Transgender - Part 2

[Gethelred]

Please be aware that the tolerance of anti-trans language on BF is at an all-time low. Jokes and insults that are trans-related, as well as anti-trans and bigoted rhetoric will be met with infractions, threadbans etc as required. It's a sensitive (and important) topic, so behave like well-mannered adults when discussing it, PARTICULARLY when disagreeing. This equally applies across the whole site.

 

[burge13]

Can you definitively prove using studies and well researched hypotheses that this is the case, burge?

Are you telling me you need a stack of people to waste their time documenting in a clinical setting that men are stronger/faster etc? Surely decades of sports records are enough? What are you even arguing anymore, it's absurd

 

[the_interloper]

The problem, in a nutshell.

I actually never saw Kirsti post a study that proved women in general punch as hard as men to be honest, unless i missed it, that just seemed to be a claim without scientific basis which I know you hate of course!

 

[SnakeMan86]

... which was the basis - scientifically - for you stating that men's punching power is superior to a woman's. Now robbed of that basis, your opinion remains unchanged without scientific backing.

... which would be fine, if y'all were willing to admit it.

You seem to think that I'm saying the problem is that women can punch as hard as men, where I'm saying the problem is y'all's refusal to admit there's not much pretext scientifically for your position.

You're willing to undermine supplied studies purely with anecdote.

Again, unless I missed it... the phrase we disputed was a woman can punch as hard as a man, which was then not provided with evidence of punching power in PSI of that comparitible to men... which would make it just anecdotal. So I am yet to be robbed of said basis

 

[ShanDog]

... which was the basis - scientifically - for you stating that men's punching power is superior to a woman's. Now robbed of that basis, your opinion remains unchanged without scientific backing.

An opinion can remain unbacked by science.

Regardless, that particular opinion (men can punch harder than women) with the implied 'on average' caveat is of course true.

You don't always need fifteen peer reviewed papers to come to a confident conclusion on things, particularly if you can apply basic knowledge of physics, biomechanics, boxing with a little common sense in this matter.

 

[Gethelred]

An opinion can remain unbacked by science.

Regardless, that particular opinion (men can punch harder than women) with the implied 'on average' caveat is of course true.

You don't always need fifteen peer reviewed papers to come to a confident conclusion on things, particularly if you can apply basic knowledge of physics, biomechanics, boxing with a little common sense in this matter.

But we're not just talking about stronger/weaker, we're discussing why males are stronger/weaker, if it's an innate trait of male humans or if it's a consequence of something else. This specific conversation began with the notion that over a long period of time men's boxing has seen significantly higher participation rates, significantly higher competition etc, and that has an affect on all athletic attributes long term.

This is where some of the others keep running into trouble: I'm not saying that female punching power is equal to male punching power (to leave the notion of punching power post transition alone). What I am saying is that we do not really know the reasons why, and that because none of us are experts (but only some of us are willing to admit it) the willingness to assert one hypothesis over another is more a sign of individual bias than it is scientific backing.

Now, that cuts both ways: my bias is in a different direction than yours, but it's still there. But I take significant objection to the series of posts saying 'give me a spell' when provided a series of studies disproving something previously used as an underpinning of the argument.

 

[ShanDog]

I'm not saying that female punching power is equal to male punching power

Are you agreeing that men generally can hit harder?

What I am saying is that we do not really know the reasons why, and that because none of us are experts (but only some of us are willing to admit it) the willingness to assert one hypothesis over another is more a sign of individual bias than it is scientific backing.

I'd be shocked if there aren't studies out there that in fact do show exactly why this is the case. But without even reading them, I can give you what I imagine would be a fairly accurate summary of why - all else being equal, men generally have greater muscle mass - particularly in the upper body - than women, and physics doesn't care how you identify.

 

[Engimal v3]

But we're not just talking about stronger/weaker, we're discussing why males are stronger/weaker, if it's an innate trait of male humans or if it's a consequence of something else. This specific conversation began with the notion that over a long period of time men's boxing has seen significantly higher participation rates, significantly higher competition etc, and that has an affect on all athletic attributes long term.

This is where some of the others keep running into trouble: I'm not saying that female punching power is equal to male punching power (to leave the notion of punching power post transition alone). What I am saying is that we do not really know the reasons why, and that because none of us are experts (but only some of us are willing to admit it) the willingness to assert one hypothesis over another is more a sign of individual bias than it is scientific backing.

