I just find it a hilarious that the governing body of a sport obsessed with "marginal gains" that has a rule dictating maximum SOCK LENGTH out of fear that too long will give a tiny aerodynamic advantage (and many other similar rules) can't or won't make a hard line decision on this. I don't see how such an organisation will ever be happy with anything other than an outright ban on trans competitors.
When will these governing bodies ever consider biomechanics as well as sports physiology! Going through male puberty has benefits to most sporting activities,but also going through female puberty has negative effects on most sporting activities.
I don't understand this tunnelvision on testosterone... For example, males have a 10-12% larger lung-capacity than that of females of the same height and age. That's effing huge, especially for a sport like cycling.
The strongest women on earth (over 100kg category) are on par with the strongest men UNDER 62kg. Men consistently out perform women in strength sports by about 50-80%. The big difference is neuromuscular efficiency - men use more muscle fibers. Maximum force for a man is simply impossible for a woman with the same muscle mass. Those difference shrink a lot in endurance events, especially extreme duration like marathons. But peak female athletes remain at a distinct disadvantage compared to men. To simply maintain good health they MUST carry additional bodyfat that male competitors do not need... and carrying that extra 3-5lbs over a 2hr race makes a big difference.
Great to see you're back making videos, I hope you're well in all kinds of ways. I know this might sound a bit silly, but you just stuck in my thoughts and I've been praying for you every day since we talked in January, I will continue, so trust in that whenever you fall into hard times.
...and then the last sensible TH-cam atheist sheathed his sword for the final time, turned, and, with a wistful sigh, walked off into the sunset, disenchanted and saddened by the realisation that those beloved brothers in arms he'd spent so many years fighting alongside, were the real baddies after all.
Always love to see your very reasoned and logical opinions. Really wish you made more videos discussing this and other social issues, but glad for the ones we get. I really appreciate how you take a very sensible approach, rather than the reactionary takes of other channels. Your kind of content is sorely missing in an age of outrage and wanting "wins". Edit: I kind of feel like there needs to be an almost "Open" kind of category for non-binary/transgender athletes. It can be managed on the same rules currently applied with testosterone levels. The only problem is that it would probably end up being an MTF only category because of sheer post puberty biology, but in time I think it's probably the best option for all.
It wouldn't get any entries at all, as these trans people a) want to earn money which they wouldn't in this (who would sponsor it?) b) want to be seen as women not 'open'
Why is so much of the discussion focused on whether trans women have a competitive advantage over actual women? Even if they didn't, even if the downsides of being trans perfectly offset the upsides of having gone through male puberty, they still shouldn't be in the women's category because they are men. Imagine if it was proved that one-legged men had exactly the same performance as women in basketball. Should they be allowed to play in the WNBA? Obviously not, because they are still men. Male and female categories were created because of the biological advantages of males. However, even if we could prove for some subset of males that they don't have a net-advantage, we wouldn't let them into the female category because they still have the advantage of being born male. Why should trans women be any different?
Hey Noel, checking back on you for the first time since VenomFangX was around. I always appreciated your perspective and style so I hope you keep making content (even though - and perhaps especially because - we disagree on so much in terms of politics). It feels like to have a successful channel you have to constantly be reaching out to new audiences or trying to grab people from other platforms like Tiktok or Twitch or something. And you have to be regularly uploading, which isn't friendly to the blog/rant-style creator at all. Still, I'm re-subscribed so at least you'll have one new set of eyeballs on your new videos.
Riley Gaines is right! Real woman should simply refuse to compete against bio men regardless of their 'woman face'. Stand up and shout 'no more!!' it's insane
It's rough right. I think it's pretty shitty to immediately back down on a policy because a trans women won, right? It's exacty as you said, they shit the bed and are trying to backpeddle, but imagine how the winner here feels, they followed all the policies and then because she won they immediately try to disqualify her achievement.
Yep, this is what happens when these bodies try and duck the issues and just follow the path of least resistance. Like you say, regardless of rights and wrongs, the athlete herself doesn't deserve to be put in a position where they are "the problem" for winning an event they legitimately qualified for. That aspect is really distasteful.
I would have thought a rule of thumb could be checking the number of transwomen wining events in a female category was the same as the number of transmen winning in a male category. Surely if they've got their numbers right the proportion of people in those categories should be very close to each other. If not I'd see that as a systemic difference based on biology and developmental history. Further, those who decide to de-transition after competing in a category should really have any titles they've won reviewed at the very least. What I would think they are trying to avoid are people biasing the system in their own favour by claiming something they are themselves not congruent with, simply to win awards they would otherwise be unlikely to achieve.
Or simply look at the favourite buzzword: equity. Is there overrepresentation of MtF in elite fields relative to the general population? If yes, there's probably a competitive advantage still present. I wouldn't even make it about winning - by the time you get to winning, you'll have a huge imbalance in opportunity already surely?
@@EnglishTMTB I think that might just buy into what they are already quasi suggesting, in that, they consider people who make such life decisions as special. Pointing out there are a disproportionate number of people in elite sports verses the general population might well have them suggesting that such people are just that good. Or that people who make such decisions are better at being excellent in other fields of endeavour. By comparing the MtF and FtM categories I would hope to cancel the bias out because regardless how it's argued the proportion of people in both categories should be the same if the biology doesn't make any difference or that the biology is suitably accounted for. Yes, it would be better to account for the bias well before totalling who is winning. I'm sure you could get that information by doing some basic statistical analysis on performances of individuals and see how often they exceed the mean and by what margin. I feel like it should be easy enough to do as long as the data itself is collected without bias. In this regard I wonder how much influence the sports organisations are under for this not to have been done. I wonder if they fear the results will put them at odds with the people who are advocating indiscriminate inclusion.
Glad the world is starting to see sense. Until the science is proven, it's ridiculous to penalise the majority to appease the tiny minority. I'm curious - does the hip width and thigh angle affect perfect between sexes?
The issue is mired in horrible misuse of terminology. The trans community has unpinned the identities of man and woman from male and female. In their bull-horned opinion, anyone can be a man or a woman. Observable, science-supported reality says that sexually, (physiologically, and intersex birth defects notwithstanding) you're born either male or female and remain so for your entire life regardless of cosmetic procedures undertaken. Concerning sports, we have learned that present hormone concentrations in a body, natural or not, don't matter in a number of cases. In some sports, any body that went through puberty as a male has permanent advantages over female bodies. Watch the trans smashing of records in 'women's sports' to know which sports they are. It is now imperative that we rename the two categories of sport to 'males' sports' and 'females' sports' to try to stop the damage being done to females in what have been called 'women's sports' up to this point.
You're incorrect in claiming that this is the first win by a male in UCI governed women's elite cycling, though. Nor it the first time Austin Killips has been on the podium in an elite women's race. The reason this particular win is getting so much attention is that the 2023 Gila was the first UCI race in history with equal prize money for males & females (a total purse of $36,500+ USD) - and males took home the top prizes in both the men's and women's divisions.. ICONS recently reported that it counted 50 male transgender cyclists either currently or recently active in women’s elite international racing. Other sources say at least 40 different trans-identified male athletes are currently competing in women's elite pro & am cycling of one kind or another. One of the trans activists who has been very influential in getting USA events to insure that women's races are "inclusive" of males who claim to have special gender identities is Molly Cameron, who has a YT channel. As you can see, Cameron doesn't attempt to look like a laydee - Cameron doesn't take T suppressants or estrogen, either. But Cameron is a woman coz Cameron says so & it's "transphobic" not to take someone who claims to be "trans" at their word. The dogma says "everyone is exactly who they say they are; no one would ever lie." Men especially never ever would lie to cheat in sports, or get in a woman's pants - or in the ladies' locker rooms and loos. LOL. It's such tosh, innit, yet so many people in positions of power have fallen for this malarkey.
