The US swimmer Lia Thomas, who rose to global prominence after becoming the first transgender athlete to win a NCAA college title in March 2022, has lost a legal case against World Aquatics at the court of arbitration for sport – and with it any hopes of making next month’s Paris Olympics.
The 25-year-old also remains barred from swimming in the female category after failing to overturn rules introduced by swimming’s governing body in the summer of 2022, which prohibit anyone who has undergone “any part of male puberty” from the female category.
Thomas had argued that those rules should be declared “invalid and unlawful” as they were contrary to the Olympic charter and the World Aquatics constitution.
However, in a 24-page decision, the court concluded that Thomas was “simply not entitled to engage with eligibility to compete in WA competitions” as someone who was no longer a member of US swimming.
The news was welcomed by World Aquatics, who hailed it as “a major step forward in our efforts to protect women’s sport”.
I know I’m gonna catch heat for this, but sex-segregated physical competitions is one of the very few places where trans women shouldn’t be treated the same. Women’s sports competitions aren’t segregated by gender, they’re segregated by sex. Trans women are women in gender, but their body isn’t a biologically female body. That’s the exact definition of transgender - when your body’s biological sex doesn’t match your sense of gender. So by definition, trans women don’t have a biologically female body.
The whole point of sex-segregated sports is for people with female bodies to be able to have a fair competition, instead of them not even getting a chance to compete at all because if they had to compete against biological males then almost 100% of females wouldn’t even make the team. This is the whole reason why sports competitions are segregated by sex.
TLDR trans women should always be treated as women - except for sex-segregated physical competitions
You knew you were going to catch heat for something that’s extremely popular and common opinion?
Bruh, I got cooked for voicing this opinion so many fucking times.
Banned from many subreddits for voicing this opinion
Trans women have been allowed in the Olympics for 20 years now. There have been zero trans medalists. If this advantage actually exists, why aren’t they winning?
If i had to guess I’d say it’s simply numbers. Compared to the rest of the population, trans people are extremely rare, and so there likely just haven’t been enough trans people to have been there yet.
Of it was simply numbers, there would have been a trans gold medalist by now. Trans people make up 1-3% of the population. Over the span of 20 years and hundreds of competitions each year, surely a group that supposedly physically dominates the gender group they are in would at least have gotten one gold medal.
There have only been 4 known transgender Olympic athletes so far.
And of those 4 it seems like none of them are born-male people who are now competing in a women’s event, which is the only situation where the trans person would have an advantage.
https://thesportsgrail.com/list-of-the-transgender-athletes-competing-at-tokyo-olympics-2020/
You need to be a one in a million talent. I’m a male and despite not taking testosterone blockers I don’t have enough talent to be successful in any sport against women. Even with my testosterone, I just don’t have elite genetics
3% of the population, about 300 events per Olympics, assume 5 in the past 20 years, so that’s a conservative estimate of 1500 medals. You’d expect 45 medals to just be proportional, and significantly more than 45 would prove an advantage. 0 shows an extremely severe disadvantage.
Actually more like 60 medals would be the baseline expectation if you’re counting winter Olympics too.
Even if you estimate as conservatively as possible, 1% of the population and ignore winter Olympics, you have an expected medal count of 15, 0 is a massive anomaly without some sort of significant disadvantage.
Edit: triple all those numbers to include silver and bronze, realistic estimate of 180, extremely conservative estimate of 45.
You are completely ignoring the externalities of competing at the Olympic level. Trans people are going through so many societal, cultural, interpersonal, and internal conflicts that focusing on training at an Olympic level is going to be more difficult. You can be the most physically gifted athlete in the world, but if your head is not in the right space to train 12 hours a day while still going about your normal life then you aren’t going to be able to compete at that level. Hell, look at how far Tiger Woods’s performances fell after his public disgrace. Yes, some of that was drugs and some was from an injury, but a lot of sports is mental.
Also, you are ignoring that while the Olympic committee might allow it, do you think most countries in the world are so open about trans people?
Also also, do you remember the controversy around the East German women’s team from the 70s? How everyone suspected some were men? There might have been trans people winning medals, just maybe not openly.