Now, that cuts both ways: my bias is in a different direction than yours, but it's still there. But I take significant objection to the series of posts saying 'give me a spell' when provided a series of studies disproving something previously used as an underpinning of the argument.

I think the frustration people are expressing with you is that the disparity between male and female punching power actually isn't some great unknown.

While peer-reviewed scientific experiment is the gold standard, the anecdotal experience of those here who have watched hundreds of hours of combat sports and also actually trained combat sports shouldn't be ignored just because it's an anecdote.

 

[SnakeMan86]

This specific conversation began with the notion that over a long period of time men's boxing has seen significantly higher participation rates, significantly higher competition etc, and that has an affect on all athletic attributes long term.

This is where some of the others keep running into trouble: I'm not saying that female punching power is equal to male punching power (to leave the notion of punching power post transition alone). What I am saying is that we do not really know the reasons why, and that because none of us are experts (but only some of us are willing to admit it) the willingness to assert one hypothesis over another is more a sign of individual bias than it is scientific backing.

Now, that cuts both ways: my bias is in a different direction than yours, but it's still there. But I take significant objection to the series of posts saying 'give me a spell' when provided a series of studies disproving something previously used as an underpinning of the argument.

No, this specific conversation started with Kristis statement that women can punch as hard as men, yet that statement alone was not backed up with any proof. No examples of female punchers recording the same or higher PSI than a male. And yet we were being critisised. That's the crux of it.

No one here disproved that the hand crank test was an invalid criticism, which was cited in the study. We disproved the original statement, that was backed up with zero evidence.

There is no scientific backing to her statement on punching power.

Reasons why would be in things like muscle mass, twitch fibres, bone density, frames etc

 

[Gethelred]

... and we've come full circle, and it seems some people still don't get it.

 

[evolved2]

... and we've come full circle, and it seems some people still don't get it.

What evidence would you accept? I can look for scientific studies and post them for your perusal, such as the following:

Why males pack a powerful punch

Elk have antlers. Rams have horns. In the animal kingdom, males develop specialized weapons for competition when winning a fight is critical. Humans do too, according to new research. Fighting may have long been a part of our evolutionary history.

www.sciencedaily.com

Few of us are experts on accepted scientific theories like evolution either, but that doesn't mean we can't post opinions that are informed to varying degrees.

Trying to muddy the waters by saying we don't know everything or we're not experts is what creationists do with evolutionary theory. There needs to be rock solid evidence that transwoman have no physiological advantage over biological females before many posters here will accept their involvement in competitive womens sport.

I think the easiest solution is to have a biological female category and an open category where a physiological advantage is shown. Why is that not acceptable?

Where there is no physiological advantage, I don't see why any categorisation by sex or gender is necessary. Just make one category for all.

 

[Engimal v3]

... and we've come full circle, and it seems some people still don't get it.

I don't think it's unreasonable to express doubt over an unsourced claim that women can punch as hard as men. In the absence of hard evidence, yeah - I'm probably also going to rely on my hundreds of hours of anecdotes of watching both men and women fight, and the expertise of those who've spent time in the ring.

 

[the_interloper]

... and we've come full circle, and it seems some people still don't get it.

Ok so some of us think it’s biology that means men shouldn’t fight women because they’re stronger and they punch harder. You think it has something to do with women’s combat sports not being accepted back in the day and that’s affected their progression in the sport, is that about right?

I did ask earlier why men beating up their female partner is so frowned upon in society (rightly so too), was wondering why that is? I think it’s pretty obvious why.

 

[Gethelred]

What evidence would you accept? I can look for scientific studies and post them for your perusal, such as the following:

Why males pack a powerful punch

Elk have antlers. Rams have horns. In the animal kingdom, males develop specialized weapons for competition when winning a fight is critical. Humans do too, according to new research. Fighting may have long been a part of our evolutionary history.

www.sciencedaily.com

Few of us are experts on accepted scientific theories like evolution either, but that doesn't mean we can't post opinions that are informed to varying degrees.

... which is not what I've said.

For the last time: I'm saying that the nigh certainty from an awful lot of people in this thread in the absence of expertise or evidence beyond experiential is a problem if it causes them to come to potentially fallacious conclusions elsewhere.

If some refuse to read the posts they quote, that's not really my problem.

Trying to muddy the waters by saying we don't know everything or we're not experts is what creationists do with evolutionary theory.

Lol. That's a weird pivot, given I'm legitimately asking people to acknowledge that they mightn't have all the answers.

