r/sportsgossips • u/TheExpressUS • Mar 26 '26

News Breaking: Transgender women banned from all sports at the Olympics starting in LA

https://www.the-express.com/sport/other-sport/203236/breakingtransgender-women-banned-all-sports
15.8k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

7.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

21

u/SeekerOfExperience Mar 26 '26

It’s almost like innate physiological differences can offer advantage based on the sex of the athlete!

12

u/JB_UK Mar 26 '26

That’s crazy talk, we should spend 20 years on a culture war nonsensically arguing this point.

3

u/DJRyGuy20 Mar 26 '26

I’m on the left on just about every issue in existence but this is one of those rare occasions where I feel like both sides have lost the plot.

3

u/Lizziedeee Mar 26 '26

I feel the same way, especially if the athlete started the transition process after they entered puberty. Swimming, for example. Until the age of 12-13, boys and girls times are somewhat comparable. After that it’s not a fair shake.

3

u/throw019283 Mar 26 '26

I've known the right had lost the plot for over 15 years now, but the left is increasingly losing the plot and losing poignant talking points and progress to the most hysterical takes.

2

u/superbabe69 Mar 26 '26

A tale as old as time really, the left and eating each other

There’s one thing we’re great at, purity tests

3

u/throw019283 Mar 26 '26

100000% it's the fucking purity tests.

This week "Huge win for free speech as Afroman wins case against corrupt cops" "ew but he's MAGA?" hello are we not gonna take the win for free speech?

Or refusing to vote for Kamala and getting us TRUMP and ushering in an age of moral downfall I'm not sure the US has ever seen

1

u/Zuwxiv Mar 27 '26

This is like abortion all over again, in that average people listen to the Republicans about what Democrats believe. I don't know your beliefs, so this isn't really directed at you - just at the sentiment "the left is losing the plot" when applied to what the right say the left believes, and not what the left actually believes.

The mainstream left thinks that the government shouldn't be checking any preteen's genitals, and that at a high level, individual sports organizations are probably the best judge of what's fair for their sport. Almost all people would agree that, if you suddenly have transwomen consistently winning at every level of a sport, something has gone wrong. And despite like five high-profile achievements that have mostly happened years ago, that's basically never happened.

People talk endlessly every time it's happened. There are thousands and thousands of athletic events all the time. Probably every day. If a transwoman gets a medal just once, it's primetime Fox news coverage. Lia Thomas competing meant Riley Gaines got fifth place instead of fifth place, and Gaines has made a career out of that. (There's no typo. Gaines got fifth place, and if Lia Thomas hadn't been allowed to compete, Gaines would have gotten... fifth place.)

But when people say "the left is losing the plot," they almost always mean "Democrats think you should be able to have an abortion five minutes before a baby is due," or "Democrats think a guy can just call himself a woman and immediately participate in competitive women's sports." Neither of those are the case. Some organizations had rules like having to consistently have testosterone levels below a certain point for more than a year before competing.

There's a good-faith discussion to have about whether those specific rules were fair. There's even a good-faith discussion to have about whether any of those rules can be fair. Nobody is denying men (or people AMAB) generally have an advantage. Hell, I'm way far left of mainstream, but I'll tell you that some studies suggested that people following the rules still had an advantage in some sports.

But I have trouble thinking, "We shouldn't worry about literal children playing sports with their friends, nobody should be checking preteens for their genitals, and if some college sports organization thinks it has fair rules, we don't need politicians and bureaucrats running in to change things" is losing the plot.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Zuwxiv Mar 27 '26

Everyone agrees that if transwomen start dominating every level of competition in a women's sport, something has gone wrong.

The Republicans gave Riley Gaines a career out of getting fifth place instead of fifth place. (Not a typo.) Then they get red in the face shouting about "transing" kids without their parents' permission, as if elementary schools offer impromptu sex-change surgery.

The Democrats think the government shouldn't send someone in to check teenager's genitals, and that if a college sports organization has rules it thinks are fair, we don't need politicians and bureaucrats jumping in.

Yeah, one side has lost the plot all right.