*You're incorrect in claiming that this is the first win by a male in UCI governed women's elite cycling, though.* I am not sure what you are pointing to. Where did I claim that? In the footnotes and on a brief look back through the video I can only see me discussing UCI sanctioned stage races but if I misspoke I'd like to know so i can add it to the footnotes and correct it.
I don't understand why they haven't re-segregated sports after doing the sums. All you need to do is compare ticket sales from previous years, then calculate the subsequent drop and see how much "support" from government subsidies and interested parties have left you with. If you can't hit them in the feels, kick them in the bottom line ;)
Really appreciate the video. I think this argument is far easier to make if we call these athletes what they actually are: men. How they choose to identify is irrelevant. In this piece you referred to trans identifying men as ‘transwomen’ and to actual women as ‘biological females’. Women deserve to have the word woman, not these men. It’s much more effective to use plain honest language.
Let's see, biomechanics Vs sports physiology. Female 6.3' Marion Jones Vs 5.8' little old me. She was a full time athlete, training for her work, having the best medical treatment and prep, and also being strong due to her drug taking along with this training Me, worked full time in office and did training in evenings and never paid for it. I was also skinny, not a power athlete. So she was by the metrics of height, power, strength and conditioning better than me. Yet in all her drug filled days she never ran faster over 200m than I did, now does anyone think it may have something to do with the fact when women go through puberty there pelvis structure changes and males then less good at running. How about the fact that most female sprinters are quicker at 12/13 than they are at 15/16, they go backwards yet the boys all increase.
If you look at kids sports records for athletics clubs and countries, even pre-teens show an advantage to boys over girls. Not a huge one but consistent across all events. So the advantage seems to start before puberty and then is made even larger.
@@RaveyDavey most clubs only start at the 11-13 age range, so in this the 12yr olds will have the records and some changes can already have started by this time. My sister got the school record at 12/13, it took me till 14/15 to run as fast, then I got the boys record for 17+
I really don’t get this problem. Or at least, the problem seems entirely manufactured. If the category states it’s restricted to biological females, then surely that’s the end of discussion. If a category were restricted to natural red heads, then people who dyed their hair red wouldn’t belong to that category. No one would deny that people with dyed red hair really had red hair-this would be obvious. However, they simply wouldn’t meet the category criteria of “natural” red head. I think the best way to deal with the trans sport issue is to make the women’s category open (like the male category) and then create a biological female category. That way trans women could legitimately be in the women’s category (though, I imagine this would be an extremely small division) and those biological females who feel trans women have an unfair advantage have their own category (which would pretty much be a renaming of the old women’s category). Simple.
It doesn’t matter how long sex hormones are suppressed the advantages, providing the man had gone through puberty, is still there. Bigger bones, more muscle mass, bigger lungs, heart etc so while they may lose some advantages of testosterone they still have all the other innate physical advantages from going through puberty.
Noel - just out of curiosity... A glossed over detail that may be of interest in where this goes next as it were. When describing the new permissible T limit, you said 2.5nmol was (paraphrasing) within regular female bounds. Setting aside DSD athletes as a prickly subject for another time, it appears from the briefest of googling that typical females will have up to about 1.7nmol... Even granting that this is likely higher in elite female athletes and going a step further to permit that 2.5 figure as reasonable (regardless of whether it truly is)... First things first it must then be stated quite categorically that a MtF athlete held at just under the 2.5nmol limit is, whilst within the limit, straining against it's upper bounds. The questions that follow then are: 1) Given this, will not the average T of an MtF athlete will still be noticeably above average? 2) Assuming yes to #1, will overrepresentation at elite levels persist, and to an extent that the perception of fairness is still lacking? I suspect, as you put it, that further movements with the winds may well be required...
I think it is an odious overstep. Another one. Of what thet claim was true, and that this is a perfectly reasonable way of simply stopping "hate" with no knock-on effects curtailing speech and free expression then why wouldn't it be appliedbacross the board to all characteristics and beliefs (including political beliefs).
If they didn't reconsider their policy, wouldn't you be accusing the UCI of ingoring evidence that's relevant to their policy? I don't see how this change is incriminating.
@@speakz6935 Yep, it will make things difficult for the IOC and they deserve all they get. Their BS worled for them when they could pass the buck on to often small and vulnerable federations but now their "whatever it says on your passport we will pretend is your biological sex" ridiculousness is firmly in the spotlight.
@@noelplum99 Are you implying that Imane Khelif is not a woman? It sure seems like it. This is a pretty disappointing take from you, considering the lack of evidence for it.
@@trevorlambert4226 Quite the opposite, her gender identity clearly matches the gender identity within which she was raised. I am saying she is, on balance of probability based on everything we know, male.