There needs to be rock solid evidence that transwoman have no physiological advantage over biological females before many posters here will accept their involvement in competitive womens sport.

I think the easiest solution is to have a biological female category and an open category where a physiological advantage is shown. Why is that not acceptable?

I've said before that I think that's a decent solution.

Where there is no physiological advantage, I don't see why any categorisation by sex or gender is necessary. Just make one category for all.

I agree.

 

[Gralin]

I did ask earlier why men beating up their female partner is so frowned upon in society (rightly so too), was wondering why that is? I think it’s pretty obvious why.

Why is it lopes

 

[swingdog]

It’s because they can’t become Secret Service agents.

I’m crossing the threads!

 

[kirsti]

No, this specific conversation started with Kristis statement that women can punch as hard as men, yet that statement alone was not backed up with any proof. No examples of female punchers recording the same or higher PSI than a male. And yet we were being critisised. That's the crux of it.

No one here disproved that the hand crank test was an invalid criticism, which was cited in the study. We disproved the original statement, that was backed up with zero evidence.

There is no scientific backing to her statement on punching power.

Reasons why would be in things like muscle mass, twitch fibres, bone density, frames etc

A 170cm tall cisgender woman will have the same absolute muscle and fat mass as a 170cm tall transgender woman on established feminising hormone therapy Cheung et al. (2023).

Muscle fiber type composition is more strongly correlated with training history and athlete caliber than gender. For example, a Study of female weightlifters crushes stereotype. The study for nd women who compete in Olympic weightlifting at the World or Olympic level were found to have 71% fast-twitch type IIa fibers compared to the 63% seen in men competing at the National level.

Extraordinary fast-twitch fiber abundance in elite weightlifters

Human skeletal muscle fibers exist across a continuum of slow → fast-twitch. The amount of each fiber type (FT) influences muscle performance but remains largely unexplored in elite athletes, particularly from strength/power sports. To address this nescience, vastus lateralis (VL) biopsies were...

journals.plos.org

Bone density varies greatly from each individual based on nutrition, sex, age, & race. It is true that M have higher bone densities than W but African-Americans also have higher bone densities than Caucasians & Hispanic people.

Bone structure also varies greatly by individuals based on genetics.Additionally in a 2003study of the dimensions of shoulder width with the consideration of H & W of a sample of over 500males & females shows that there is a significant overlap of male & female bodies.

A recent study found Trans women have bone density lower than natal males, natal females, & FtMs, as a group, BEFORE hormone therapy even begins (sample=711)

https://asbmr.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jbmr.3612#:~:text=Transmen%20on%20testosterone%2Dbased%20treatment&text=LS%20BMD%20after%2010%20years,2

Arguments based on bone density derive from systematically racist arguments first introduced in the 1920’s while attempting to ignore this background, black women and women of color have higher bone density than white men (Leslie, 2012)
removing bone density to be considered a factor for unfairness in trans women athletes.

What does this mean? – Everybody has different bone densities and structures and there is simply too much variation to exclude someone trans or cis solely on the bases of that measurement.

In summary, in this it is important to note that no one biological marker can be used as a proxy for the complex set of advantages and disadvantages that is attributed to individual performance.

As a result, bodies (both cis and trans) must be looked at in a holistic way, and that their performance is a result of many interactive systems social and biological and not just the sum of discrete biological components.

We should also note that outside of sports with defined weight categories, weight and height are not considered to be an unfair advantage, rather taking positions as examples of tolerable unfairness.

This is despite height being highly predictive of not just lean body mass, but also in measuring maximal torque. The increased lever length attributed to skeletal frame (height) accounts for significant levels of the variation measured for both men and women.

It is important to note that both male and female muscle mass are the same strength when comparing equivalent cross section size or mass (Costill et al., 1976) and total mass and cross section size both increase with height for both cis-men and cis-women (Forbes).


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[SnakeMan86]

A 170cm tall cisgender woman will have the same absolute muscle and fat mass as a 170cm tall transgender woman on established feminising hormone therapy Cheung et al. (2023).

Muscle fiber type composition is more strongly correlated with training history and athlete caliber than gender. For example, a Study of female weightlifters crushes stereotype. The study for nd women who compete in Olympic weightlifting at the World or Olympic level were found to have 71% fast-twitch type IIa fibers compared to the 63% seen in men competing at the National level.

