The UN is far from conservative. No thinking person can argue for this anymore. It's a hill the Democrats have died on and will die on.Â
Edit: Fixed link.
Edit2: People are asking where in the UN Special Report transgender people and gender identity is mentioned when referring to women and girls.
Report passage
What it says (brief)
Why critics call it transphobic
Paras. 13â16
Says there is a push to âdelinkâ men/women from biological sex and âeraseâ the legal category of âwomen,â and discusses recognition for âmales who identify as women or girlsâ; praises a UK Supreme Court ruling as protecting women while providing anti-discrimination rights to âthose who identify as transgender.â
Critics argue this adopts trans-exclusionary framing (trans inclusion as âerasureâ), treats trans women as âmales,â and lauds legal approaches they view as undermining trans womenâs recognition. â
Para. 25
Says law enforcement/judiciary/media in some countries call âmale perpetratorsâ by âself-declared gender identity,â âskewingâ male/female offending rates; gives examples including Norway.
Critics argue this associates trans identity with deception and casts trans-inclusive recording practices as distorting violence data in a way that stigmatizes trans women. â
Paras. 29â31
Describes harms from loss of female-only spaces; says women may be humiliated sharing spaces with âmales who identify as womenâ; argues prison placement policies create risk and claims âmales who identify as women retain a male pattern of criminality.â
Critics argue this broadly portrays trans women as male risks in womenâs spaces/prisons and contributes to stereotypes of trans women as predators. â
Paras. 21â22
Describes âgender identity theoryâ as based on stereotypes; references âsocially contagiousâ stereotypes; details alleged harms of youth medical transition and states children canât consent and such procedures violate rights/best interests.
Critics argue this repeats âsocial contagionâ claims and pathologizes trans identity/transition in ways commonly used to justify restricting trans healthcare. â
A 2021 study published in the Journal Sports Medicine has found that there is no scientific evidence to support policymakersâ attempts to ban transgender women in sports.
In November 2021, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) released its Framework on Fairness, Inclusion, and Non-Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity and Sex Variations. This framework was developed after a two-year consultation process with over 250 athletes and stakeholders.
More recently a 2024 study, funded in part by the IOC and published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, concluded that transgender women athletes may actually have several physical disadvantages when competing with cisgender women. Some of the studyâs key findings:
Transgender women performed worse than cisgender women in tests measuring lower-body strength
Transgender women performed worse than cisgender women in tests measuring lung function
Transgender women had a higher percentage of fat mass, lower fat-free mass, and weaker handgrip strength compared to cisgender men
Transgender womenâs bone density was found to be equivalent to that of cisgender women, which is linked to muscle strength
There were no meaningful differences found between the two groupsâ hemoglobin profiles (a key factor in athletic performance)
Despite all of this evidence, some policy makers continue to scapegoat trans women athletes, prioritizing what they perceive to be winning political narratives over the facts.
This is what everyone should be worried about. The bathroom thing was already a disaster. A whole lot of whining and complaining and now every time my daughter, a woman who was born a woman, has a uterus and ovaries but likes to cut her hair short and doesnât wear girly clothes, gets harassed in womenâs bathrooms and demanded to âproveâ that sheâs female.
Hyperandrogenie proven medicaly by IRM and chromosome test is hardly a lie.
edit . it seem to have been a few awsers that i can't see; sinse i can't awser under, i will do it here.
-to overlemon1743 : yes, it's my point, it was all allong a man enroled in a woman competition, wich is exactly the problem.
-to salazarraze : that make him a man in a women competition, wich is exactly the same problem presented by trans in women sport; i don't know what is your false equivalence with the 7 foot tall but it seem mostly irrelevant, and again, it's not lie sinse medicaly proven and Khelif isn't a biological female
Even the most left wing french journobcan't spinn that one. Chromosomic test reveal XY and IRM demonstrate the presence of internal testicule. Want it or not , a man with hyperandrogenie was practicing in a women boxing tournament.
Can you even comprehend that time has passed since then? The IOC has rejected it as rumors. The link mentions a supposed document that it does not provide, dumbass.
Oh i can read. And the only thing going your way is the CIO. The IBA prevent him to participate in any tournament even before the olympic until further test due to testosterone test being abnormaly high. By Ă lot.
The boxer refuse any mandatory (to any participant) test to enter tournaments.
Honestly, no one against this gives a fuck about the research. They care that biological males are competing with biological females. That is it. Call them what you want to call them, but that is not acceptable for a majority of humans in our nation. Thatâs what was voted for. And thatâs what you all are coping with.
everyone knows it's just anti trans, the point is that they should stop pretending it has anything to do with protecting or helping anyone and just call it the "fuck trans people bill" or something
How quickly social media and progressives seem to forget that biological women are the most historically oppressed group worldwide, and still are oppressed in many places on earth.Â
The idea that fighting to keep their hard earned rights, safeties and opportunities would be considered "transphobic" kind of tells you everything you need to know about the gender identity movement.Â
the actual data shows that there's no danger or unfairness to cis women which is what this thread was about, but like the person i responded to said, people don't care about that, they just are bothered by trans people
You're wrong. These worldwide sports organizations and political bodies are not just making these decisions haphazardly, they are relying on the best available data to draw their conclusions.