@@trevorlambert4226 pffft, ok will try and lay it out, as I read it: On one side: 1:1 The tests were carried out under the auspices of a boxing org largely under Russian control, with a president with strong links to Putin. Even prior to this, the org had been told it was under sanctions from the IOC and in danger of beiung removed from organising boxing at the Olympics. The issues stretched from financial irregularities to governance. In short, they are an org with doubts over them, potential axes to grind and with a low index of trust. 1:2 It was claimed that the tests were only carried out because of defeat of a Russian boxer in the latter stages of a championship, effectively to disqualift the boser beating the Russian competitor 1:3 No test results have been made public. 1:4 There has been some inconsistency as to what tests took place, with most of the references to a sex test but occasional references, by IBA members themselves, to high test levels by the boxers. 1:5 Sex testing purely on the basis of chromosomes does only indicate chromosmal sex. On the other side: 2:1 With regard to 1:3 no organisation is at liberty to make public the results of such tests. They are deemed personal medical information. Only the boxers themselves can agree for such info to be made public. This is the case both with disputed orgs like the IBA and with well regarded and run orgs like World Athletics and World Aquatics (quite unhelpful for FINA to decide to choose a new name with exactly the same initials as the IAAFs new name there btw) 2:2 With regard to 1:2, it has since come to light that the IBA actually tested both athletes, they claim alongside a few others who passed the tests, a year earlier in mid 2022. Those results were not definitive and so the org decided it needed to retest the athletes. The org claims it has no juristiction until the next champs a year later as they were out of their competition and, therefore, remit, so it retested them in 2023. This does coincide, roughly, to one of the athletes beating a russian opponent but that wouldn't explain the other boxer being tested and disqualified. 2:3 the IBA then claims it informed the athletes of the results, passed on the paperwork from what were WADA accredited labs (WADA doesn't accredit sex testing but these are labs WADA uses so one assumes above board) and then informed the IOC in writing of the results and measures involved and asked for a response. The IBA received no response. 17 days after the suspension (or at least that is the timescale I read) the IOC took the ultimate measure of removing IOC status from the IBA (for other issues) and placed themselves in charge of boxing for this Olympiad. That was roughly a year ago. 2:4 The IOC has, in the last few days, admitted receiving the letter from the IBA detailing the test results, lab used and sanctions against the athletes and admitted it did not respond and did nothing about it. 2:5 The IOC made no steps towards investigating the boxers or retesting them but instead decided to change boxing from a sex-based categorisation to categorisation and eligibility for women's boxing based on gender identity by going on what gender marker is indicated on an individuals passport. i suppose from that point on retesting from the IOC's perspective was pointless as it made no difference whatsoever if the boxers were male, the IOC would still be fine with that. 2:6 The boxers, according the IBA, were instructed as to how they could appeal their sanction and offered financial assistance to proceed their challenges through the CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport). One boxer did not appeal the decision (Yu-Ting) but the other boxer started proceedings with the CAS (Khelif) before withdrawing her appeal. 2:7 In the intervening year neither boxer appears to have taken measures to dispute the IBA's claims beyond going the old Semenya route of making statements as to how they have always been a woman etc. If they have taken more tests privately they have not disclosed the results. They certainly have not taken any steps whatsoever to disprove the accusations. Both boxers claim they hate how all this is panning out yet neither have spent just a few $$ to put this all to bed and show up the IBA in the process. This is the exact same situation we had in the case of Semenya and the other two runners, who all sat behind anonymity and clearly never released their own test results because had they done so sympathy for them would have ended a lot sooner. 2:8 The IBA claims it wishes to make public the results of the tests and claims it contacted the national governing bodies for both boxers but, on consultation with the boxers, both national orgs had refused to allow the tests to be made public. neither national org, that I have seen, has disputed that claim or said publicly to the contrary (that they are happy for the tests to be made public). 2:9 With regard to 1:4, it seems very likely to me that the inconsistency in message from the IBA is because they have data on both the boxers chromosomal test AND testosterone levels. Bear in mind both these tests are cheap to carry out nowadyas, testosterone tests are normal doping procedure even outside of sex testing and so it would be quite remarkable if the IBA didn't know their test levels. Consequently, I believe the confusion is because the IBA spokesman has been at pains to point out that the decision itself was based on sex testing and not test levels but then other people, such as the president, Kremlev himself, are referencing that the boxers had male levels of test in their blood 2:10 Whilst the high test levels wouldn't form part of the eligibility (bizarrely, but their rules not mine) it does suggest that claims these boxers may be 46XY but have Swyers syndrom are unlikely. Swyers means gonadal dysgenesis (no gonads or functional gonads) and, as a result, test levels at, or close to, zero. Below female levels, not way above them (and useless if you want to excel at sport...."worse than female", if you like) 2.11 IOC President Thomas Bach gave a press statement verbally and misspoke. Bach said in his statement that "this is not a DSD case", which would be quite a bold claim to make if, indeed, this IS a DSD case because it would mean that he could potentially be shown to be bare-faced lying sometime down the line. Within hours the IOC issued a retraction and correction to his speech saying that Bach had meant to say "this is not a transgender case". Whilst the correction may be true (that was what he intended to say) if the IOC (who knows the test results) knew the boxers really are 46XX why on earth would they issue what turned out to be a very embarassing retraction? To my mind, the only reason to redact that stement, rather than just additionally adding the sentence about it not being a transgender case, was because they knew that was a statement that was either definitively untrue or liable to be untrue. Maybe I am too cycnical but odd indeed, when the IOC had previously made vaguer statements such as that the boxers "were born women". Almost as if the IOC has set out to mislead (they know the issue was DSD all along, so they say "they are not transgender and "were born women" knowing they will be interpreted to mean the boxers are female but they know they cannot actually say as much because it isn't true. They are looking to aid/mislead sympathetic and pooly informed journalists. So overall, when I look at all these things we know I fall firmly on the side that these athletes have a DSD. Are they male. Chromosomally, almost certainly "yes". It seems beyond comprehension that the athletes themselves wouldn't have been retested privately, if not on their own volition then by their national boxing boards and beyond comprehension that they would not loudly be waving wround their 46XX result if they had one. However, there are some conditions that reasonably constitute a "sport sex" of female despite being chromosomally male. Clearly Swyers would be one of them although, as discussed I find it hard to believe this is the case here (in fact an hour googling the issue I could not find anything about an elite athlete who had swyers anywhere in any sport.... it is just a really bad dsd to have if you want to be good at sport) so that really leaves CAIS. However, it would still be correct to say they are "male" if they are CAIS but most people involved in this discussion within sport (including the major orgs who do have more sophisticated policies, already allow CAIS male athletes to class as a sport sex of "female" and even on social media very few people seem to take issue with that....so you'd think if they are 46XY CAIS they would want to tell everyone. hence why most people are suspicious that it is yet another 5-ARD case because that is the condition where it would be in the boxers interests to not disclose test results and refuse to let the IBA release their test results.
The real question is: is the supertuck (aerodynamic) a bigger advantage than being born male and doing a supertuck (of your willy to compete in the women's events)?
I find this all rather silly. No sport is fair and these categories they define are completely arbitrary. Next youll be saying you want a uci category which outlaws all people who have a genetic advantage over you because it isnt fair that you dont get a chance to win. Trans women are women and deserve to compete in their category. They may have an advantage but so be it. That's how it is in many sports for athletes who have genetically longer legs or naturally high muscle mass etc. we dont see these people being ostracised just on those grounds.
I go to work, play video games, read and research stuff, spend time with my family, garden, brew beer etc. At the moment I am spending a lot of time coaching my son to play cricket. He is only 8 but has a real talent for bowling and is very tall (99.7th percentile) and very mature in absorbing info and working on his skills so we are often out in the drive or down the nets at the local club working on that together (I am a qualified cricket coach so that helps!)
I think that, at a competitive level, it should just be a blanket no. Sorry, I wasnt physically able to be a top athlete partially due to my genetics - it sucks, thats life. I do think at club level, who cares - let people get involved and enjoy sport. For instance this trans woman who cant 6,000th, theyre not placing, its a completion medal and ultimately it doesnt really effect anything. If they came first, then I would take issue.
There is a huge safety concern for combat sports, contact sports, and semi-contact sports, and even at a club level it would be pretty insulting and humiliating to "lose" to a competitor who is clearly cheating. Fair treatment for 99+% of the participants is much more important that feeling included for the
@@c6q3a24 Contact sports agreed. We make carve outs for all sorts of things at club level to give the illusion of fairness and competitiveness, because sport is there to enjoy and for personal benefit, and part of that is competition. Competition isn't very good if you're not amazing at the sport and you're always going up against those who are.
The fun thing is you have things like football teams paying for their players to be treated for growth hormone deficiencies etc. So the idea of competitive fairness is out of the window, but they can still maintain useful groups with consistent criteria to making the rankings more interesting to look at and compare.
@@Nashy119 No I disagree with that, it's possible to set criteria that make it fair - that include medical use exemptions - within limits. The problem with trans women in sport is that when you've gone through a male puberty there is no way to equal our that playing field for women. The entire point of a women's league is to provide a carve out so they can have a competitive league. I know some top female athletes, and they're really impressive - but I can tell you categorically, no amount of HRT would make a MtF a fair opponent in their field. None, and it would be farcical to even try. Now the reason why I don't care down at the club level is we have like over 40s or what have you, we are already making exemptions to create a sense of sport. This isn't why we create exemptions at higher levels.
