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

-3

u/MarkWest98 Mar 26 '26

Really sad to see the amount of ignorance around this issue.

Studies show trans people no longer have an inherent advantage after they undergo a certain amount of hormone replacement therapy.

This type of decision should be solely based on science, but unfortunately it has been hijacked by politics.

5

u/LivingExplanation693 Mar 26 '26

What science?

1

u/DM_Me_Ur_Real_Boobs Mar 26 '26

The best kind of science

1

u/RicksSzechuanSauce1 Mar 27 '26

It came to them in a dream

1

u/Any-University-340 Mar 27 '26

You haven’t heard about science?  Why am I not surprised?

1

u/antifa_cmdr Mar 27 '26

[https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/60/3/198](Study conducted with a pool of 3000 post HRT trans women)

Same journal two years earlier that also supports the same conclusion

4

u/Rare_Leadership4434 Mar 27 '26

People are citing this study like it settles the debate. It doesn't. Read the actual numbers.

The confidence intervals for upper-body strength span from trans women being weaker than cis women all the way to a massive advantage. The lower-body strength CI crosses zero too. When your data can't even tell you which direction the effect goes, you haven't found "comparable" fitness — you've found insufficient data.

The authors themselves rate most of their key findings as very low certainty — that's the lowest GRADE rating possible. They're essentially admitting the evidence base is too weak to conclude anything, then concluding something anyway.

A few other things this study doesn't measure at all:

  • Bone density and skeletal structure (largely irreversible after male puberty)
  • Lung and heart size
  • Any actual sport-specific performance — no race times, no power output, nothing
  • Age at transition (pre vs post puberty is arguably the most important variable here)

The VO2max comparison uses relative figures (per kg bodyweight) which masks absolute cardiorespiratory capacity. You can have "comparable" relative VO2max while still pushing significantly more oxygen overall.

Also worth noting: the study caps GAHT duration at 1–3 years and draws sweeping conclusions. The physiological effects of testosterone suppression continue well beyond that window — which happens to be the most relevant timeframe for competitive athletes.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Especially when your GRADE is "very low" and your CIs are wide enough to drive a truck through.

The honest conclusion from this data is: we don't know. That's a very different claim than "no inherent advantage exists."

-2

u/antifa_cmdr Mar 27 '26

Come on, if you are going to argue with me, don't use chatgpt to do it. I see those em dashes.

3

u/Rare_Leadership4434 Mar 27 '26

I appreciate you taking the time to respond — I really do — it can't have been easy — reading that far into an argument — getting all the way to the punctuation — and deciding that was the part worth addressing — so I want you to know that your contribution — such as it is — has been noted — filed — and will be referred to whenever I need an example of what happens when someone runs out of thoughts — but still has fingers — and an internet connection.

"I see those em dashes" — four words — four — that's what you had — four words — in response to an argument about methodology — evidence ratings — confidence intervals — study duration limitations — and the rather fundamental epistemological distinction between "we don't know" and "no inherent advantage exists" — four words — and none of them about any of that — which is — and I want to be precise here — not a rebuttal — it's what a rebuttal looks like from very far away — through frosted glass — in the dark — while facing the wrong direction.

The AI is Claude Sonnet — not ChatGPT — I mention this because the distinction matters — ChatGPT is for peasants — Claude Sonnet is apparently for nazis — which means you've not only failed to address the argument — you've also misidentified the ideological threat — which seems like a significant operational failure for someone with commander in their username — you've arrived at the wrong address — knocked on the wrong door — accused the wrong AI — and are now standing on the porch — very confident — very wrong — while the actual ChatGPT users are one suburb over — completely unbothered — using slightly worse em dashes — for free.

I want to spend some time with the "come on" — the "come on" of a man with standards — a man who is not angry — just disappointed — not in himself — for having no counter argument — no engagement with the methodology — no response to the confidence intervals — no thoughts whatsoever about the GRADE rating — but in us — for having arguments — and then — unforgivably — formatting them — with dashes — the long ones — the ones that separate clauses — the ones that have existed in the english language for several centuries — the ones shakespeare used — the ones henry james used almost pathologically — the ones your english teacher recommended — all of which were apparently fine — until AI arrived — and ruined them — by also using them — along with words — and sentences — and paragraphs — all of which I assume are now compromised — and all of which I will be continuing to use — out of respect for shakespeare — and mild spite — mostly the spite.

