Transgender athlete sues CrossFit for banning her from competing as female

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Platuan4th**

Seaward wrote:
dogma wrote:
How would you define a woman, or a man? The sort of genitalia they happen to have?

The sort of genitalia they were born with would be a large part of it, sure.

So what would you class hermaphrodites or a woman affected by TFS/AIS?

Orlanth wrote:

In sport - by the chromosome pair they have

How does that work for XX/XY mosaicism? The olympics have both banned(Ewa Klobukowska, 1967) and allowed it and it's part of why they stopped during the gender testing.

**LordofHats**

Whether they can compete with men I think is a secondary issue. The issue is do trans women have such an advantage over ciswomen that they would dominate women's sports? In a certain light, that results in all sports be dominated by men (genetically anyway) and ciswomen being completely pushed out. it would be something of a massive irony for that to happen XD

But it doesn't like like anyone actually knows if transwomen have major advantages over ciswomen. Everyone just makes the educated guess that they do. Maybe science should get off its butt and do its job

**Polonius**

Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Polonius wrote:
The women in the OP is a legal transwoman, seemingly eligible to compete as a woman in the Olympics. Unless you feel that there is a reason a local cross fit even should be more particular than the Olympics, I'd follow their precedent.

I believe Crossfit should be able to choose whether or not to accept trans-people without getting threatened with a lawsuit. I don't go to Jiffy Lube and get mad when they don't want to make me a sandwich. If she doesn't like how Crossfit holds their competitions she is free not to participate.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but California does.

Civil Code Section 51(e)(5): (5) "Sex" includes, but is not limited to, pregnancy, childbirth, or medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth. "Sex" also includes, but is not limited to, a person's gender. "Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender expression.
"Gender expression" means a person's gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth."

**dogma**

ZultanQ wrote:

Yeah, I'm sure you know everything about me and that's not a complete generalization at all. I'm just drowning in privilege, let me tell you.

If you failed to take advantage of the opportunities presented by your identity the fault is you own. As it relates to this conversation, you would do well to consider how difficult life would be for a transgender person.

**kronk**

dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:

In sport - by the chromosome pair they have

So you propose that all competitors be subjected to gender testing?

We would have won a few more gold medals in women's events in the 1980s against the Soviet Union if we had gender testing...

**SilverMK2**

Regardless of anything else I would be interested to see any studies of pre and post treatment performance, and performance of post treatment people vs their new gender. It would be interesting to see what the olympic decision was based on as well.

**Polonius**

LordofHats wrote:
Whether they can compete with men I think is a secondary issue. The issue is do trans women have such an advantage over ciswomen that they would dominate women's sports? In a certain light, that results in all sports be dominated by men (genetically anyway) and ciswomen being completely pushed out. it would be something of a massive irony for that to happen XD

But it doesn't like like anyone actually knows if transwomen have major advantages over ciswomen. Everyone just makes the educated guess that they do. Maybe science should get off its butt and do its job

Again, I note the Olympic policy, which I would imagine was based on more than educated guesses.

**Platuan4th**

kronk wrote:
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:

In sport - by the chromosome pair they have

So you propose that all competitors be subjected to gender testing?

We would have won a few more gold medals in women's events in the 1980s against the Soviet Union if we had gender testing...

The Olympics HAD gender testing in the 80's. It was instituted in '68, and continued until '96.

**kronk**

I still say they cheated...

**LordofHats**

Again, I note the Olympic policy, which I would imagine was based on more than educated guesses.

I'll hold my breath for actual data. We are talking about the same people who put the 2016 games in Rio with an apparently 0% of concern about the fact that the city is ten steps away from anarchy at any given time.

**dogma**

LordofHats wrote:

But it doesn't like like anyone actually knows if transwomen have major advantages over ciswomen. Everyone just makes the educated guess that they do. Maybe science should get off its butt and do its job

It would depend on how far along they were in their therapy but the most significant, permanent, advantage would be the skeletal structure of their upper body.

As to actual study: its highly unlikely to ever happen for ethical reasons, and such a study would probably produce inconclusive results due to a small sample size.

**Polonius**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Regardless of anything else I would be interested to see any studies of pre and post treatment performance, and performance of post treatment people vs their new gender. It would be interesting to see what the olympic decision was based on as well.

Here is the 2003 Statement:

http://www.olympic.org/documents/reports/en/en_report_905.pdf

Spoiler:

The key phrase to me is requirement #3: "Hormonal therapy appropriate for the assigned sex has been
administered in a verifiable manner and for a sufficient length of time to
minimise gender-related advantages in sport competitions."

This indicates two things: transwomen can have an advantage, but that advantage can be minimized with treatment.

**trexmeyer**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Regardless of anything else I would be interested to see any studies of pre and post treatment performance, and performance of post treatment people vs their new gender. It would be interesting to see what the olympic decision was based on as well.