For cycling after 24 months at near zero testosterone even if you are training you loose muscle down to ~body weight parity with women who train a similar amount. Which should give you a disadvantage because your skeletal mass and organ mass is still higher and you have more body hitting the air. With a rudimentary calculation that should work out. As you said though the longer you trained with higher testosterone the longer it takes to loose the advantage and most of the studies so far on trans athletes have been on young people. Cycling is one of the sports which I can see being able to fairly incorporate trans women first. Of course as was said in the video it isn’t going to help if they flipflop on it. It could be that the people who decided two years at a very low testosterone level just got overridden by higher ups because a trans woman won something
Except you don't lose muscle mass down to an equivalent woman. You end up somewhere between a man and a woman on average. Otherwise you would not see physical advantages for trans athletes, and you consistently do for the vast majority of physical sports, even for long term trans individuals.
Then how do you go away with the 12% extra lung-capacity males have over females of the same height? If you know anything about cycling you'd know that's a big deal why that saying cycling is one of the sports being able to fairly incorporate trans women first is ignorant to the max.
No. Transgender males>females can compete against al the other B/C/D grade men where they belong. There are literally thousands of men competing in the lower rankings - you don't get to jump into the female category just because you feel like it. It's grossly misogynistic for these men to force their way in to women's competitions where they are not wanted.
@@leenpels7646 that isn’t what I said, I said fairly incorporate them first not that they could right now we don’t have enough evidence (and it is really hard to get the money to do studies). If there was an average advantage that having gone through a testosterone puberty you could build that into the bike. Same with if there is an advantage to delaying puberty etc. However you would have to show it was fair. Most sports which rely on the athlete to move themselves around would benefit from more lung capacity. Some studies indicate that correct testosterone levels enhance the ability to draw in and expel air so having a larger chest due to larger lungs bigger shoulders etc for their height may not be as much of a benefit. Long distance runners are also very reliant on their cardiovascular performance and the few studies on them were why the time on blockers was lowered to only a year briefly. The people studied got down to the equivalent performance to their previous placements but in the woman’s division in around a year. Taking or having testosterone is definitely a massive advantage in cycling so the wait time required before the athletes can compete is likely to make a big impact.
@@SioxerNikita the muscle mass loss can be slowed by training but it eventually reaches as low or lower than a woman who train’s in the studies which have been done (almost all of those athletes studied had very low testosterone levels and many are from people post bottom surgery). A lot of the wins by trans women athletes were in the first year and in very strength intensive sports like swimming and weightlifting. It is likely that 10nMol/l or whatever it is enough to keep muscle mass indefinitely with continuous training especially as 8 to 10 is more or less a normal level for men over 50 and they maintain their muscle mass as long as they keep training. Allowing swimmers to have such a high level seems like intentional sabotage.
Really now. Set your policy, and collect statistical data on cis-women and trans-women complying with your policy. Of course some trans-women are going to win some races, cis-women win them all the bleeding time. When you have a large enough data set; ask a professional statistician, not eyeball it; compare the rankings of cis and trans women. Scatter graph is my go to; but get bleeding professional statistician to do it. Is there a statistically meaningful difference between cis and trans women? If yes, adjust policy; this could be increasing allowed testosterone, if trans-women are below cis-women. If no, that's it. You won. The policy works. Continue to observe and collect more data. Make minor adjustments, if and when needed. By the holy fires of Babylon, this is not hard.
@@SioxerNikita What evidence do you have for this? I don't know what the data shows. I don't even know if it's been compiled. Data on results from races needs to be collected and, have statistical analysis done to it. When this has been done, a policy review can be done and, adjusted if necessary.
@@alecburrett7482 Well, muscle mass falling to an average between men and women, and 12% larger lung capacity. Two factors which are exceptionally large advantages in cycling. Beyond that, the sample size for trans athletes in cycling is far too low to get statistically significant results to base adjustments on. From a data point perspective you wont know if you have extremes... Beyond that, it could ruin competition for decades, because that is the minimum amount of time to actually do your "adjustment" method.
@@SioxerNikita Okay medium transwomen is bigger than the medium ciswomen. Are we going to ban tall people from cycling? That's beyond stupid. I fail to see the reasoning behind this, I thought the point of this channel was to follow empirical evidence and, come to rational conclusions. Not to engage in closed minded thinking and, behave the a book thumping flat-Earther.
Flaky or otherwise, sports governing bodies are there to, um, govern sports, and we can leave them to it. If they make a decision you don't like, you don't have to watch that sport. Sometimes they make decisions which are unfair or unsafe, but it's still up to the sportspeople to sort that out. The only occasions when I would get involved is if/when a governing body has made a decision undemocratically. In the case of trans sportspeople, the opinions of women in sport varies considerably between sports, depending mainly on the fairness and safety aspects, so no-one should assume what those opinions are.
Don't have an opinion on the governing body of a sport you're interested in, as they make decisions that effect you. Lol, I didn't realise cycling was North Korea tf
In case you didn't make it to the end of my paragraph, my point was that the sportspeople can decide what is fair or not; that's not our business. In some sports they've decided it's fair, in some they've decided it isn't, in some they've decided it sometimes is and sometimes isn't. All of those are acceptable decisions.
![[Re:all TREASURE] EP.6 in 방콕ㅣ🚩 쩡캠의 방콕 투어 빵 마이 와이 👍](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/uyFw-nItA_s/mqdefault.jpg)
It's like the people running these organizations never really thought they'd have to make any serious decisions.
let's be honest here, in any sane world it really shouldn't be a serious decision, heck it shouldn't even be up for debate!
@@PolarRed True, but then also have to have a back bone to announce the decision, which is where I think they're getting stuck.
I just find it a hilarious that the governing body of a sport obsessed with "marginal gains" that has a rule dictating maximum SOCK LENGTH out of fear that too long will give a tiny aerodynamic advantage (and many other similar rules) can't or won't make a hard line decision on this. I don't see how such an organisation will ever be happy with anything other than an outright ban on trans competitors.
When will these governing bodies ever consider biomechanics as well as sports physiology!
Going through male puberty has benefits to most sporting activities,but also going through female puberty has negative effects on most sporting activities.
I don't understand this tunnelvision on testosterone... For example, males have a 10-12% larger lung-capacity than that of females of the same height and age. That's effing huge, especially for a sport like cycling.
The strongest women on earth (over 100kg category) are on par with the strongest men UNDER 62kg. Men consistently out perform women in strength sports by about 50-80%. The big difference is neuromuscular efficiency - men use more muscle fibers. Maximum force for a man is simply impossible for a woman with the same muscle mass.
Those difference shrink a lot in endurance events, especially extreme duration like marathons. But peak female athletes remain at a distinct disadvantage compared to men. To simply maintain good health they MUST carry additional bodyfat that male competitors do not need... and carrying that extra 3-5lbs over a 2hr race makes a big difference.
Great commentary for a short video, it's hard to disagree with the conclusion that they didn't really think through their latest policy.
They did think it though. They are just terrified of internal and external political apocalypse and/or dont really care about real women.