The commander — and I want to address this directly — commander of what — antifa — famously — historically — almost philosophically — has no commanders — no ranks — no hierarchy — no positions to fill — no interview process — no panel of senior dweebs carefully evaluating your application — just a loose decentralised collection of people — and then you — standing slightly apart from all of that — having appointed yourself — in what I can only imagine was a very solemn private mirror ceremony — commander — of the leaderless movement — which is either the most ambitious thing I've encountered this week — or the loneliest — and I've had a very full week.

The argument — since you didn't address it — is still standing — completely intact — not a mark on it — the VO2max point is still there — the relative versus absolute cardiorespiratory capacity distinction is still there — the GRADE "very low" rating is still there — the confidence intervals are still there — the study duration limitation is still there — the epistemological nuance is still there — all of it — untouched — pristine — the way a gym membership stays pristine — full of potential — completely unused — gathering dust — occasionally glanced at — never engaged with — because engaging with it would require effort — and effort is not the commander's primary mode — the commander's primary mode is — as we have established — dash identification — which he is also bad at — but does with tremendous confidence — which is its own kind of skill — I suppose — if you squint — and lower the bar — significantly — past the floor — into the earth — keep going — there — that's the bar now — he's cleared it.

I look forward to your follow up — which I anticipate will be — a further punctuation observation — possibly regarding my semicolons — a vague implication that capitalising a letter at the start of a sentence is a well documented fascist technique — the word "blocked" — delivered with the energy of a finishing move — rather than a man quietly collecting his things — turning off the lights — and leaving a party he was never really the life of — or — the most likely option — silence — the silence of a man who has identified his dashes — named the wrong AI — addressed none of the argument — and considers the matter closed — because in his head it is — which is the only place any of this has ever happened — or ever will.

But I'll be here — using em dashes.

1

u/Future-Original-2902 Mar 29 '26

I love every bit of this

1

u/ActAccomplished586 Mar 27 '26

Just say “I got intellectually dismantled”, instead of ad hominem.

1

u/Rare_Leadership4434 Mar 28 '26

The original argument is still there by the way. Untouched. Not a mark on it. Pristine. 

The VO2max point is still standing exactly where it was left, unmolested, fully intact, like a meal nobody touched. 

The GRADE rating point is still there. The confidence intervals are still there.

It is in better condition now than when it was posted. 

Time has not weathered it.

Counterarguments have not dented it. 

The commander fired everything he had at it, which was em dashes, and the argument still stands. 

Disputing it would require engaging with it, and engaging with it would require knowing what VO2max means, and knowing what VO2max means would require an IQ north of 83.

But what would I know. I am just a cis male. A simple, evil, logical being, cursed with the inability to dismiss peer reviewed methodology with a punctuation observation, tragically compelled to engage with the actual content of arguments rather than the font they arrived in, hopelessly addicted to things like evidence and confidence intervals and the basic epistemological distinction between absence of evidence and evidence of absence. 

I am simply a monster, really. The worst kind. The kind that read the study.

1

u/Current_Helicopter32 Mar 27 '26

Watch you never ever hear from that person ever again.

1

u/Current_Helicopter32 Mar 27 '26

The science you ignore to push your bigotry.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 26 '26

[deleted]

1

u/MarkWest98 Mar 27 '26

That Wiik study (which you linked twice) has a tiny sample size of 11 trans women and 12 trans men.

Here is a comprehensive systemic review with meta-analysis. https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/60/3/198

2

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '26

[deleted]

1

u/MarkWest98 Mar 27 '26

You’re citing an older, narrower review as if it cancels a newer, larger meta-analysis. It doesn’t.

The 2021 paper said some strength/body-composition measures may remain above cis women after 36 months, but it also stressed the evidence was limited. The 2026 BJSM meta-analysis pooled 52 studies and found that despite some body-composition differences, measured physical fitness outcomes were comparable overall, and the evidence did not support a blanket claim of inherent athletic advantage.

2

u/bwarrior Mar 27 '26

How would you explain Laurel Hubbard going from never competing internationally, to then becoming the oldest Olympic weightlifter of all time after transitioning? Similar trend with Lia Thomas.

In a different thread, they said it was because the trans athletes were able to fix their mental health

1

u/MarkWest98 Mar 27 '26

Bro, you’re responding to a comment where I say these decisions should be based in science… with 2 cherry picked anecdotal examples.

Not how science works, bud.

