s
Removed by mod
Recently I read that for men who have gone through puberty, their hitting strength is 162% of that of women. So seems like some things do give you a massive advantage. But I guess that’s why they have those gender rules for boxing at least.
There is an undeniable trend of mtf athletes breaking female records. Trying to hide from that does noone any good.
Trans athletes have been accepted in the Olympics since 2004, yet not a single one has so much as qualified for a games since then, despite having such a “big advantage”
And globally the only trans person to ever get a professional title was a div 1 swimmer in the US.
That’s just factually incorrect. Laurel Hubbard qualified for and competed at the Tokyo Olympics.
Ah okay, my information is clearly out of date, but I think my point still stands as she came 7th
No, not at all. There was also Quinn who won a Gold medal at the same Olympics. And Laurel Hubbard won silver at the World Championships and gold twice at the Commonwealth Games but was 43 years old by the time of the Tokyo Olympics.
Additionally, you have to consider that the current rules regarding trans athletes are only in place since 2015. Before it was required to undergo sexual reassignment surgery and have your gender legally changed. And even after the changes, many trans athletes couldn’t compete at the Olympics because the governing bodies of their sport are more restrictive. So even if trans athletes have a “big advantage”, there are plenty ways to explain their lack of presence at the Olympics.
Please give us a widely accepted definition for ‘female’ based in science.
Females have larger gametes. Males have smaller gametes. Just because this doesn’t apply to 100% of cases doesn’t make this an accepted definition – everything has exceptions in nature. 98-99% is good enough for a categorization though.
Does this affect how transwomen do in women’s category? Probably 98-99% not (hah), since IOC has declared this all works just fine?
Still it’s still a bit controversial, e.g. https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577.full?ijkey=yjlCzZVZFRDZzHz&keytype=ref this study showed one set of cases where hormone treatment removed most differences in transwomen vs women but they remained significantly faster runners.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7846503/ this seems to show that transwomen lose very little of their biological advantage. "Rather, the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. "
Who made this the accepted definition? Because you haven’t shown me who came up with it and who agrees with it.
Also “doesn’t apply to 100% of cases” is not a way to scientifically define something, so I doubt it’s accepted. But feel free to prove me wrong since you came up with links that don’t support your claim.
Evolution, as far as we can tell.
I usually approach these things from the point of view of trying to reach truth together, not from the point of view of trying to use sources as hammers to beat down your opponent. Are you different from me in this way?
Sorry, ‘evolution’ is a process and does not come up with definitions. Scientists do.
Since you apparently can’t find any scientists who agree with you, I think it’s safe to say you’re wrong.
I’m not sure what we’re conflicted here about, so let’s clarify: Are you saying that I cannot find any scientists to agree with me on my claim that males have smaller gametes and females have larger gametes? Also: what’s the standard we’re aiming at here? What do I need to find to convince you that I’m right? Do I need to find a live actual scientist that answers this question for me, or do you need a scientific paper or something? I’m guessing that a basic biology book is not enough for you, since this fact definitely is in every one of them.
You said it is “an accepted definition” for both, but that there are exceptions, which is not scientific. Definitions do not have exceptions in science. If the definition is not universal, the definition is thrown out and a new one is found. That’s how science works.
Why would you say that? How do you define “scientific”? Might you be conflating it with some pure form of science, like mathematics or pure logic?
Does not contain male levels of testosterone post maturity.
What are ‘male levels of testosterone’ exactly?
Are men with hypergonadism not men?
Don’t be obtuse. It’s considered a malady in males, hence the full term “Male hypogonadism”.
Your definition of female:
“Does not contain male levels of testosterone post maturity.”
That includes men with hypogonadism.
It’s not my fault that the medical term doesn’t agree with your definition.
Oh? Explain why you think “male” is specified in the disease then if my definition were not correct?
You defined ‘female’ purely based on testosterone levels. That’s not my fault if it fits some men.
So you can’t. Got it.
XX chromosomes
So you’re not female if you have Swyer Syndrome.
Not a woman, right? Despite not even being able to tell even when you see them naked, right?
How about XXY people? Men or women? Because they usually look like men, but at least one got pregnant.
Correct. Human, worth just as much as everybody else, but not technically female.
So males can get pregnant?
Your own quote tells me that people with chromosomal abnormalities tend to be sterile, so no. XX makes you a woman. XY makes you a man. Abnormalities are just that, abnormal. Trans people have problems and cutting them up is not the solution.
That is not how science works. There is not “exception to the rule” in science. That’s not how it works. If you can’t come up with a scientific definition that biologists agree with you on, just admit it. None of you seem to be able to. You think you know the science, but you can’t back it up.
that’s rich coming from the side that consistently fails to define what a woman is. I gave you a definition that can be used on 99% of the global population.
Are you saying we can’t know if someone is male or female just by looking at them and that there are other options according to the discussion below?
There are clear visual markers, but in the age of misguided mutilations chromosomes are the clearest indicator we have.
Removed by mod