There have only been 4 known transgender Olympic athletes so far.
And of those 4 it seems like none of them are born-male people who are now competing in a women’s event, which is the only situation where the trans person would have an advantage.
https://thesportsgrail.com/list-of-the-transgender-athletes-competing-at-tokyo-olympics-2020/
The real answer here is to do away with gender/sex separation and instead have classifications based of total mass, bone density, muscle fiber density, and maybe hormonal levels. Stop trying to deal with the generalistics and target the issues that actually matter.
If it could be done in a reasonable way then I’d be totally fine with that
this is not correct, on average trans women don’t perform any better at competitive sports than cis women
check the results section of this review paper for more info: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10641525/
Quote right from the opening paragraph:
it is important to understand the level of physical fitness/performance [trans] individuals possess relative to their cisgender counterparts. Unfortunately, there are few studies investigating this topic, and several complications that confound this research.
On HRT, trans women have similar muscle mass to cis women. They do not have an advantage.
Is it all about muscle mass? What about bone structure? Lung capacity? Heart size/volume? Stuff like that?
I’m not a doctor.
Doesn’t that depend on when they start?
Yes, and a bunch of other things.
TBH the best solution would be to do away with the Olympics altogether. It has nothing in common with the Greek Olympics and is nothing but evil now.
Removed by mod
I wonder what you would think of trans men dominating their cis-female competition while having periods
So, monthly periods. Then exclude irregular women, women who have had a hysterectomy and such.
I agree with the point of trans women having an unfair advantage, but your reductionist point of view is moronic, unless you meant it as a joke, which certainly did not land.
Dude, hormone blockers exist. They don’t have any advantages if they’re on hormones/ hormone blockers.
Edit: I’ll die on this hill. Enjoy being evil the future.
My understanding is that’s true for muscle mass. However, if they transition after puberty like Lia Thomas did, height and wingspan will remain; both of which confer huge advantages in swimming. Apparently that’s a major reason why Michael Phelps did so well, his arm span is ridiculous.
Phelps has huge palms that support his paddling ability and is 14 feet tall, which essentially act as flippers (the kind of fingerless arms that seals have).
That site could use a little more proof reading.
Probably AI. There’s probably a reddit comment out there joking about how Phelps is 14 feet tall.
What do you mean by “being evil in the future”?
If Shaq took hormone blockers, would she still have an advantage?
Probably not many, but that is because he is already in his 50s. If you do that with an Olympic level male athlete, on his early 20s and on his prime, then absolutely.
Aside from height? Not really.
Obviously the solution is to have a separate trans Olympics.
/S
Or send them to the mens side, which is ironically is open to everyone.
I’m scared to reply, but is this not a plausible outcome? She is still a she, but could she compete on the men’s team?
I’m not 100% sure about every sports organization on the planet, but generally speaking the men’s divisions are open to women and nonbinary people. I can’t seem to find much in the olympic rulebook, and it also doesn’t seem to have been tested or ruled on.
That works for American football/gridiron, doesn’t it? Since there’s no female alternative? I don’t think I’m seeing any actual NFL players here, but they’ve certainly made it to the collegiate level:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_gridiron_football_players
Yes but when your testosterone goes down, your performance will go down. Unlikely she would be able to perform well enough in high performing men’s leagues.
Actually that should be fine
I hate that idea, but if that’s all trans people can get I guess it’s better than nothing. :/
Post locked. Too many inappropriate comments.
For a while I’ve been thinking that all sports should get rid of gendered male/female competitions and replace them with
weightcategories that take into account physiological characteristics like muscle mass, testosterone levels, weight, height, etc. This would result in, say, three to four categories ranging from lightweight to heavyweight.Why wouldn’t this work?
A 150 lb male will almost always out-perform a 150 lb female. The genetic differences are still vast even in the same weight category.
That’s why they would need to take more into account than simply weight. Surely multiple physical and hormonal factors could also be measured and an aggregate total value be applied to each athlete.
Too many categories and you fragment your athletes too much for viable competition.
True.
But middle aged dad bods are back in our (relative to category) prime, baby!
Fallon Fox. Look her up.