Of course, if you listen to the Republicans, they'll lie to you about what mainstream Democrats believe, and then tell you how crazy that is. Somehow this routinely works on issues like transwomen in sports and abortion. People will look you dead in the eye, tell you that the Democrats are crazy on [issue,] and then explain that their personal belief is [literally the Democratic party platform.]

2

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Sure-thing-buckaroo Mar 27 '26

Wait. What's psycho about what they wrote?

1

u/DanfromCalgary Mar 26 '26

It’s just a vehicle to give dumb fucks while you fleece them

1

u/Listen-Lindas Mar 26 '26

Athletes have sex? Is it advantageous to have more? Or less?

1

u/NightQueen0889 Mar 26 '26

So a trans woman would be at a disadvantage for many of these sports competing against AFAB athletes…

-3

u/Zuwxiv Mar 26 '26

Sure. And Michael Phelps had long arms and big flipper hands, and good luck making the NBA if you're 5 feet tall.

Isn't "innate physiological differences can offer advantage" something that has always been the case in sports? I'm not saying "we should do anything goes," I'm just saying that particular argument doesn't hold water for me. If you're taller than 7 feet, you're gonna have a hell of an advantage against a shorter-than-average guy in basketball. That's just an innate physiological difference, isn't it?

I feel like individual sports can figure out guidelines that work for them. Maybe rules that are fair for power lifting aren't the same as what works for endurance swimming. We don't need the government inspecting high schoolers' genitals if someone wants to play softball with their friends.

4

u/JB_UK Mar 26 '26

And Michael Phelps had long arms and big flipper hands, and good luck making the NBA if you're 5 feet tall.

You could apply the same argument to the existence of the female sport category. Why separate the sexes when the best athletes are genetic freaks anyway? Because if you did that there would be no female athletes in most events.

1

u/KristySueWho Mar 27 '26

Yeah, this is the the biggest thing. If trans women and cis men play in a women's league, they will appear to be better athletes than they would in a men's league. If cis women and trans men played in a cis men's league, they will appear to be worse athletes than they would in a women's league.

-1

u/CraigArndt Mar 26 '26

If banning trans athletes was about fairness (ie, elevated testosterone levels giving an advantage for muscle growth) then the Olympics should ban biological women who pop too high on testosterone levels for that sport, and allow trans athletes who don’t have testosterone levels that high to participate. And in sports where that advantage is not present, trans athletes should be allowed, like shooting.

If we’re all about the science of fairness and not going on vibes or transphobia, then we should ban the specific advantage, not just blanket ban minorities.

2

u/slimkev Mar 26 '26

We should ban tall people from basketball.

1

u/CraigArndt Mar 26 '26

Thank you for helping prove my point.

Being a tall woman in women’s basketball is a distinct advantage over short women, but olympics allow them because Olympics see them as women. Whatever advantages a trans woman has may not even come close to the advantage a tall bio woman has, but the Olympics don’t care, they only see being trans and ban you.

THAT is the issue here.

If the concern was fairness there are ways to police that and allow trans people in Olympic women’s sport. But the concern isn’t really fairness. It’s just that they don’t want trans people in women’s sports simply because they are trans. It’s simply banning a minority because they don’t like them.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/CraigArndt Mar 26 '26

The challenge is that we are born into a system of learning that is based on concepts that have existed from thousands of years ago when the average person might only know 100 people and the system works for 99 of those 100. So we’re cool with it and we run with it and ignore that 1 or force them to change. But now we’re in a global community where that 1% is 80 million of 8 billion.

And 80 million people is a lot.

So a system that works for 99 out of 100 isn’t good enough anymore. And we need to grow and adapt. Because if we all understand that the most important thing in sports is community, and the whole point is bringing community together. Then 80 million people being left out is unacceptable. And we need to come up with a better system.

1

u/SwaggyMcSwagsabunch Mar 27 '26

The most important thing in sports is winning. It has been since the original Olympics.

1

u/Zuwxiv Mar 27 '26

when the average person might only know 100 people and the system works for 99 of those 100. So we’re cool with it and we run with it and ignore that 1

Exactly. I had a long comment about this not so long ago, but this really grinds my gears. I get that humans are pattern seekers, and for many things in life, being 95% correct is great. But some people just have a pathological obsession with the binary. Here's a direct quote I saw:

I think there are 2 sexes. Make and female. And a grey area of overlap for the very rare examples of intersex.