Great to see you're back making videos, I hope you're well in all kinds of ways. I know this might sound a bit silly, but you just stuck in my thoughts and I've been praying for you every day since we talked in January, I will continue, so trust in that whenever you fall into hard times.
...and then the last sensible TH-cam atheist sheathed his sword for the final time, turned, and, with a wistful sigh, walked off into the sunset, disenchanted and saddened by the realisation that those beloved brothers in arms he'd spent so many years fighting alongside, were the real baddies after all.
Always love to see your very reasoned and logical opinions. Really wish you made more videos discussing this and other social issues, but glad for the ones we get. I really appreciate how you take a very sensible approach, rather than the reactionary takes of other channels. Your kind of content is sorely missing in an age of outrage and wanting "wins".
Edit: I kind of feel like there needs to be an almost "Open" kind of category for non-binary/transgender athletes. It can be managed on the same rules currently applied with testosterone levels. The only problem is that it would probably end up being an MTF only category because of sheer post puberty biology, but in time I think it's probably the best option for all.
It wouldn't get any entries at all, as these trans people
a) want to earn money which they wouldn't in this (who would sponsor it?)
b) want to be seen as women not 'open'
Good to see you , from the US, started watching when you were talking about the “ Biblical Flood”…
Why is so much of the discussion focused on whether trans women have a competitive advantage over actual women? Even if they didn't, even if the downsides of being trans perfectly offset the upsides of having gone through male puberty, they still shouldn't be in the women's category because they are men.
Imagine if it was proved that one-legged men had exactly the same performance as women in basketball. Should they be allowed to play in the WNBA? Obviously not, because they are still men.
Male and female categories were created because of the biological advantages of males. However, even if we could prove for some subset of males that they don't have a net-advantage, we wouldn't let them into the female category because they still have the advantage of being born male. Why should trans women be any different?
Hey Noel, checking back on you for the first time since VenomFangX was around. I always appreciated your perspective and style so I hope you keep making content (even though - and perhaps especially because - we disagree on so much in terms of politics).
It feels like to have a successful channel you have to constantly be reaching out to new audiences or trying to grab people from other platforms like Tiktok or Twitch or something. And you have to be regularly uploading, which isn't friendly to the blog/rant-style creator at all. Still, I'm re-subscribed so at least you'll have one new set of eyeballs on your new videos.
I'm a simple man. I see a new Noel Plum video and I click it.
Riley Gaines is right! Real woman should simply refuse to compete against bio men regardless of their 'woman face'. Stand up and shout 'no more!!' it's insane
Madness: Its an endless *cycle*
It's rough right. I think it's pretty shitty to immediately back down on a policy because a trans women won, right? It's exacty as you said, they shit the bed and are trying to backpeddle, but imagine how the winner here feels, they followed all the policies and then because she won they immediately try to disqualify her achievement.
Yep, this is what happens when these bodies try and duck the issues and just follow the path of least resistance. Like you say, regardless of rights and wrongs, the athlete herself doesn't deserve to be put in a position where they are "the problem" for winning an event they legitimately qualified for. That aspect is really distasteful.
We need a policy that allows trans women to compete but keeps them from ever winning! /s
I want a policy that prevents anyone, literally anyone, from competing against Daria.
Even the 2.5 nmols is right at the top of the range for women, in fact slightly outside it according to health organisations.
Indeed... Which would suggest that overrepresentation in the field let alone the podiums is likely to already be artificially high.
I would have thought a rule of thumb could be checking the number of transwomen wining events in a female category was the same as the number of transmen winning in a male category.
Surely if they've got their numbers right the proportion of people in those categories should be very close to each other. If not I'd see that as a systemic difference based on biology and developmental history.
Further, those who decide to de-transition after competing in a category should really have any titles they've won reviewed at the very least. What I would think they are trying to avoid are people biasing the system in their own favour by claiming something they are themselves not congruent with, simply to win awards they would otherwise be unlikely to achieve.
Or simply look at the favourite buzzword: equity.
Is there overrepresentation of MtF in elite fields relative to the general population?
If yes, there's probably a competitive advantage still present.
I wouldn't even make it about winning - by the time you get to winning, you'll have a huge imbalance in opportunity already surely?
@@EnglishTMTB I think that might just buy into what they are already quasi suggesting, in that, they consider people who make such life decisions as special.
Pointing out there are a disproportionate number of people in elite sports verses the general population might well have them suggesting that such people are just that good. Or that people who make such decisions are better at being excellent in other fields of endeavour.
By comparing the MtF and FtM categories I would hope to cancel the bias out because regardless how it's argued the proportion of people in both categories should be the same if the biology doesn't make any difference or that the biology is suitably accounted for.
Yes, it would be better to account for the bias well before totalling who is winning. I'm sure you could get that information by doing some basic statistical analysis on performances of individuals and see how often they exceed the mean and by what margin. I feel like it should be easy enough to do as long as the data itself is collected without bias. In this regard I wonder how much influence the sports organisations are under for this not to have been done. I wonder if they fear the results will put them at odds with the people who are advocating indiscriminate inclusion.
@@sigmata0 I don't have time for a full response... But there's definitely merit in what you suggest.
Trans sports people should be limited to participating as their original genders.
Glad the world is starting to see sense. Until the science is proven, it's ridiculous to penalise the majority to appease the tiny minority. I'm curious - does the hip width and thigh angle affect perfect between sexes?
I have heard mention of this with regard to "q" factor and gait in cycling but it doesn't seem to be something that is easy to put numbers to.
The issue is mired in horrible misuse of terminology. The trans community has unpinned the identities of man and woman from male and female. In their bull-horned opinion, anyone can be a man or a woman. Observable, science-supported reality says that sexually, (physiologically, and intersex birth defects notwithstanding) you're born either male or female and remain so for your entire life regardless of cosmetic procedures undertaken. Concerning sports, we have learned that present hormone concentrations in a body, natural or not, don't matter in a number of cases. In some sports, any body that went through puberty as a male has permanent advantages over female bodies. Watch the trans smashing of records in 'women's sports' to know which sports they are. It is now imperative that we rename the two categories of sport to 'males' sports' and 'females' sports' to try to stop the damage being done to females in what have been called 'women's sports' up to this point.
I agree although "female" and "open" are more sensible options for a number of reasons.
Fucking hell, I used to watch you back in the days of Integral Math and Mykeru Media and 'Atheism +'.
You're incorrect in claiming that this is the first win by a male in UCI governed women's elite cycling, though. Nor it the first time Austin Killips has been on the podium in an elite women's race.
The reason this particular win is getting so much attention is that the 2023 Gila was the first UCI race in history with equal prize money for males & females (a total purse of $36,500+ USD) - and males took home the top prizes in both the men's and women's divisions..
ICONS recently reported that it counted 50 male transgender cyclists either currently or recently active in women’s elite international racing.
Other sources say at least 40 different trans-identified male athletes are currently competing in women's elite pro & am cycling of one kind or another.
One of the trans activists who has been very influential in getting USA events to insure that women's races are "inclusive" of males who claim to have special gender identities is Molly Cameron, who has a YT channel. As you can see, Cameron doesn't attempt to look like a laydee - Cameron doesn't take T suppressants or estrogen, either. But Cameron is a woman coz Cameron says so & it's "transphobic" not to take someone who claims to be "trans" at their word. The dogma says "everyone is exactly who they say they are; no one would ever lie." Men especially never ever would lie to cheat in sports, or get in a woman's pants - or in the ladies' locker rooms and loos. LOL. It's such tosh, innit, yet so many people in positions of power have fallen for this malarkey.
