this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2026
123 points (96.9% liked)
news
799 readers
1421 users here now
A lightweight news hub to help decentralize the fediverse load: mirror and discuss headlines here so the giant instance communities aren’t a single choke-point.
Rules:
- Recent news articles only (past 30 days)
- Title must match the headline or neutrally describe the content
- Avoid duplicates & spam (search before posting; batch minor updates).
- Be civil; no hate or personal attacks.
- No link shorteners
- No entire article in the post body
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm of two minds about this:
First, let people compete in comparative tier skill events. We have different weight classes for boxing, why should other sports be any different?
Second, who fucking cares? Sports are literally just physical games which have become the victim of capitalism, and the Olympics added nationalism and implicit racial perspectives.
You will never see a Japanese woman winning the 100m sprint. Should we have another category for Asian sprinters? Maybe? But at some point you need to realise:
NONE OF THIS SHIT MATTERS.
Most of these athletes are doing drugs anyway lol.
Transphobes care about it, a lot. The material changes may be minimal, and harm cis women more than they'll harm trans women. But they use the "sports issue" as a way to introduce the idea of excluding trans people from public life to mainstream debate. Here's prominent transphobe Helen Joyce admitting to it publicly:
My feeling is that if there was an unfair advantage due to hormones or genetics, or would seem unfair to peak athletes. However, there appears to be none or minimal. It seems that most elite athletes have genetic or other advantages is some way, as you alluded to with racial differences.
However, that aside, when we look at the purpose of sport, fun, exercise, community, human achievement; the exclusion of trans people undermines that and disappoints far more people. So for me, it's a no brainer. Inclusivity wins out as that's what protects the most kids (and people) from harm.
biggest advantage is just having the funds/support network available to dedicate your whole life to X sport
This. The amount of effort and time that it takes to be an olympic athlete is crazy. I've actually met quiet a few in person, through the work I do. Even their 'light training' days are insane. Which is why I love the Olympic Games so much, regardless of IOC rulings.
Women's sports exist because they can't actually compete against men. The division is inherently and explicitly exclusionary. They were created to give 50% of the population a chance to compete on as fair of a stage as possible.
Women's sports exist because men wouldn't allow them to even play competitive sports, period. Women's leagues were created as a conciliatory gesture from misogynists, not out of some sense of chivalrous duty to uphold fairness and equality.
That's an interesting take when there's generally no rules preventing women from competing in professional men's leagues.
There are no rules against it today. Go back in time 100 years and you have a culture of women being excluded from sports in general in favor of them learning "women's work" or being homemakers. The 14th amendment was the catalyst that allowed women to begin participating in competitive sports as more than just a passtime or a hobby.
There isn't men sports. There are sports, and women sports. The league men play in allow both genders.
That's how it works today, but historically that has not been the case. Women even being allowed to play sports is less far removed from the present day than you might imagine.
Lol, no they don't. Some do, but many don't.
For games like golf, up until relatively recently, women weren't even allowed to be club members.
Let's not rewrite history.
Women's sports was not created to protect women. Women's sports were created to protect the egos of men who would place under women. If women competed with men, there would be a bunch of butthurt men who would be angry they aren't as good.
For example, the Battle of the Sexes tennis matches had so many men coping and seething when a women beat a man in a highly publicized tennis match after the guy was talking mad shit. You can look up any number of examples like this where after a woman does well in a sport, a seperate league for women is established.
It matters exactly for the reason why it's banned. Sports is a pretext for hurting trans people. Sex assigned at birth should not matter at all. The bigots know this is just a way to draw in normies. Their bigotry is acceptable as long as it's dressed up as an intellectually honest debate about fairness in sports. Fairness in sports is a fool's errand, like you point out. Having that discussion at all is letting the bigots win.
It shouldn't, but it does. As a matter of what is statistically relevant about the dichotomy between males and females.
I'm not having that debate. Nobody cares except bigots trying to hurt trans people. If you're not, don't get sucked into that debate. They're arguing in bad faith
You're arguing in bad faith?
You are creating a strawman by claiming anyone who cares about gender in sports is a bigot who is trying to hurt trams people.
No, I said people are being duped into debating by bigots. This is about politics, not sports.
That's a strawman.
You are saying that people do not reach that conclusion on their own.
Has Domi pointed out elsewhere in this thread. There is no evidence that transgender women have a physical advantage over cisgender women, provided they've been on HRT for 2+ years. here's the meta-analysis they linked
So yeah, based off of:
You're either a bigot trying to use sports to hurt trans people, or you've been duped by bigots. So, unless you're made of straw Qevlarr isn't using a straw man argument.