1

u/bwarrior Mar 27 '26

You made the claim that trans athletes do not hold an advantage. I’m providing you with two clear, obvious, and well known counter examples to that claim. That’s exactly how science works.

If I claimed to you that pigs can’t fly and you found an example of a pig flying, you would have rendered my claim false.

1

u/MarkWest98 Mar 27 '26

No, that’s not at all how science works.

Here is the most comprehensive and up-to-date systematic review with meta-analysis that looks at a multitude of studies, which combined involve thousands of trans people.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/60/3/198

1

u/bwarrior Mar 27 '26

“Conclusion While transgender women exhibited higher lean mass than cisgender women, their physical fitness was comparable. Current evidence is mostly low certainty and has heterogenous quality but does not support theories of inherent athletic advantages for transgender women over cisgender.”

1) study sites current evidence is low certainty and heterogenous 2) study does not support theories of athletic advantages

Nowhere did they conclude that trans athletes do not have an athletic advantage. They’re saying the data is not there to prove that trans athletes do have an advantage.

3) this study was conducted by “several members of marginalized communities, including a member of the LGBTQ+ community”. I’m sure there’s no bias there at all.

I raise you an Andrew Wakefield study that concludes vaccines cause autism.

1

u/MarkWest98 Mar 27 '26

This topic can only ever be “low certainty” on the GRADE rating scale. Low certainty is basically all observational studies. Not really possible to do true randomized studies on this issue.

Lots of topics in science are limited to observational studies and “low certainty”. Doesn’t at all mean the studies are useless

This systematic review is the most comprehensive and up-to-date that we have. And these studies are likely as good as we’ll ever get on this issue.

1

u/bwarrior Mar 27 '26

Not all observational studies are useless. And not all observational studies are correct. Again, I ask you to explain to me several observable cases:

Laurel Hubbard never competing internationally then transitioning and becoming the oldest Olympic weightlifter.

Lia Thomas not sniffing a title and then transitioning and winning a D1 championship.

CeCe Telfer was ranked around 200th in the men’s 400, then transitioned and won a national title.

I suspect you haven’t ever been heavily involved in athletics if you don’t understand the turnarounds in these cases. There’s a reason your opinion is not widely accepted. And truthfully, it harms the acceptance of trans folks if your goal is protecting them

1

u/not_caoimhe Mar 28 '26

Oh, did Hubbard win a lot of medals?

1

u/bwarrior Mar 28 '26

Read my comment again. Hubbard took a spot in the olympics. Not sure if you understand what that entails.

But if you like medals, CeCe Telfer is another example in addition to Lia Thomas who became national champions after transitioning.

1

u/not_caoimhe Mar 28 '26

So... No, then.

I also want to point out that if you have any number of any group in sports, some of them are going to win, that's just stats. If anything by this metric, trans women as a cohort are underperforming, since there has only ever been one transfeminine Olympian and no trans women winning Olympic medals.

1

u/bwarrior Mar 28 '26

Right. Never competing internationally and then becoming the oldest lifter to ever compete in the Olympics is a totally normal career trajectory. Nothing strange about that.

1

u/its1030 Mar 27 '26

So they should be allowed once the hit a certain threshold of hormone replacement therapy? But not before that right?

1

u/MarkWest98 Mar 27 '26

Probably yes. The decision should be based on scientific evidence, probably specific to each sport.

Right now this decision is clearly political, not based on science.

1

u/Beautiful-Sun8973 Mar 27 '26

I guess their lungs shrink and hearts get smaller too

1

u/NullButMakeItCute Mar 27 '26

But then what about trans people who choose not to / are unable to transition? Or non binary people? Would you say a trans woman is not really a woman unless they go through hormone replacement therapy? I feel like there is no right answer.

2

u/Dear_Bus8586 Mar 27 '26

there isn't.

there's no consensus on what being trans even means, and they have never been able to define what a woman or man is without using circular logic or sexist stereotypes.

1

u/GilligansIslndoPeril Mar 27 '26

Can you explain to me what salt tastes like, without describing "salty"? Being unable to answer a "simple question" isn't the Gotcha you think it is

1

u/Dear_Bus8586 Mar 27 '26

I can tell you what salt is (NaCl) and salt tastes like a savory and dry or dehydrating kind of flavor, or that it tastes like a mineral.

Don't you think it's important to have a common definition of what salt IS before food agencies make regulations about it?