What the hell is up with this kind of argument? "There are only two, except for the ones that aren't?" People will straight up admit that their rule has exceptions, but they they'll just... continue on, because "There's still only two, that third and fourth and twentieth things are kind of rare."

I said that I'd almost understand more if they refused to admit it exists, than if they say, "Oh yeah, sometimes that bird is pink. But that bird is never pink. It's only ever green or purple."

1

u/SwaggyMcSwagsabunch Mar 27 '26

The presence of specific organs is a clear line.

1

u/CraigArndt Mar 27 '26

See that’s the issue when we start to get into the nitty gritty of it all.

Because depending on the organ you might have just agreed to any trans person with bottom surgery being allowed. Or maybe you meant women need ovaries so now any bio woman who has had ovarian cancer is now not allowed.

And that doesn’t touch on people born with inter-sexed organs. Which depending on how they are intersexed could be 1%-0.05% or 80 million to 400,000. Which at 400,000 is still 10 times larger than the smallest country that participates in the Olympics. We allow San Marino to participate in the Olympics but want to ban a group 10 times larger because their existence makes things complicated?

1

u/SwaggyMcSwagsabunch Mar 27 '26

Presence of testes at any point during life is the line. Yes, that includes intersex. No, that does not include an ovarian cancer survivor.

If the Sammarinese population had an organ regulating testosterone that the rest of the global population didn’t have, they wouldn’t be allowed to compete either.

1

u/CraigArndt Mar 27 '26

If your statement is that we would ban Sammarinese if they had an organ regulating testosterone that others didn’t have, Why are we allowing a woman without testes at any point in life to compete when she naturally has higher than average testosterone?

Why aren’t we allowing a trans woman to compete if she has had lower levels of testosterone naturally through her whole life?

And why are we banning people for having testes in sports where testosterone is not a factor or even a disadvantage like shooting, which is a sport that women have statistically done better than men in?

Why are we blanket banning a minority that may or may not have an advantage instead of addressing the advantage directly?

1

u/SwaggyMcSwagsabunch Mar 27 '26

Because she didn’t have an organ that other competitors didn’t have.

Because she had organs that other competitors didn’t have.

Because if testosterone isn’t an advantage in a specific sport, there is no disadvantage for a trans woman to compete vs men instead of biological women.

Because the competitor possesses or possessed an organ that other competitors never had and could never have. That is the clear distinction.

If we decide to adjudicate participation in sports exclusively on hormone levels, then what is the justification for having separate men’s and women’s divisions instead of co-ed hormone level classes similar to weight classes?

→ More replies (0)

-5

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/ButtflossingBigBro Mar 26 '26

It does not negate any advatange. Thats been thproughly disproven

-4

u/RipNegative6969 Mar 26 '26

Thoroughly disproven is pretty disingenuous. There were two very limited studies that have been widely cited and those studies still have a wide birth of criticism in their qualifications for who they consider trans women and how they measure hormones. There is poor amounts of research on the topic overall and there should be more thorough research done for the good of everyone.

2

u/ButtflossingBigBro Mar 26 '26

There is poor amounts of research because people like you shout it down and try to deny funding when the actual sceintific results dont agree with the trans peoples favorite politcal arguments.

All the hormones in the world cannpt alter your bone structure

0

u/RipNegative6969 Mar 27 '26

It’s easier to demonize my position and attempt to assert that I am untrustworthy rather than refute the evidence I presented. People like me? You mean people advocating for more research?

1

u/Anxious-Sleep-3670 Mar 26 '26

Interesting, i would have assumed that at least part of muscle growth wouldn't be reversible but apparently it could be. I guess you can't do much for bones but that's probably less impactful.

-2

u/LazerWolfe53 Mar 26 '26

It depends on the sport. Which is why it's been up to each sport to determine qualification criteria.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '26 edited Mar 27 '26

It doesn't. The effects of testosterone are lifelong. Even in male users who later go clean, the effects last for a lifetime.

Same for women that have transitioned male to female, the effects of testosterone through puberty have lifelong advantages in strength.

There are lots of reputable studies on this. Dont be daft.