As the mom of a competitive athlete, I’d just like to say that this thread reminds me of everything I hate about competitive athletics. Especially when “competition” is a reason to marginalize people. I will never understand it and never want to.
4 Likes
For those who know swimming, these are early season times and will only get faster. Train, taper, tech. Lia will train and taper for big meets as the season goes on. She even said she was “cruising” - and if she was 38 seconds ahead of someone else, no one was pushing her. Was she wearing a tech suit? … yet more time will be dropped there. Based on how close she is to record times, I have no doubt she will beat those records. Maybe even in spectacular fashion.
Just wanted to share some swimming insight…
4 Likes
That’s about it, isn’t it? The NCAA (as well as the IOC) have guidelines today. Perhaps those guidelines will change over time, but there are currently guidelines in place by two of the most respected sporting organizations in the US/the world.
2 Likes
The trouble with paraphrasing the outrage media is that often the information is inaccurate. Thomas broke no “US women’s swimming records.” Not even close.
- The US (and collegiate) record for 500 freestyle is 4:24.06, 10 seconds faster than Thomas’s time of 4:34.06.
- The US (and collegiate) record for 200 freestyle is 1:39:10, which is 2.83 seconds faster than Thomas’s time of 1:42:93.
2 Likes
I said the rule is basically a cop out as it doesn’t actually address the core issue which is that male athletes who go through puberty have inherent physical advantages over females athletes (as discussed in many of the articles posted as well as many more if you google it). Basically it’s have a doctor write a note/report that says John Doe who is now Jane Smith has been taking testosterone suppressing drugs for a year and that covers it. It doesn’t seem data driven.
As far as the times go, it comes down to this. You have a biological male posting times against biological females. There’s always going to be a question of fairness, an asterisk. Maybe people decide that’s ok and in women’s sports that have individual records there will be the transgender women’s record time and the cis women’s record time. Maybe in team sports there will be a limit as to how many transgender women can be on a team or on the field/court at once.
It’s a thorny issue and will require much more thought than many governing bodies have allocated thus far.
4 Likes
To clarify:
Thomas competed at the Zippy Invitational in Akron, Ohio and won the 200-yard freestyle with a time of 1:41.93, a time that was good enough to set school, pool, and program records and marked the fastest in the nation this season. Cited from the Penn paper.
Thomas won the 500-yard freestyle in 4:34.06, setting a new record, Akron pool record, Penn school record, and the Ivy League record. Cited from Newsweek.
You wrote:
This claim, repeated over and over again in outrage media, it is just flat out false. She was not even close to the US record in either event. Nothing in the articles you just posted supports the claim you made above.
1 Like
The daily beast article states “She came in first during Friday’s 500-freestyle finals, breaking a national record with 4:34.06”.
I apologize for not realizing that “national” record is not the same as US record.
2 Likes
Personally I would prefer competitions in which no one was allowed to artificially modify their body’s hormone levels-up or down, whether for money, sponsorship, state order, or as an expression of their gender identity or any other reason. If Thomas can suppress hormones down to 10.0 Nanos, why can’t other teammates increase their own testosterone from 1.7 or so to that level? Who is to say that their reasons for doing so aren’t just as valid as Thomas? Maybe altering your hormones, whether up or down, is one thing you decide to give up if you decide compete athletically at the college level or higher ( along with sleep and other sacrifices).
Are we talking about the same NCAA that uses “student athletes” to earn billions per year and the same IOC that consistently makes money for itself but where the host countries typically suffer billions in losses for the “honor” of hosting an Olympic competition?
6 Likes
The idea others haven’t thought about this issue enough is purely based on your disdain for the existing rules. You obviously don’t like the rules, but until you can provide an alternative, complaining about the existing rules sounds like “sour grapes”.
You mention a core difference of physical advantage. The NCAA obviously feels like the 1-year testosterone requirements level the playing field. I have no way to know if that’s reasonable other than to note that the times being posted by her are not outrageously fast.
2 Likes
My rule would be that athletes compete in the division that matches their biological sex or alternatively that there are separate divisions created for transgender men and women.
8 Likes
One and the same for both. The relevancy of that to this thread is what?
1 Like
Well, the IOC is expected to change their rules yet again in the near future to cut in half the testosterone level currently permitted under IOC rules for trans women, so it appears they haven’t fully explored this issue at this time.
3 Likes
Revising rules doesn’t mean they haven’t considered the options…it merely means they are adjusting course based on the additional information available over time.
1 Like
In other words, the current rules are unfair and inadequate. Right.
2 Likes
But who is being marginalized? Lia Thomas? Her fellow swimmers who are facing testosterone disadvantages that they can never overcome no matter how much effort they put in? Both?
This part is easy to determine. If the playing field was actually leveled, trans women would not win more often than their percentage of the population. So if we estimate that 0.3% of women athletes are trans women, in a fair world, they should win about 0.3% of the time.
Note that I said win, and in swimming that usually means winning by fractions of a second, not winning by huge margins.
2 Likes
A) they haven’t been changed, and B) time will tell.
How will YOU know when they’re fair?
1 Like
I already suggested that no hormones be allowed for any reason. To me, that is fair to all.
The IOC already doesn’t permit athletes with allergies, asthma, or ADHD to take the common medicines used to address those conditions either ( Sudafed,albuterol, amphetamine salts), because of the potential effect on performance despite valid medical reasons to do so. Why should hormone modification be allowed? Are you as concerned about “marginalizing” the allergic or ADHD sufferers?
3 Likes
At least this is an honest assessment. It isn’t about struggling with standards in order to level the playing field to create a fair situation for all. It is an unequivocal statement that, at least in athletics, trans men and women ought to be marginalized, kept out, discriminated against; and that this marginalization is the price trans men and women should have to pay for taking affirmative steps to live as their authentic selves.
Isn’t this really what this conversation is about? Should trans men and women be treated with dignity and respect and subject to the same access and opportunities as the rest of us? Or should they be marginalized and ostracized? If the former, then this discussion ought to be about what standards best accomplish this. But that doesn’t seem to be what this discussion is about for many.
3 Likes