*You're incorrect in claiming that this is the first win by a male in UCI governed women's elite cycling, though.*
I am not sure what you are pointing to. Where did I claim that? In the footnotes and on a brief look back through the video I can only see me discussing UCI sanctioned stage races but if I misspoke I'd like to know so i can add it to the footnotes and correct it.
Hey Noel, you haven't made a video in ages and I miss your take on things. Anyway, hope you're doing well mate.
Great to see you're back making videos!
I don't understand why they haven't re-segregated sports after doing the sums. All you need to do is compare ticket sales from previous years, then calculate the subsequent drop and see how much "support" from government subsidies and interested parties have left you with. If you can't hit them in the feels, kick them in the bottom line ;)
I am watching this 3 months later and no newer videos here :(
Really appreciate the video. I think this argument is far easier to make if we call these athletes what they actually are: men. How they choose to identify is irrelevant. In this piece you referred to trans identifying men as ‘transwomen’ and to actual women as ‘biological females’. Women deserve to have the word woman, not these men. It’s much more effective to use plain honest language.
Let's see, biomechanics Vs sports physiology. Female 6.3' Marion Jones Vs 5.8' little old me. She was a full time athlete, training for her work, having the best medical treatment and prep, and also being strong due to her drug taking along with this training
Me, worked full time in office and did training in evenings and never paid for it. I was also skinny, not a power athlete. So she was by the metrics of height, power, strength and conditioning better than me. Yet in all her drug filled days she never ran faster over 200m than I did, now does anyone think it may have something to do with the fact when women go through puberty there pelvis structure changes and males then less good at running. How about the fact that most female sprinters are quicker at 12/13 than they are at 15/16, they go backwards yet the boys all increase.
If you look at kids sports records for athletics clubs and countries, even pre-teens show an advantage to boys over girls. Not a huge one but consistent across all events. So the advantage seems to start before puberty and then is made even larger.
@@RaveyDavey most clubs only start at the 11-13 age range, so in this the 12yr olds will have the records and some changes can already have started by this time.
My sister got the school record at 12/13, it took me till 14/15 to run as fast, then I got the boys record for 17+
@@RaveyDavey
Yes, the big differences begin prior to birth.
I really don’t get this problem. Or at least, the problem seems entirely manufactured. If the category states it’s restricted to biological females, then surely that’s the end of discussion. If a category were restricted to natural red heads, then people who dyed their hair red wouldn’t belong to that category. No one would deny that people with dyed red hair really had red hair-this would be obvious. However, they simply wouldn’t meet the category criteria of “natural” red head.
I think the best way to deal with the trans sport issue is to make the women’s category open (like the male category) and then create a biological female category. That way trans women could legitimately be in the women’s category (though, I imagine this would be an extremely small division) and those biological females who feel trans women have an unfair advantage have their own category (which would pretty much be a renaming of the old women’s category). Simple.
All these people in charge are failing both women and trans athletes.
Comment on the upcoming female-male boxing match in two days at the Olympics...
we want more Noel Plum
It doesn’t matter how long sex hormones are suppressed the advantages, providing the man had gone through puberty, is still there. Bigger bones, more muscle mass, bigger lungs, heart etc so while they may lose some advantages of testosterone they still have all the other innate physical advantages from going through puberty.
Yo, any thoughts on the leaked WPATH Files?
just like politicians.
good to see you absent for five months in the video way as well. matches all the rest of the time.
dr h dean
What do you make of what "Sarah Jane Baker" said at London Trans Pride on Saturday?
Noel - just out of curiosity... A glossed over detail that may be of interest in where this goes next as it were.
When describing the new permissible T limit, you said 2.5nmol was (paraphrasing) within regular female bounds.
Setting aside DSD athletes as a prickly subject for another time, it appears from the briefest of googling that typical females will have up to about 1.7nmol...
Even granting that this is likely higher in elite female athletes and going a step further to permit that 2.5 figure as reasonable (regardless of whether it truly is)... First things first it must then be stated quite categorically that a MtF athlete held at just under the 2.5nmol limit is, whilst within the limit, straining against it's upper bounds.
The questions that follow then are:
1) Given this, will not the average T of an MtF athlete will still be noticeably above average?
2) Assuming yes to #1, will overrepresentation at elite levels persist, and to an extent that the perception of fairness is still lacking?
I suspect, as you put it, that further movements with the winds may well be required...
Hope you are well.
We miss your videos mate.
Any thoughts on Assembly Bill 957?
welcome back
The Crown Prosecution Service has "Refusing to use their preferred name or pronoun" listed as a form of domestic abuse - any thoughts on that?
Hey Noel - is this the last video you uploaded?
yeh I think so. Have been busy since with "summer stuff" tbh
@@noelplum99 Hopefully your autumn will be less busy and we can enjoy some more of your insightful videos :)
Any thoughts on Scotland's new hate crime law?
I think it is an odious overstep. Another one.
Of what thet claim was true, and that this is a perfectly reasonable way of simply stopping "hate" with no knock-on effects curtailing speech and free expression then why wouldn't it be appliedbacross the board to all characteristics and beliefs (including political beliefs).
@@noelplum99Thanks for the reply. Hope you get back to making videos soon.🌈✝️
Hey Noel! How are you doing? Are you still cycling?
If they didn't reconsider their policy, wouldn't you be accusing the UCI of ingoring evidence that's relevant to their policy? I don't see how this change is incriminating.
OK Noel, it's been nearly a year. You might think it's acceptable to disappear, but I don't ;-). Whassup?
Any thoughts on the Olympic boxing controversy? It reminds me of when BionicDance blocked you for making too much sense.
@@speakz6935
Yep, it will make things difficult for the IOC and they deserve all they get. Their BS worled for them when they could pass the buck on to often small and vulnerable federations but now their "whatever it says on your passport we will pretend is your biological sex" ridiculousness is firmly in the spotlight.
@@noelplum99 Are you implying that Imane Khelif is not a woman? It sure seems like it. This is a pretty disappointing take from you, considering the lack of evidence for it.
@@trevorlambert4226 Quite the opposite, her gender identity clearly matches the gender identity within which she was raised.
I am saying she is, on balance of probability based on everything we know, male.
@@noelplum99 What is that we know that points toward her being male?
@@trevorlambert4226
pffft, ok will try and lay it out, as I read it:
On one side:
1:1 The tests were carried out under the auspices of a boxing org largely under Russian control, with a president with strong links to Putin. Even prior to this, the org had been told it was under sanctions from the IOC and in danger of beiung removed from organising boxing at the Olympics. The issues stretched from financial irregularities to governance. In short, they are an org with doubts over them, potential axes to grind and with a low index of trust.
1:2 It was claimed that the tests were only carried out because of defeat of a Russian boxer in the latter stages of a championship, effectively to disqualift the boser beating the Russian competitor
1:3 No test results have been made public.
1:4 There has been some inconsistency as to what tests took place, with most of the references to a sex test but occasional references, by IBA members themselves, to high test levels by the boxers.
1:5 Sex testing purely on the basis of chromosomes does only indicate chromosmal sex.