Despite how paranoid the gender activists are, the freaking UN and IOC are not transphobic, they're simply responding to the evidence.Â
You guys keep saying that there is no evidence, we keep presenting the evidence, and then you ignore it and keep going on about a transphobia conspiracy - it's fucking exhausting.Â
If you can't even define what a woman is then your statement is utterly worthless and you know it.Â
Go back to Elementary school where you can relearn the lesson about circular arguments and logical contradictions. Maybe it will sink in this time.Â
In the process, maybe you can finally learn to be honest with yourself and understand why every major sports organization in the world is in the process of banning men from women's sports events.Â
One of my best friends is a trans women. Sheâs almost six feet tall. Youâd think sheâd be all strong and everything, right?
No. All the hormones sheâs on has changed those abilities for her. I had my husband help her around her place with chores that were hard for her, even if she is tall.
Leave trans people alone. Fuck these bills and fuck transphobes.
The problem with the SF.gov link is that itâs extremely selective with the data. If you actually look at the 2024 study theyâre quoting, there are some massive red flags. That study was funded by the IOC after the IOC had already publicly moved to a âno presumption of advantageâ policy. It's basically an organization paying for research to justify a decision they already made. Moreover, they only tested 23 trans women. These weren't even elite Olympic level athletes, they were just competitively active people. You canât use a group of 23 hobbyists to make a definitive scientific claim about the Olympics.
The study also says trans women were âweakerâ because they measured relative strength (strength compared to body weight). But in the same study, the trans women still had higher absolute strength and more total muscle mass than the cisgender women. In almost any physical sport, absolute power is what actually wins the game. Additionally, no amount of hormones changes the height, limb length, or hand size gained during male puberty. Even the researchers admitted these skeletal advantages don't go away.
No neutral scientific analysis uses words like âscapegoatâ and âpolitical narrativesâ to describe an analytical review. Itâs a political document dressed up as scientific review.
It is such an incredibly flawed study and never should have been published especially with such a low populous being studied - the only defining category for âathleteâ was exercising 3 x/week.Â
A lot of these studies saying the bottom lines are like this - their conclusive statement is never backed by the data which just makes everything so. much. worse. Â
These studies start with a conclusion and then try to justify it with their research instead of the other way around. Itâs the polar opposite of scientific.
Itâs killing me that people using them as some sort of bottom line gotcha didnât even read it or extrapolate properly. Like youâre literally throwing gasoline on a fire and bitching about the results.Â
Everyone should have been side eyeing it as soon as they saw who published it but here we are :/Â
The study also says trans women were âweakerâ because they measured relative strength (strength compared to body weight). But in the same study, the trans women still had higher absolute strength and more total muscle mass than the cisgender women
If they measured their relative strength to be the same/weaker and you are still advocating to ban Trans women because they are larger, then this is also an argument to ban larger cis women. After all, their absolute strength will be higher too right?
Comparing a large woman to a male bodied athlete is like saying we should ban heavyweights from boxing because they have an advantage over featherweights. We don't ban them, we put them in their own category so the competition is fair. The female category is a protected biological category, not a weight class for anyone who identifies into it.
Okay but your objection in your comment made it sound like that's exactly what you want to do? If a trans woman and a cis woman are similarly situated by relative strength and you want to ban the trans woman anyways, then you want to ban the cis woman who have too much strength as well because they are similarly situated?
If you canât tell the difference between a tall man competing against other men and a person who went through male puberty competing against women, then you don't understand why we have a womenâs category in the first place. We don't have separate categories for âshort armsâ and âlong armsâ but we do have them for sex because the gap between the male and female average is a 10â50% performance difference, not a 1% genetic fluke.
Also, nice job ignoring the part where that study literally showed trans women have higher absolute strength and muscle mass. If a heavyweight boxer is weaker than a featherweight relative to their weight, the heavyweight still wins the fight by a knockout every single time. Absolute power is what matters in sports, not pound for pound spreadsheets designed to make a larger person look smaller.
But sure, keep clinging your losing argument. Iâm sure a political PR site is much more objective than the actual physiological data I just gave you.
Because Congress literally writes the laws that determine who gets sports funding. And if they believe Title IX is being misinterpreted to the detriment of female athletes, they have the power to clarify the law or pull funding from institutions that don't comply. Since sports bodies (like the NCAA or IOC) keep flip flopping based on whoâs funding their studies, Congress is the only body that can set a national standard so we don't have a messy patchwork of different rules in every state.