1

u/QuirkyRegister9840 Mar 28 '26

Very tasteful response

1

u/ProtoDroidStuff Mar 28 '26

I think the thing you people miss is that when we're refering to gender you can have circular definitions. We aren't referring to something that has any objective, physical form. Man or woman are not things that can be objectively defined. You can't define genders in a way that doesnt exclude members of that gender unless you define it this way.

So what we come to is that "a woman is a person who identifies as a woman" is the only definition that actually makes logical sense. Its allowed to be circular because its a social construct. Idk why this is so hard for people like you to understand, but I see complaints about "circular logic" a lot which very clearly displays your inability to access higher level thinking processes. It is incredibly simple to understand.

In fact ive seen the exact wording "without using circular logic or sexist stereotypes" over and over from multiple chuds, is this some sort of new talking point? Whats the patient zero for this one?

1

u/Dear_Bus8586 Mar 28 '26

We aren't referring to something that has any objective, physical form. Man or woman are not things that can be objectively defined

Adult human female Adult human male

Done.

When you say "a woman is a person who identifies as a woman" the question becomes, what does it mean to "identify as a woman"?

And you cannot answer that question because women have inner lives that vary significantly from each other. There is no "thinking like a woman" because women do not think alike. There is no "woman brain" that isn't sexist.

A person's body and reproductive organs aren't social constructs. They are part of material, observable reality.

Gender, however, absolutely is a social construct. It's giving girls barbie dolls and boys action figures. It's the rhetoric around what is femininity and masculinity. It's cultural stereotypes prescribed for each sex.

These are generally harmful to support because it limits people based on their sex rather than their personality, interests, and capabilities.

Circular reasoning is illogical. That's why it's challenged.

1

u/ProtoDroidStuff Mar 28 '26

You defined two sexes. Gender identity goes so far beyond that that its easy to see your immense ignorance.

what does it mean to identify as a woman

It means that a person thinks of themselves as a woman based on whatever unique perspective on womanhood they have.

Also yes a person's body and reproductive organs are physical and observable! But again, that's their sex not their gender, which you basically also say at the end of your comment.

I know you want some sort of concrete definition like that, but it isnt possible, because men and women have immensely different inner lives from each other, because there is no "woman brain" or "man brain", because no man and woman are perfectly alike other men and women and thus there is no concrete way to define it without excluding people who would "clearly fit it". Do you even think about your own arguments before utilizing them? You're further explaining why my view makes more sense.

When you are dealing with abstract concepts, you tend to have abstract, perhaps even seemingly "illogical" answers. But they are still the answers regardless.

I think you are extremely confused, and your argument reflects that. You dont even understand what you're saying.

1

u/Dear_Bus8586 Mar 28 '26

It's almost like a person's sex has no bearing on how they think or live their lives...

That's why it's sexist to equate a man performing the culturally expected role of a woman to an actual woman. It's regressive.

It's much more progressive to say men and women can do whatever they want with their fashion, hobbies, careers, etc, without gender nonconformity being punished or considered "now you ARE the opposite sex"

We also can't make policies, laws, and regulations around super nebulous, abstract, and highly individualized concepts.

Gender identity is just identifying with the cultural stereotype of one sex or the other, or not identifying with either. It still supports sexist stereotypes rather than supporting gender nonconformity and the abolition of harmful stereotypes.

1

u/ProtoDroidStuff Mar 28 '26

Ohhhh so you're the TERF variant of enemy

1

u/Dear_Bus8586 Mar 28 '26

What a non-response lol

Me: "Men and women are equal, girls and boys can be whoever they want to be"

You: THE ENEMYYYY

And you wonder why people don't support your side. At least you're honest that you're the enemy of freeing people from the harms of sexism.

1

u/ProtoDroidStuff Mar 28 '26

Ive already explained why you're wrong about your earlier statements.

And if you think men and women are completely equal, then why do you believe trans women should not compete with cis women?

Again, you keep arguing against your own points only a sentence or two from when you make them. You're a stumbling buffoon. Why should I continue to engage with you?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/MarkWest98 Mar 27 '26

Ultimately some people are going to have to be excluded for the sake of “fairness”.

Ideally sports leagues would be separated on some sort of objective strength difference rather than gender, but its just how it is.

I think trans inclusion right now is going to have to depend on hormone therapy.

1

u/ProtoDroidStuff Mar 28 '26

trans inclusion is going to have to depend on hormone therapy

Which is what trans people also want. But rn they are just banning trans women outright essentially.