So we aren't talking about Olympic tier athletes.
Also, the authors themselves acknowledge the evidence quality sits between very low and low
For what it's worth, I don't give a shit about "fairness" in sports. What I am pushing back on is the insinuation that people are either malicious or manipulated if they don't accept the assertion that trans women do not have a competitive advantage.
At best, it's uncharitable, and at worst, it a litmus test.
Then why the fuck are you even in this discussion, arguing with people trying to defend a highly marginalised section of the community?
If you "don't care", then dropping it so as to not be part of the active exclusion of trans people would be the appropriate move.
Because I believe what I'm saying is important?
Whatever point you think I'm making, I'm not. I absolutely believe trans athletes should be capable of competing in whatever gender sports category they want, provided they are within range of their fellow athletes.
Cool, I'll check it out, but the claim is still a strawman.
I'm a vegan. When i see people eating beef, I don't claim "either you like hurting cows, or you've been duped by people who hate animals".
The claim itself is stupid and needlessly inflammatory.
I'm not a vegan or even a vegetarian, but I wouldn't argue with you if you made that claim, because the only reason we as a society eat as much meat as we do, is because it's normalised at every level for economic reasons.
If I can manage that, you can manage to not argue with trans people trying to deal with the active and ongoing exclusion they face.
Here's the issue though:
The claim itself is a strawman, the fact that you are willing to accept it means your epistemology is bad.
is that true, though? What I've read is that the science is showing the opposite, that sex is mostly plastic and that after a couple years on hormones, trans women have similar fitness and athletic ability as cis women:
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2026/01/22/bjsports-2025-110239
I'm going to plagiarise myself:
So we aren't talking about Olympic tier athletes.
Also, the authors themselves acknowledge the evidence quality sits between very low and low
For decades the Olympics committee has enabled trans and intersex athletes to compete without issue, using regulations on hormones to ensure fairness; it is only because the new IOC president is committed to excluding trans and intersex participation in sports that we have seen this reversal - there has been no change in the science to support the IOC's new position.
The quality of evidence is often low to very low for many important guidelines, both clinical and social, and yet those guidelines are not tossed out as not sufficiently backed by evidence. Meanwhile, the evidence we do have is clear that there is no meaningful advantage granted to trans women over cis women in physical fitness or athletic ability - and this fact is corroborated by decades of failure of trans female athletes to dominate against cis female competitors.
Furthermore, the majority of trans athletic bans are state laws in the US that bar both trans men and trans women from participating in sports primarily in K-12 schools - the impact of the anti-trans movement's push for the exclusion of trans participation in sports has not been primarily about creating fairness, but opening the door to senseless discrimination, often against a handful of children.
In Kentucky, they passed a law and overrode the governor's veto to pass a trans sports ban that only impacted a single girl who was actually the founder of her field hockey team, and all the people she played with wanted her to be able to play. But now she isn't allowed to play because she's trans.
Whether you intend to or not, you are supporting a hate movement without the actual evidence to show that trans participation in sports is a problem on any level of competition, let alone for children playing with their friends.
Why are you demanding that someone proves no advantage exists? If you find the level of proof ambiguous, then the null hypothesis must be that no difference exists. That's just basic respect for human rights and dignity.
Realize what you are suggesting. You are suggesting that trans women and girls be completely cut off from competitive sports in any form. Trans women are conclusively far below cis men in performance. We're just squabbling over whether some minute advantage exists over cis women. Trans women can't just go and play with the guys. You're arguing for trans women to be completely excluded from any form of sports whatsoever, a complete expulsion from an entire realm of human culture and experience.
If you're arguing for something so radical and cruel, the burden of proof is on you. The default assumption is equality. We don't take away civil rights on a whim. If it can be scientifically shown, on a sport-by-sport basis, that trans women have some massive advantage over cis women? Fine. In that case I might support a handicap system, or if that were not possible, exclusion as a last resort. But the burden for proof for that should be high. You're hurting real people here. Unless you can scientifically prove that some advantage exists, the default assumption must be that no advantage exists.
I'm not. I'm simply stating that there is a difference, it isn't a matter of debate. It's like saying Kenyans are better at sprinting than white people in general.
I believe that respecting trans people means being honest about the facts, and promoting equality. Both can be true.
None of these are claims I've made.
The only thing I'm hurting is the brains of the people who are jumping on the slippery slope, all the way to the strawman.