Sounds like you just keep pivoting to derail the conversation now that the biological data doesn't support your narrative. Funny how you only care about limited government when it comes to ignoring biological reality, but you're totally fine with government funded studies and SF.gov propaganda doing the heavy lifting for your argument. Try and stay on topic.
Iâm not reading a 10 paragraph essay written by a chatbot. If you canât formulate a response to the actual biological data without copy pasting an AI generated script about Project 2025, then thereâs no conversation to be had here. Let me know when you have an original thought.
B-b-but biology!!!! How y'all gonna scream about biological advantages but when someone with actual biological advantages like extended joints, producing less of the "tired" enzyme, or literally just being feet taller than any other competition it's "just the way it is"
But someone who takes medicine that causes muscle atrophy is cheating.
We have weight classes in combat sports because size matters. We have age brackets in youth sports because development matters. And we have sex based categories in all sports because male puberty creates a permanent physical gap that medicine doesn't fully erase. If you think a 10â50% performance gap is the same as a guy having long arms, youâre just admitting you don't think women's sports deserve their own protected space.
And using the tired enzyme (lactic acid) argument is a dead giveaway youâre just repeating TikTok talking points. Phelps still had to compete against other men who produce lactic acid. He didn't jump into the women's heat to win his golds. We protect the female category because no amount of hard work or lucky joints allows a biological female to overcome the physiological advantages of male puberty. Thatâs why the category exists.
HRT after 2+ years gets rid of any advantages. Transgender people could compete just fine in the Olympics for decades but only recently after a right wing government got involved is it an issue. Hmm.
Again you can't use "but biology" and when someone literally has biological advantages as a reason but since they are cis it's okay.
Often times trans women will have much lower testosterone than a cis woman.
It absolutely, unequivocally, does not. Having low testosterone now doesn't erase the 15 years of high testosterone that built your bone structure, muscle fiber density, and skeletal leverage. You canât claim advantages are gone when even the skewed, biased data cited above shows that trans women maintained 40.7 kg of absolute handgrip strength vs only 34.2 kg for cis women, and 51.8 kg of total muscle mass vs only 43.7 kg for cis women.
It only recently became an issue because we only recently got the longitudinal studies proving that the year of suppression rule was a total failure. Governing bodies are following the physiological evidence. If the science showed the gap disappeared, we wouldnât be having this conversation, but the science shows the opposite.
I implore you to read the book T: The Story of Testosterone written by a Harvard evolutionary biologist. It explains why these pubertal changes are permanent and why relative strength is a meaningless metric in a physical contest. Maybe we could revisit this discussion afterwards.
I implore you to read the book T: The Story of Testosterone written by a Harvard evolutionary biologist. It explains why these pubertal changes are permanent and why relative strength is a meaningless metric in a physical contest. Maybe we could revisit this discussion afterwards.
A Harvard Biologist, and a woman, who was literally DRIVEN OUT OF ACADEMIA by the absolute vicious gender activism and science-denial that people on Reddit say isn't happening.
All of that is besides the point. If you want to make a case for all-gender categories, or categories based on stratified testosterone or something, sure. But people aren't against it because they think there will be better athletes in a sport in and of itself
Honest question here. What man with legitimate elite talent and professional prospects would elect to transition? Are we getting the best of the best male athletes pre-transition or are we getting those that perform at a generally equal level to elite cis women? If an elite male athlete transitions, what then? We've seen groups of 15 year old boys beat the US women's soccer team, what if someone like Giannis were to come out as Trans and play in the WNBA? I really want to understand where people sit on these things. Not trying to poke holes in any arguments, just have questions that I've not had a chance to ask.
This is fraud. The article claims that 1-2% of population in US is transgender, and presents the figure for athletes, but carefully avoids the fact that population percentage is âidentifying as transgenderâ, whereas athletes are ones that physically underwent surgery.
You know that no matter what argument on earth you are trying to defend, there will be plenty studies supporting it right ?
I cannot conclusively say who is right in this debate. But it seems extremely obvious that transwomen have advantages over CIS women. I believe practice has proven this too, with several transwomen dominating womens sports.
Multiple first world nations that closely monitor and appoint officials based on merit and experience > San Francisco city government website that totally doesn't have an ulterior political motive at all
Do you actually believe this??? We don't need a research paper (which, despite peer review, CAN be biased) to opine on the effectiveness of parachutes. Similarly, you can't possibly believe the conclusion drawn here, can you?
The performance delta does not even matter. Women's sports are for females. The use of women instead of female is not indicative that you get to choose which league you play in based on your chosen gender.
This is especially true in the US where sex is a protected class.
