this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2026
162 points (96.6% liked)
news
809 readers
902 users here now
A lightweight news hub to help decentralize the fediverse load: mirror and discuss headlines here so the giant instance communities aren’t a single choke-point.
Rules:
- Recent news articles only (past 30 days)
- Title must match the headline or neutrally describe the content
- Avoid duplicates & spam (search before posting; batch minor updates).
- Be civil; no hate or personal attacks.
- No link shorteners
- No entire article in the post body
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It shouldn't, but it does. As a matter of what is statistically relevant about the dichotomy between males and females.
is that true, though? What I've read is that the science is showing the opposite, that sex is mostly plastic and that after a couple years on hormones, trans women have similar fitness and athletic ability as cis women:
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2026/01/22/bjsports-2025-110239
I'm going to plagiarise myself:
So we aren't talking about Olympic tier athletes.
Also, the authors themselves acknowledge the evidence quality sits between very low and low
Why are you demanding that someone proves no advantage exists? If you find the level of proof ambiguous, then the null hypothesis must be that no difference exists. That's just basic respect for human rights and dignity.
Realize what you are suggesting. You are suggesting that trans women and girls be completely cut off from competitive sports in any form. Trans women are conclusively far below cis men in performance. We're just squabbling over whether some minute advantage exists over cis women. Trans women can't just go and play with the guys. You're arguing for trans women to be completely excluded from any form of sports whatsoever, a complete expulsion from an entire realm of human culture and experience.
If you're arguing for something so radical and cruel, the burden of proof is on you. The default assumption is equality. We don't take away civil rights on a whim. If it can be scientifically shown, on a sport-by-sport basis, that trans women have some massive advantage over cis women? Fine. In that case I might support a handicap system, or if that were not possible, exclusion as a last resort. But the burden for proof for that should be high. You're hurting real people here. Unless you can scientifically prove that some advantage exists, the default assumption must be that no advantage exists.
I'm not. I'm simply stating that there is a difference, it isn't a matter of debate. It's like saying Kenyans are better at sprinting than white people in general.
I believe that respecting trans people means being honest about the facts, and promoting equality. Both can be true.
None of these are claims I've made.
The only thing I'm hurting is the brains of the people who are jumping on the slippery slope, all the way to the strawman.
I'm not having that debate. Nobody cares except bigots trying to hurt trans people. If you're not, don't get sucked into that debate. They're arguing in bad faith
You're arguing in bad faith?
You are creating a strawman by claiming anyone who cares about gender in sports is a bigot who is trying to hurt trams people.
No, I said people are being duped into debating by bigots. This is about politics, not sports.
That's a strawman.
You are saying that people do not reach that conclusion on their own.
Has Domi pointed out elsewhere in this thread. There is no evidence that transgender women have a physical advantage over cisgender women, provided they've been on HRT for 2+ years. here's the meta-analysis they linked
So yeah, based off of:
You're either a bigot trying to use sports to hurt trans people, or you've been duped by bigots. So, unless you're made of straw Qevlarr isn't using a straw man argument.
So we aren't talking about Olympic tier athletes.
Also, the authors themselves acknowledge the evidence quality sits between very low and low
For what it's worth, I don't give a shit about "fairness" in sports. What I am pushing back on is the insinuation that people are either malicious or manipulated if they don't accept the assertion that trans women do not have a competitive advantage.
At best, it's uncharitable, and at worst, it a litmus test.
Then why the fuck are you even in this discussion, arguing with people trying to defend a highly marginalised section of the community?
If you "don't care", then dropping it so as to not be part of the active exclusion of trans people would be the appropriate move.
Because I believe what I'm saying is important?
Whatever point you think I'm making, I'm not. I absolutely believe trans athletes should be capable of competing in whatever gender sports category they want, provided they are within range of their fellow athletes.
Cool, I'll check it out, but the claim is still a strawman.
I'm a vegan. When i see people eating beef, I don't claim "either you like hurting cows, or you've been duped by people who hate animals".
The claim itself is stupid and needlessly inflammatory.
I'm not a vegan or even a vegetarian, but I wouldn't argue with you if you made that claim, because the only reason we as a society eat as much meat as we do, is because it's normalised at every level for economic reasons.
If I can manage that, you can manage to not argue with trans people trying to deal with the active and ongoing exclusion they face.
Here's the issue though:
The claim itself is a strawman, the fact that you are willing to accept it means your epistemology is bad.