Yes, she eventually got beat by another professional female fighter, but not before she seriously injured multiple opponents, including skull fractures. Those types of injuries are not common in men’s MMA, although they do occur, but they’re extremely uncommon in female MMA.
Testosterone blockers don’t reverse the effects the hormone had on a bodies development prior to medically transitioning. So differences such as bone density are locked in, even if their blood test shows a hormonal balance that aligns with their preferred gender at the time of competition.
teristics like muscle mass, testosterone levels, weight, height, etc. This would result in, say, three to four categories ranging from lightweight to heavyweight.
Same weight, but it’s distributed that men have more muscle mass and less fat. Same muscle mass, but women carry more fat generally (it’d be like adding a 10 pound plate on their back). Same height but men are more muscular generally. Just doesn’t work.
Genetics are predominantly on the favor of the male side unfortunately.
In general, sure, but not all men are more muscular and stronger than all women.
Furthermore, even if, say 90% (or even 100%) of the heavyweight category were men, it would still be fairer for everyone.
No but taking the top 10% from each male and female athletes and putting them against each other, the men would still be on top 80% of the time.
But like I said, that’s fine. The point is that we would then be categorizing people not according to their gender but by factors that directly affect their athletic performance.
Another benefit would also be that it would allow a wider range of people to participate at the national and international level, seeing as it would not remove all but those women and men who possess the optimal physical traits required for that particular sport.
That’s starting to sound a little like an eugenics competition….
I would say the opposite, in fact.
Eugenics is the belief and practices that aim to “improve” the genetic quality of a human population to meet an idealized optimal standard. Under my proposed system, you could argue it would allow for a greater diversity of individuals that would be able to compete, and therefore would lower the necessity of having the optimal physical traits required in order to take part in each sport.
Back to the discussion. It would basically be this if we took the 10% of each and put it into 4 categories.
Group A 85%men 15% women
Group B 70%men 30% women
Group C 55%men 45%women
Group D 5%men 95%women
It just doesn’t work. You would be hand picking less qualified men to compete with the women just to fill it up.
Citation needed.
There is a thousand, but I find this Pretty interesting myself
The conclusion has absolutely nothing to do with what you previously wrote …
Conclusions
Women and men shooters performed separately but equally in the 2021 Tokyo Olympics in “static” rifle shooting modalities. Men were superior in “dynamic” (i.e., moving target) shooting events. In the newly formed “mixed” team events (one male and one female shooters competing alongside) these performance patterns were maintained and the mixed gender competitive environment did not impede women’s performance beyond. Supported by earlier research [29,30] we endorse the proposition that in future Games, “gender unified” events should be held for the “static” rifle shooting modalities.
Did you read it all? Or just skip to the conclusion?
The introduction had great links with their why they are doing this study.
That’s about as straightforward and easy to understand as it can possibly be. Many times Women’s Olympic Finalists wouldn’t qualify for the boys high school varsity team!
And again, although that is interesting it still doesn’t show the numbers that were quoted …
No but taking the top 10% from each male and female athletes and putting them against each other, the men would still be on top 80% of the time.
I’m not impugning anyone in any way with this comment but the very best biologically female athletes in the world, literal World Record setting Olympians, in many cases aren’t fast enough to compete with High School boys.
This is an even worse outcome than “Top 10% female athletes…” because this is the top 1% of female athletes, the crème de la crème, compared to the top *under age male *athletes.
There’s a lot of events, such as 100m to 800m sprints, where the female Olympians not only lose they can’t even qualify for the race!
In other events, swimming in particular, the biologically female Olympic Champions set World Record times…that were beaten by High School Boys.
You can follow the links to the raw data and do the math yourself if you want a precision answer but there’s no real question that the Top 10% of biologically female athletes, the Olympians, would lose to the Top 10% of biologically male athletes 80% of the time or more.
I’m going to quote what you wrote to me on another post: "If you don’t understand, far be it from to educate you.
Go read a book."
The person showed you a citation that shows in track and field the top 0.1% (not 10%) of women would get 6 medals vs the top highschool boys (who are outside the top 10% of men) getting 81 medals. That’s young boys beating the absolute best women 93% of the time. In swimming it was worse: 1 medal vs 47 or 98%. In soccer, the US Women’s National Team, arguably the best of the best women’s team in the world, would regularly lose to highschool boys teams. I’m sure there are some sports where the gulf is smaller, but it’s going to be rare.