On the other side:
2:1 With regard to 1:3 no organisation is at liberty to make public the results of such tests. They are deemed personal medical information. Only the boxers themselves can agree for such info to be made public. This is the case both with disputed orgs like the IBA and with well regarded and run orgs like World Athletics and World Aquatics (quite unhelpful for FINA to decide to choose a new name with exactly the same initials as the IAAFs new name there btw)
2:2 With regard to 1:2, it has since come to light that the IBA actually tested both athletes, they claim alongside a few others who passed the tests, a year earlier in mid 2022. Those results were not definitive and so the org decided it needed to retest the athletes. The org claims it has no juristiction until the next champs a year later as they were out of their competition and, therefore, remit, so it retested them in 2023. This does coincide, roughly, to one of the athletes beating a russian opponent but that wouldn't explain the other boxer being tested and disqualified.
2:3 the IBA then claims it informed the athletes of the results, passed on the paperwork from what were WADA accredited labs (WADA doesn't accredit sex testing but these are labs WADA uses so one assumes above board) and then informed the IOC in writing of the results and measures involved and asked for a response. The IBA received no response. 17 days after the suspension (or at least that is the timescale I read) the IOC took the ultimate measure of removing IOC status from the IBA (for other issues) and placed themselves in charge of boxing for this Olympiad. That was roughly a year ago.
2:4 The IOC has, in the last few days, admitted receiving the letter from the IBA detailing the test results, lab used and sanctions against the athletes and admitted it did not respond and did nothing about it.
2:5 The IOC made no steps towards investigating the boxers or retesting them but instead decided to change boxing from a sex-based categorisation to categorisation and eligibility for women's boxing based on gender identity by going on what gender marker is indicated on an individuals passport. i suppose from that point on retesting from the IOC's perspective was pointless as it made no difference whatsoever if the boxers were male, the IOC would still be fine with that.
2:6 The boxers, according the IBA, were instructed as to how they could appeal their sanction and offered financial assistance to proceed their challenges through the CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport). One boxer did not appeal the decision (Yu-Ting) but the other boxer started proceedings with the CAS (Khelif) before withdrawing her appeal.
2:7 In the intervening year neither boxer appears to have taken measures to dispute the IBA's claims beyond going the old Semenya route of making statements as to how they have always been a woman etc. If they have taken more tests privately they have not disclosed the results. They certainly have not taken any steps whatsoever to disprove the accusations. Both boxers claim they hate how all this is panning out yet neither have spent just a few $$ to put this all to bed and show up the IBA in the process. This is the exact same situation we had in the case of Semenya and the other two runners, who all sat behind anonymity and clearly never released their own test results because had they done so sympathy for them would have ended a lot sooner.
2:8 The IBA claims it wishes to make public the results of the tests and claims it contacted the national governing bodies for both boxers but, on consultation with the boxers, both national orgs had refused to allow the tests to be made public. neither national org, that I have seen, has disputed that claim or said publicly to the contrary (that they are happy for the tests to be made public).
2:9 With regard to 1:4, it seems very likely to me that the inconsistency in message from the IBA is because they have data on both the boxers chromosomal test AND testosterone levels. Bear in mind both these tests are cheap to carry out nowadyas, testosterone tests are normal doping procedure even outside of sex testing and so it would be quite remarkable if the IBA didn't know their test levels. Consequently, I believe the confusion is because the IBA spokesman has been at pains to point out that the decision itself was based on sex testing and not test levels but then other people, such as the president, Kremlev himself, are referencing that the boxers had male levels of test in their blood
2:10 Whilst the high test levels wouldn't form part of the eligibility (bizarrely, but their rules not mine) it does suggest that claims these boxers may be 46XY but have Swyers syndrom are unlikely. Swyers means gonadal dysgenesis (no gonads or functional gonads) and, as a result, test levels at, or close to, zero. Below female levels, not way above them (and useless if you want to excel at sport...."worse than female", if you like)
2.11 IOC President Thomas Bach gave a press statement verbally and misspoke. Bach said in his statement that "this is not a DSD case", which would be quite a bold claim to make if, indeed, this IS a DSD case because it would mean that he could potentially be shown to be bare-faced lying sometime down the line. Within hours the IOC issued a retraction and correction to his speech saying that Bach had meant to say "this is not a transgender case". Whilst the correction may be true (that was what he intended to say) if the IOC (who knows the test results) knew the boxers really are 46XX why on earth would they issue what turned out to be a very embarassing retraction? To my mind, the only reason to redact that stement, rather than just additionally adding the sentence about it not being a transgender case, was because they knew that was a statement that was either definitively untrue or liable to be untrue. Maybe I am too cycnical but odd indeed, when the IOC had previously made vaguer statements such as that the boxers "were born women". Almost as if the IOC has set out to mislead (they know the issue was DSD all along, so they say "they are not transgender and "were born women" knowing they will be interpreted to mean the boxers are female but they know they cannot actually say as much because it isn't true. They are looking to aid/mislead sympathetic and pooly informed journalists.
So overall, when I look at all these things we know I fall firmly on the side that these athletes have a DSD. Are they male. Chromosomally, almost certainly "yes". It seems beyond comprehension that the athletes themselves wouldn't have been retested privately, if not on their own volition then by their national boxing boards and beyond comprehension that they would not loudly be waving wround their 46XX result if they had one.
However, there are some conditions that reasonably constitute a "sport sex" of female despite being chromosomally male. Clearly Swyers would be one of them although, as discussed I find it hard to believe this is the case here (in fact an hour googling the issue I could not find anything about an elite athlete who had swyers anywhere in any sport.... it is just a really bad dsd to have if you want to be good at sport) so that really leaves CAIS. However, it would still be correct to say they are "male" if they are CAIS but most people involved in this discussion within sport (including the major orgs who do have more sophisticated policies, already allow CAIS male athletes to class as a sport sex of "female" and even on social media very few people seem to take issue with that....so you'd think if they are 46XY CAIS they would want to tell everyone. hence why most people are suspicious that it is yet another 5-ARD case because that is the condition where it would be in the boxers interests to not disclose test results and refuse to let the IBA release their test results.
The real question is: is the supertuck (aerodynamic) a bigger advantage than being born male and doing a supertuck (of your willy to compete in the women's events)?
let's just have only bio males in the one category. and everybody else in the other😂
I find this all rather silly. No sport is fair and these categories they define are completely arbitrary. Next youll be saying you want a uci category which outlaws all people who have a genetic advantage over you because it isnt fair that you dont get a chance to win. Trans women are women and deserve to compete in their category. They may have an advantage but so be it. That's how it is in many sports for athletes who have genetically longer legs or naturally high muscle mass etc. we dont see these people being ostracised just on those grounds.
why do people want to strip everything they possibly can away from trans people i really dont understand
Plummeister, where you been at, hibernating lol?
Whose "the science?"
What do you do when you don't make videos?
I go to work, play video games, read and research stuff, spend time with my family, garden, brew beer etc.
At the moment I am spending a lot of time coaching my son to play cricket. He is only 8 but has a real talent for bowling and is very tall (99.7th percentile) and very mature in absorbing info and working on his skills so we are often out in the drive or down the nets at the local club working on that together (I am a qualified cricket coach so that helps!)