Extraordinary fast-twitch fiber abundance in elite weightlifters

Human skeletal muscle fibers exist across a continuum of slow → fast-twitch. The amount of each fiber type (FT) influences muscle performance but remains largely unexplored in elite athletes, particularly from strength/power sports. To address this nescience, vastus lateralis (VL) biopsies were...

journals.plos.org

Bone density varies greatly from each individual based on nutrition, sex, age, & race. It is true that M have higher bone densities than W but African-Americans also have higher bone densities than Caucasians & Hispanic people.

Bone structure also varies greatly by individuals based on genetics.Additionally in a 2003study of the dimensions of shoulder width with the consideration of H & W of a sample of over 500males & females shows that there is a significant overlap of male & female bodies.

A recent study found Trans women have bone density lower than natal males, natal females, & FtMs, as a group, BEFORE hormone therapy even begins (sample=711)

https://asbmr.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jbmr.3612#:~:text=Transmen%20on%20testosterone%2Dbased%20treatment&text=LS%20BMD%20after%2010%20years,2

Arguments based on bone density derive from systematically racist arguments first introduced in the 1920’s while attempting to ignore this background, black women and women of color have higher bone density than white men (Leslie, 2012)
removing bone density to be considered a factor for unfairness in trans women athletes.

What does this mean? – Everybody has different bone densities and structures and there is simply too much variation to exclude someone trans or cis solely on the bases of that measurement.

In summary, in this it is important to note that no one biological marker can be used as a proxy for the complex set of advantages and disadvantages that is attributed to individual performance.

As a result, bodies (both cis and trans) must be looked at in a holistic way, and that their performance is a result of many interactive systems social and biological and not just the sum of discrete biological components.

We should also note that outside of sports with defined weight categories, weight and height are not considered to be an unfair advantage, rather taking positions as examples of tolerable unfairness.

This is despite height being highly predictive of not just lean body mass, but also in measuring maximal torque. The increased lever length attributed to skeletal frame (height) accounts for significant levels of the variation measured for both men and women.

It is important to note that both male and female muscle mass are the same strength when comparing equivalent cross section size or mass (Costill et al., 1976) and total mass and cross section size both increase with height for both cis-men and cis-women (Forbes).


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

So then why is there not open categories in boxing and MMA? Why isnt Raquelle Pennington fighting Sean o'malley?

And where are the stats of woman's punching outputs matching males in PSI

When you were boxing as a male, did you happily compete against a woman in the same weight class as there would be no advantage, and theoretically she could have punched as hard as you?

 

[ShanDog]

Arguments based on bone density derive from systematically racist arguments first introduced in the 1920’s while attempting to ignore this background, black women and women of color have higher bone density than white men (Leslie, 2012)
removing bone density to be considered a factor for unfairness in trans women athletes.

Sorry, what does this mean because the way I'm reading it seems like you're contradicting your own argument

 

[Chief]

So then why is there not open categories in boxing and MMA? Why isnt Raquelle Pennington fighting Sean o'malley?

And where are the stats of woman's punching outputs matching males in PSI

When you were boxing as a male, did you happily compete against a woman in the same weight class as there would be no advantage, and theoretically she could have punched as hard as you?

This post does not address the content of the post you are replying to.

 

[kirsti]

So then why is there not open categories in boxing and MMA? Why isnt Raquelle Pennington fighting Sean o'malley?

And where are the stats of woman's punching outputs matching males in PSI

When you were boxing as a male, did you happily compete against a woman in the same weight class as there would be no advantage, and theoretically she could have punched as hard as you?

Because males on ave have more hemoglobin, more muscle mass and less fat % than women. Muscle & fat mass and hemoglobin levels are all controlled by hormones and not puberty. For example hemoglobin levels reduce to F norms in just 3 months and fat mass increases by 20 to 30% in just the first 12 months.

This results in what we call reduced fat-free mass. Fat provides resistance for movement, as opposed to a muscle, which provides torque for movement. Consequently, the more fat-free mass someone has, the better athlete they are likely to be — independent of skill level.

A trans woman's body on GAHT will be significantly underpowered after a considerable period of such treatment. Less delivery of oxygen to the working muscles produces a higher rate of metabolites and consequently results in muscle fatigue.

A relatively unknown study from 2021 took strength data from eight trans women and eight matched cisgender males and females. It found that the measured strength of trans women was not as low as cis women, but nowhere near as high as cis men.

