this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2026
163 points (96.6% liked)
news
809 readers
1027 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
So we need proper regulation? I agree with that.
Btw I know everyone will jump to the conclusion that I'm arguing trans people shouldn't be allowed in sports, I am not. I simply don't think there is consensus on this issue and the only way that happens is through conversations like this, pretending the matter is settled seems disingenuous.
Also the word largely could mean quite a bit there, it seems to be suggesting that there are still advantages, though they are lesser than in the first year.
If there's no clear scientific consensus, then why in fuck's sake could you possibly justify a sports ban? You could actually be a child molesting pedophile. I have no evidence for or against this claim. But I better call the cops on you just in case!
You're demanding someone prove a negative. That is not how proof works. You can scientifically proof Bigfoot exists. Find a Bigfoot corpse? Call in some scientists and they'll document it, analyze it, read its DNA, and scientifically prove with a mountain of evidence that Bigfoot exists. In contrast, it's impossible to prove that Bigfoot does not exist. There could always be some hidden cave or remote mountain valley somewhere where, against all odds, there actually is a population of large non-human primates living on the North American continent. I can prove Bigfoot exists. I cannot prove that Bigfoot does not exist. That is simply the nature of logic and proof.
You're approaching this from a flawed premise. You're effectively saying, "I will accept trans women in women's sports when you conclusively prove they have no advantage whatsoever." But that's demanding proof of a negative. It is possible to prove an advantage. It is not possible to prove the non-existence of an advantage. Rather, the default assumption should be that no advantage exists. Since all secondary sex characteristics, including differences in musculature, come from lifetime hormone exposure, the default assumption should be that no advantage exists. Even men growing larger than women is because of hormone exposure at different periods in life. So if you switch someone's hormones, the default assumption should be that no advantage exists. And basic humanity dignity and respect for human beings demands that you start by assuming a position of equality.
The burden of proof is on those demanding we strip people of their liberty and dignity. The burden of proof is on those who would do real tangible harm to a group of people. Remember, these are lives we're talking about. You're arguing a hypothetical, but we're talking about real human beings. And we know that trans women athletes will be harmed by being excluded from women's sports. They certainly can't meaningfully compete against cis male athletes. By excluding trans women from women's sports, you are making it so trans women cannot compete in any competitive sport at all. That's an entire realm of the human experience you're cutting them out from.
If it can be proven that some overwhelming advantage exists, sure. On a sport-by-sport basis, perhaps bans would be justifiable. But you need to actually prove real harm before you start taking people's civil rights away. You are demanding proof that no advantage exists. You should be starting by demanding those who would take away civil rights present a rigorous case and actually prove real harm.
I wasn't aware I was justifying anything, I'm just trying to form an opinion that I can hold moving forward.
It seems I've caused offence here and that was never my intent.
You raise an interesting point about the burden of proof, as you put it.
I'm not entirely certain about your point, well made as it is (I like the Bigfoot analogy), that the default position should be that there is no advantage when there's lots of proof that, in certain activities, men have physical advantages over women.
I guess I just want to have a solid idea of when or if those advantages do in fact disappear to a point that it doesn't matter any more.
But as you've pointed out I'm really not sure how that can be proved, which leaves the argument open for those who do want total bans or whatever to argue that they will always be there.
As to the point about infringement of rights etc, I certainly want anyone to be able to do and be celebrated in whatever they put their time and effort into. I live with three women, all of whom have stated that they feel their rights to compete on an even playing field could be negated by trans athletes with possible advantages from their previous gender (I'm sorry if my phrasing is offensive, I don't mean it to be). How should this be answered? I'm not a woman and I've been slightly stumped tbh.
When it comes to sport by sport bans, the one I always have brought up to me is strength based sports, the skeletal differences, bone mass, differing physiological differences of muscle mass and such is often cited to me in these conversations.
Are these things that are completely negated through hormone therapy?
Thank you for engaging with me and not attacking me for asking, I really appreciate it.
You have asked for a conversation, and I want to present a different position that I don't often see.
Are trans women..... Women?
If they are, then what's the problem with trans women in sports? A women's competition was held, women competed, a woman won.
What's the problem? Tall women are not banned from basketball, or track, despite having natural advantages. Micheal Phelps has clear physiological advantages in swimming. He is not banned from competing, he is celebrated.
Why are gifted trans women not celebrated?
I'm not sure it's a semantic argument about the word women that's the issue most people see here.
"Tall women are not banned from basketball, or track, despite having natural advantages. Micheal Phelps has clear physiological advantages in swimming. He is not banned from competing, he is celebrated."
This is a great point and thanks for making it.
I agree that if, after some time period the physical differences between their original gender (I'm sorry if I'm not using the right words, I don't mean offence if I am) and their new (again sorry if this is the wrong words) gender are negligible/non existent then yeah i agree everyone has certain things they are better at and that's to be celebrated.
Thank you for engaging in this conversation and not attacking me for asking, I appreciate it.
I want to drill down on this if you will indulge me.
Conceding the need for hormone therapy is easy. Nearly every trans person will do this anyway and the science suggests that it more or less accomplishes the goal of a gendered sports category to provide women a space to compete fairly.
But this conceeds the point that matters to most non athletic trans women.
Are we? Or are we not? Women?
I am a trans woman if that wasn't clear.
And if we are women, then what is the problem? What we are seeing is that a large part of our society answers this categorically: no. We are something else, presumably men, in their eyes.
That's painful, to me personally. It hurts to know that on a very real level, I don't get that recognition. I haven't completed in sports since middle school, long before I knew I was trans. But this issue matters to me because it sets out in black and white what my society thinks about me and people like me.
Thank you for this thoughtful reply. I'm sorry for your pain, personally I can't imagine what societal rejection like that would be like or the damage it must do.
Sadly it seems that this is such a polarising issue that many argue for one person's right over anothers, I don't feel this is a path to a happy future for anyone affected by this. I sincerely hope that in the future this entire conversation is moot.
However it's clear that some consensus needs to be found as, in a society that values every one, no one person should feel that they don't have a level playing field.
What is a woman and what is a man? I wish I had some clever words to answer this. It's part of why I wish to have conversations like this. Wouldn't it be nice if we all had a clear way to parse this issue without hatred or suffering being involved.
I've been shown some studies that seem to indicate that after a period (two years was what I was shown) the differences appear to be negligible. If that's the case then perhaps that is the way forward, once transition is complete (complete seems like the wrong word but I hope you understand my meaning) then there really shouldn't be any reason to stop trans athletes competing, would you agree with this?
Absolutely. I think that is a fair compromise.
Thank you for this conversation, I appreciate you not attacking me for trying to understand something that I've never experienced.
My middle son has struggled with his gender identity, still is, and I feel I need to understand.
Talking with you and others has helped me move my opinion forward.
Who are you agreeing with? You're the one that posted the article, I'm just explaining to you what it said since you apparently didn't read it. Am I living in some kind of Bizarro World here? What are you contributing here to this conversation?
"That there is every indication that proper regulation can level the playing field"
This is what I was referencing in my reply.
The quote from that article points to initial differences that then fall off over time.
So it seems that in certain physical sports there may need to be some regulation (I'm not sure how that would work without being quite invasive for trans athletes though, any thoughts?) to ensure a level playing field for all women both cis and trans.
If I've caused some offence, which the aggressiveness of your reply seems to imply, I apologise, it was never my intent.
Super concerning that you don't know the difference between aggressiveness and bewilderment.
That's what you took away from my comment? Ok...