I think that, at a competitive level, it should just be a blanket no. Sorry, I wasnt physically able to be a top athlete partially due to my genetics - it sucks, thats life.
I do think at club level, who cares - let people get involved and enjoy sport. For instance this trans woman who cant 6,000th, theyre not placing, its a completion medal and ultimately it doesnt really effect anything.
If they came first, then I would take issue.
There is a huge safety concern for combat sports, contact sports, and semi-contact sports, and even at a club level it would be pretty insulting and humiliating to "lose" to a competitor who is clearly cheating. Fair treatment for 99+% of the participants is much more important that feeling included for the
@@c6q3a24
Contact sports agreed.
We make carve outs for all sorts of things at club level to give the illusion of fairness and competitiveness, because sport is there to enjoy and for personal benefit, and part of that is competition.
Competition isn't very good if you're not amazing at the sport and you're always going up against those who are.
The fun thing is you have things like football teams paying for their players to be treated for growth hormone deficiencies etc. So the idea of competitive fairness is out of the window, but they can still maintain useful groups with consistent criteria to making the rankings more interesting to look at and compare.
@@Nashy119 No I disagree with that, it's possible to set criteria that make it fair - that include medical use exemptions - within limits.
The problem with trans women in sport is that when you've gone through a male puberty there is no way to equal our that playing field for women. The entire point of a women's league is to provide a carve out so they can have a competitive league.
I know some top female athletes, and they're really impressive - but I can tell you categorically, no amount of HRT would make a MtF a fair opponent in their field. None, and it would be farcical to even try.
Now the reason why I don't care down at the club level is we have like over 40s or what have you, we are already making exemptions to create a sense of sport. This isn't why we create exemptions at higher levels.
For cycling after 24 months at near zero testosterone even if you are training you loose muscle down to ~body weight parity with women who train a similar amount. Which should give you a disadvantage because your skeletal mass and organ mass is still higher and you have more body hitting the air. With a rudimentary calculation that should work out.
As you said though the longer you trained with higher testosterone the longer it takes to loose the advantage and most of the studies so far on trans athletes have been on young people.
Cycling is one of the sports which I can see being able to fairly incorporate trans women first. Of course as was said in the video it isn’t going to help if they flipflop on it.
It could be that the people who decided two years at a very low testosterone level just got overridden by higher ups because a trans woman won something
Except you don't lose muscle mass down to an equivalent woman. You end up somewhere between a man and a woman on average.
Otherwise you would not see physical advantages for trans athletes, and you consistently do for the vast majority of physical sports, even for long term trans individuals.
Then how do you go away with the 12% extra lung-capacity males have over females of the same height? If you know anything about cycling you'd know that's a big deal why that saying cycling is one of the sports being able to fairly incorporate trans women first is ignorant to the max.
No. Transgender males>females can compete against al the other B/C/D grade men where they belong.
There are literally thousands of men competing in the lower rankings - you don't get to jump into the female category just because you feel like it.
It's grossly misogynistic for these men to force their way in to women's competitions where they are not wanted.
@@leenpels7646 that isn’t what I said, I said fairly incorporate them first not that they could right now we don’t have enough evidence (and it is really hard to get the money to do studies).
If there was an average advantage that having gone through a testosterone puberty you could build that into the bike. Same with if there is an advantage to delaying puberty etc. However you would have to show it was fair.
Most sports which rely on the athlete to move themselves around would benefit from more lung capacity.
Some studies indicate that correct testosterone levels enhance the ability to draw in and expel air so having a larger chest due to larger lungs bigger shoulders etc for their height may not be as much of a benefit.
Long distance runners are also very reliant on their cardiovascular performance and the few studies on them were why the time on blockers was lowered to only a year briefly. The people studied got down to the equivalent performance to their previous placements but in the woman’s division in around a year.
Taking or having testosterone is definitely a massive advantage in cycling so the wait time required before the athletes can compete is likely to make a big impact.
@@SioxerNikita the muscle mass loss can be slowed by training but it eventually reaches as low or lower than a woman who train’s in the studies which have been done (almost all of those athletes studied had very low testosterone levels and many are from people post bottom surgery). A lot of the wins by trans women athletes were in the first year and in very strength intensive sports like swimming and weightlifting.
It is likely that 10nMol/l or whatever it is enough to keep muscle mass indefinitely with continuous training especially as 8 to 10 is more or less a normal level for men over 50 and they maintain their muscle mass as long as they keep training. Allowing swimmers to have such a high level seems like intentional sabotage.
Gila =="heela"
I thought it might be, like a gila monster ..... but I wasn't sure!!!!
Really now. Set your policy, and collect statistical data on cis-women and trans-women complying with your policy. Of course some trans-women are going to win some races, cis-women win them all the bleeding time. When you have a large enough data set; ask a professional statistician, not eyeball it; compare the rankings of cis and trans women. Scatter graph is my go to; but get bleeding professional statistician to do it. Is there a statistically meaningful difference between cis and trans women? If yes, adjust policy; this could be increasing allowed testosterone, if trans-women are below cis-women. If no, that's it. You won. The policy works. Continue to observe and collect more data. Make minor adjustments, if and when needed. By the holy fires of Babylon, this is not hard.
Except on average the trans women wont be below cis women.
So it isn't that easy
@@SioxerNikita What evidence do you have for this? I don't know what the data shows. I don't even know if it's been compiled. Data on results from races needs to be collected and, have statistical analysis done to it. When this has been done, a policy review can be done and, adjusted if necessary.
@@alecburrett7482 Well, muscle mass falling to an average between men and women, and 12% larger lung capacity.
Two factors which are exceptionally large advantages in cycling.
Beyond that, the sample size for trans athletes in cycling is far too low to get statistically significant results to base adjustments on.
From a data point perspective you wont know if you have extremes... Beyond that, it could ruin competition for decades, because that is the minimum amount of time to actually do your "adjustment" method.
No. Let's just never allow men to compete in the female only category.
Much easier, safer, and fairer.
@@SioxerNikita Okay medium transwomen is bigger than the medium ciswomen. Are we going to ban tall people from cycling? That's beyond stupid. I fail to see the reasoning behind this, I thought the point of this channel was to follow empirical evidence and, come to rational conclusions. Not to engage in closed minded thinking and, behave the a book thumping flat-Earther.
Flaky or otherwise, sports governing bodies are there to, um, govern sports, and we can leave them to it. If they make a decision you don't like, you don't have to watch that sport. Sometimes they make decisions which are unfair or unsafe, but it's still up to the sportspeople to sort that out. The only occasions when I would get involved is if/when a governing body has made a decision undemocratically. In the case of trans sportspeople, the opinions of women in sport varies considerably between sports, depending mainly on the fairness and safety aspects, so no-one should assume what those opinions are.
Don't have an opinion on the governing body of a sport you're interested in, as they make decisions that effect you.
Lol, I didn't realise cycling was North Korea tf
wdtem
I would argue that it's more about fairplay for the competitors and not about whether you want to watch it or not.
In case you didn't make it to the end of my paragraph, my point was that the sportspeople can decide what is fair or not; that's not our business. In some sports they've decided it's fair, in some they've decided it isn't, in some they've decided it sometimes is and sometimes isn't. All of those are acceptable decisions.
@@DadgeCity
Jim is a cyclist.