But when the strength of cis men and women was divided by their fat-free mass, they were equal. Conversely, when trans women's strength was divided by their fat-free mass, they were around 19% weaker, kilogram for kilogram, than cis men and women. A worthy avenue of exploration.

https://academic.oup.com/jes/article/5/Supplement_1/A792/6241278


Also, Alvares et al (2022) found TW lose all their strength advantage.Alvares & colleagues noted TW had a lower VO2 peak/lean mass index,& lower mean strength/lean mass index than both CW & CM, trans women produce less force per gram of muscle than both CM & CW
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/57/4/e...maWeyPKFsxWN6ZXVBUVxhd-0vemuDSdW2DKJxVeDT2JY4
Trans women are physiologically different from men even before the onset of GAHT, hence I believe the basis of any blanket ban policy is flawed. Existing research clearly suggests that transgender women even prior to GAHT do not equate to cisgender men in either physiological or performance terms.

In terms of physiology, the work of Wiik et al. demonstrated that mean trans women’s muscle volumes are already below the mean muscle volumes of cis- gender men at baseline, with a similar outcome displayed in isometric torque levels. Furthermore, Van Caenegem et al showed that the lean mass was 6.8% less in pre- GAHT trans women compared with control cis men (57.4 ± 8.7 kg versus 61.3 ± 6.8 kg). With physical performance Roberts 2020 show- ing transgender women in the military had pre-GAHT upper body strength measures that were 12% lower (− 6 push ups, 95% CI − 20 to − 12) than cisgender male controls, in comparison with sedentary transgender women who had pre- GAHT strength measures 15% lower (42 ± 9 versus 49 ± 6 N/kg) than cisgender male controls Van Caenegem et al.

Based on this data, a cisgender male and a trans woman cannot be equated.

I firmly believe testosterone suppression coupled with estrogen supplementation is the best way to make decisions for the eligibility of the female category of sport.

I believe it's ultimately a question of how long that treatment should be for each sport; however, data must do the talking for me.

Cheung & colleagues suggest, REASONABLE accommodations for the inclusion of TRANS WOMEN are sport specific & COULD be based on the range of competitive ADVANTAGES & ABILITIES that are ALREADY accepted in the CIS FEMALE population.

https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/109/2/e455/7223439

 

[kirsti]

Sorry, what does this mean because the way I'm reading it seems like you're contradicting your own argument

It does no such thing. Leslie et al. Clearly shows you can not blanket ban trans women from female sports.

 

[kirsti]

But we're not just talking about stronger/weaker, we're discussing why males are stronger/weaker, if it's an innate trait of male humans or if it's a consequence of something else. This specific conversation began with the notion that over a long period of time men's boxing has seen significantly higher participation rates, significantly higher competition etc, and that has an affect on all athletic attributes long term.

This is where some of the others keep running into trouble: I'm not saying that female punching power is equal to male punching power (to leave the notion of punching power post transition alone). What I am saying is that we do not really know the reasons why, and that because none of us are experts (but only some of us are willing to admit it) the willingness to assert one hypothesis over another is more a sign of individual bias than it is scientific backing.

Now, that cuts both ways: my bias is in a different direction than yours, but it's still there. But I take significant objection to the series of posts saying 'give me a spell' when provided a series of studies disproving something previously used as an underpinning of the argument.

Well said

 

[SnakeMan86]

This post does not address the content of the post you are replying to.

Nor did her post to me..... I'm still yet to see a shred of evidence that a female can punch as hard as a male. As was the claim that keeps getting the goalposts shifted.

I'll ask again kirsti, when you were a male boxer, did you compete or would you have comfortably competed against a female boxer of the same weight class? Seeing as woman can punch as hard as a man? Would it have been competitive?

 

[ShanDog]

It does no such thing. Leslie et al. Clearly shows you can not blanket ban trans women from female sports.

I'm not in favour of blanket bans.

My question was in regards to the statement you made about bone density being an argument based in racist tropes, but then immediately discussing exactly how different races have different bone density. Are you saying the racists accidentally got one right?

 

[ShanDog]

Trans women are physiologically different from men even before the onset of GAHT, hence I believe the basis of any blanket ban policy is flawed. Existing research clearly suggests that transgender women even prior to GAHT do not equate to cisgender men in either physiological or performance terms.

How can this be said? I read the paper you contributed to and cited before, and even it says that this may be explained by diet and lifestyle choices, rather than physiology. Given there are elite athletes who have them come out as trans afterwards, that is obviously a strong possibility.

That statement doesn't pass the sniff test (insofar as the 'why' is all important) as-is.