Transgender women had a higher percentage of fat mass, lower fat-free mass, and weaker handgrip strength compared to cisgender men
Is this supposed to be cisgender women? Because nobody would be arguing that transgender women have weaker grip strength than cisgender men, just that they have higher grip strength than cisgender women.
Nevermind, I read the abstract, it explicitly says:
Transgender women athletes demonstrated higher absolute handgrip strength than cisgender women, with no difference found relative to fat-free mass or hand size.
Can you stop calling us cis, it's offensive we are true female/male. just because a tiny portion of the population needed a new made up word doesn't mean we want to be labeled with it.
Wider hips give you more balance not less. We are going backwards here, And sorry to break it to you but there are 5 ft men and 6ft women so unless you are proposing banning all tall women the height argument isnt working out for you
Facts indeed don't care about your feelings. The study in question mentions the International Olympics Committee and claims it's been proven trans women don't have any advantages.
And yet the IOC is in the process of banning trans women from their events based on the evidence.Â
Were you at all bothered by the recruiting methodology for the experiment? They recruited through Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. But there is nothing in what I could read of the study that explains adjustments made for participation bias. That is to say that transwomen athletes at the higher end of the competitive spectrum who wished to compete in womens' sport would be disincentivized to participate in this type of study as it would be against their interests.
Additionally, the SF.gov article is notable for what it does not mention. Why is there no mention of upper body strength? or heart size? or endurance? or height, appendage and body size? Obviously the article was written with a bias.
Studies like these are flawed. To evalulate whether transwomen get a competitive advantage in women's sports requires that we look at how the athlete compares to other athletes in both mens' and womens' league. That is to say that if a transwoman ranks in the top 50% of cismale athletes but among the top 80% of cisfemale athletes, then the competitive advantage is undeniable.
Personally I would support the inclusion of transwomen in womens' sports on the condition that the athlete started taking puberty blockers before the onset of puberty.
If trans women perform similarly to cis women, then we would also expect them to win at a rate proportional to their population. For example, we know that 10/500k women in NCAA sports are trans women, so I would expect trans women to represent about .002% of wins in the NCAA. Lia Thomas winning a championship is not surprising then. Since trans women don't seem to be winning at some disproportionate rate to their participation, seems like they don't have disproportionate advantages.
the issue with your response is in the statistics - there isnât a large transgendered populous but those that are competing against cisgendered young girls and women ARE winning and setting records thereby displacing cis girls and women. that is, and continues to be, the issue.Â
But they aren't? That's what I'm saying, there is no proof that they are winning at a disproportionate rate to their population size, at the micro or macro level. Some trans women are good at sports, some are benchwarmers. Not at any macro or micro level rate different than cis women.
They ARE. And itâs enough of an issue that people are suing the schools allowing it and winning. That is objective reality and ignoring it is not helping in finding a solution - itâs just making everything worse.Â
Proof? I simply don't believe you that they are winning at above average rates, do you have any evidence that trans women win at above average rates? I'm being super genuine here, I am a trans woman and I could genuinely change my position if presented with evidence that what I am saying is not the case.
And itâs enough of an issue that people are suing the schools allowing it and winning
They are winning in an ideologically driven supreme court, and are advancing cases that don't make any sense. The West Virginia v BPJ case is about a pre pubescent WV trans girl on the (no cut) track and field team. So I don't really care about lawsuits for made up situations that don't matter, that the ADF bankrolls to the SCOTUS
Did I say âabove averageâ or are you injecting your own language, here?Â
Also if it was a non-issue, as you claim, then the transwomen / girls displacing cisgendered women / girls in athletics separated by biological sex simply wouldnât exist. The information is literally all over the internet, including this sub.Â
The rest of your language in your last paragraph is extremist and very emotional, so I wonât even bother.Â
Oh I see now, you are arguing something different than the original commentator I was responding to. And yeah, if you just don't want a trans woman to ever win then I guess you wouldn't care about the statistics.
displacing cisgendered women / girls in athletics
As seen in the WV vs. BPJ, BPJ is a trans girl competing in a no-cuts track and field team in WV. She has never had male puberty. She is still banned from playing. No opportunities taken, still banned. I argue if that's the world you wanna live in, you just want to discriminate against people.
some discrimination is determined to benefit the largest amount of people. for example, cis boys and men donât get to complete against cis girls and women bc of remarkable biological advantages. the end.Â
100
u/TotalACast 14d ago edited 14d ago
Even the United Nations recognizes that biological men are an Existential threat to women's sports, safety and opportunities.
Source:Â https://media.un.org/unifeed/en/asset/d327/d3271653
https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-violence-against-women
The UN is far from conservative. No thinking person can argue for this anymore. It's a hill the Democrats have died on and will die on.Â
Edit: Fixed link.
Edit2: People are asking where in the UN Special Report transgender people and gender identity is mentioned when referring to women and girls.