I have a lot of trouble accepting claims like this when Lea Thomas is beaten by cis women all the time.
It’s not a claim, it’s genetics, and what’s wrong with accepting that some people are better than others? It just gives her an unfair advantage from genetics(hormones in this case) helping her. It won’t make her a top athlete, who claimed that?
Would be different if the top male athlete did it, like say Phelps, there would not a be a women who could compete with them. That’s just friggen genetics.
Either genetics predominantly favor biological males, in which case a world-class swimmer like Lea Thomas should win virtually every meet, or it’s more complicated than that.
There will always be outliers on both sides yes, but take the top 10% of male and female athletes and put them against each other, and the men would win 80% of the time. Because they are genetically predominately better at the stuff required for athletics. Wider hips aren’t really great for running for example…
Reality of often disappointing.
Lea Thomas is in the top 10% and does not win 80% of the time.
Does Crosby win 80% of the time? Mcdavid? Brady…?
Give your head a shake dude.
Her ranks when swimming against men were 554th in the 200 freestyle, 65th in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd in the 1650 freestyle. Those ranks are now, when competing in the women’s team, fifth in the 200 freestyle, first in the 500 freestyle, and eighth in the 1650 freestyle.
Her time for the 500 freestyle, where she is ranked #1 against women, is over 15 seconds slower than her personal bests before medically transitioning, and even THEN she was only 65th in the event against men. The same event where she was 65th is now 15 seconds slower and ranked #1. That’s the gulf between the two events.
That’s not a very thoughtful argument. This is about comparing the top percentages of athletes. Lea Thomas is not 100% the best woman swimmer in the world, since she does lose sometimes to the best women. But when she competed against men she lost every single time. It’s about the top 0.1% of women swimmers not being able to compete with the top 10% of male swimmers. Lea Thomas wasn’t even close to the top 10% of men but instantly became the top 1% for women. No, all men aren’t instantly the best female athletes. But in a lot of sports the absolute best women’s athletes can’t compete with even average teenage boys.
But when she competed against men she lost every single time.
That’s not true.
Thomas began swimming on the men’s team at the University of Pennsylvania in 2017. During her freshman year, Thomas recorded a time of eight minutes and 57.55 seconds in the 1,000-yard freestyle that ranked as the sixth-fastest national men’s time, and also recorded 500-yard freestyle and 1,650-yard freestyle times that ranked within the national top 100.[5] On the men’s swim team in 2018–2019, Thomas finished second in the men’s 500, 1,000, and 1,650-yard freestyle at the Ivy League championships as a sophomore in 2019.[5][4][12] During the 2018–2019 season, Thomas recorded the top UPenn men’s team times in the 500 free, 1000 free, and 1650 free, but was the sixth best among UPenn men’s team members in the 200 free.[13]
Removed by mod
I
Eliminate all competitive sports? Is this the answer they seek?
Sounds like the sort of compromise where both sides are unhappy, which is usually a sign of fairness.
In what way are both sides unhappy?
Trans women athletes who have had male puberty are unhappy they can’t play in women’s leagues.
TERFs are mad some trans women are allowed.
Just one of many ways in which conservative politicians and institutions run by them are trying to exclude trans people from society.
Competition rules forbid participation after undergoing “any part of male puberty” while laws forbid any sort of prepubescent transition or even blocking of puberty.
In closing, I would like to relay the following message to World Aquatics and the Court: FUCK you and your oppressive bigotry! 🖕🖕🖕
Removed by mod
why can’t sports just be weight class? why do the genders even need to be split up? this is just stupid. I will continue to not watch the olympics.
why can’t sports just be weight class? why do the genders even need to be split up?
In a specific weight class, top males will win the vast majority of the time over top females. Things like wide hips are not optimal for running, for example.
To bring actual data into the conversation, check out Olympian Women vs High School Boys. High school boys still take the vast majority of the records despite the otherwise crazy disadvantage.