It's impossible to analyze male to female transgender performance. There are not enough available cases to study. Too many variables concerning the performance level of the individual prior to gender reassignment and too many different physical attributes to measure across a very wide spectrum of sporting events.

**SilverMK2**

trexmeyer wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Regardless of anything else I would be interested to see any studies of pre and post treatment performance, and performance of post treatment people vs their new gender. It would be interesting to see what the olympic decision was based on as well.

It's impossible to analyze male to female transgender performance. There are not enough available cases to study. Too many variables concerning the performance level of the individual prior to gender reassignment and too many different physical attributes to measure across a very wide spectrum of sporting events.

I will preface this by saying I am a clinical scientist - while the population of trans athletes is not huge, it is surprisingly large. Even if the current population is not sufficiently large to make any kind of fine level predictions possible, it should be more than large enoigh to give you at least general trends. And as time goes on, the population will only increase.

I would say more but I am now going to the pub

**Manchu**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
She should have the right. She is legally a female.

Gender divisions in sport are not premised on what the law recognizes as one's gender but rather the physical differences, generally speaking, between how male and female bodies develop.

**trexmeyer**

SilverMK2 wrote:
trexmeyer wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Regardless of anything else I would be interested to see any studies of pre and post treatment performance, and performance of post treatment people vs their new gender. It would be interesting to see what the olympic decision was based on as well.

It's impossible to analyze male to female transgender performance. There are not enough available cases to study. Too many variables concerning the performance level of the individual prior to gender reassignment and too many different physical attributes to measure across a very wide spectrum of sporting events.

I will preface this by saying I am a clinical scientist - while the population of trans athletes is not huge, it is surprisingly large. Even if the current population is not sufficiently large to make any kind of fine level predictions possible, it should be more than large enoigh to give you at least general trends. And as time goes on, the population will only increase.

I would say more but I am now going to the pub

You'd have to analyze VO2 max, limit strength, explosive strength, reflexes, and hand eye coordination before and after at a minimum. That's not very simple.

**ZultanQ**

dogma wrote:
LordofHats wrote:

But it doesn't like like anyone actually knows if transwomen have major advantages over ciswomen. Everyone just makes the educated guess that they do. Maybe science should get off its butt and do its job

It would depend on how far along they were in their therapy but the most significant, permanent, advantage would be the skeletal structure of their upper body.

As to actual study: its highly unlikely to ever happen for ethical reasons, and such a study would probably produce inconclusive results due to a small sample size.

You keep implying that all transwomen are on hormones. This is not the case. A 300lbs body builder could be diagnosed with gender identity disorder but keep his muscles and beard and still join womens sports. How is this fair? And since when did transwomen need to alter their bodies? I thought biology didn't matter and it's all about how you feel on the inside. So why try to change your outside to reflect society's oppressive definition of womanhood?

**Polonius**

ZultanQ wrote:

You keep implying that all transwomen are on hormones. This is not the case. A 300lbs body builder could be diagnosed with gender identity disorder but keep his muscles and beard and still join womens sports. How is this fair? And since when did transwomen need to alter their bodies? I thought biology didn't matter and it's all about how you feel on the inside. So why try to change your outside to reflect society's oppressive definition of womanhood?

Not all transwomen are on hormones to be sure, but to be legally recognized as a woman you will mostly likely undergo surgery and hormone therapy.

The effort one makes to present ones identity is a strong factor in our need to recognize it. A guy in a dress is not in any physical way a woman, a transwoman five years into hormone therapy is in most physical ways a woman.

The idea is not, and never has been, that a person can adopt whatever identity they wish and force everybody to respect it. The idea is that more identities are valid then we think, and some should be recognized.

**DarkTraveler777**

Polonius wrote:

The idea is not, and never has been, that a person can adopt whatever identity they wish and force everybody to respect it. The idea is that more identities are valid then we think, and some should be recognized.

Eloquently stated. Have an exalt!

**ZultanQ**

Polonius wrote:
ZultanQ wrote:

You keep implying that all transwomen are on hormones. This is not the case. A 300lbs body builder could be diagnosed with gender identity disorder but keep his muscles and beard and still join womens sports. How is this fair? And since when did transwomen need to alter their bodies? I thought biology didn't matter and it's all about how you feel on the inside. So why try to change your outside to reflect society's oppressive definition of womanhood?

Not all transwomen are on hormones to be sure, but to be legally recognized as a woman you will mostly likely undergo surgery and hormone therapy.

The effort one makes to present ones identity is a strong factor in our need to recognize it. A guy in a dress is not in any physical way a woman, a transwoman five years into hormone therapy is in most physical ways a woman.

The idea is not, and never has been, that a person can adopt whatever identity they wish and force everybody to respect it. The idea is that more identities are valid then we think, and some should be recognized.

That's still just an opinion and has no basis in biology, whether the law recognizes it or not. Just because it walks like a duck and sort of, kind of looks like a duck doesn't mean it's a duck.

If we want to get into the gruesome details, consider the transwoman anatomy. Some transwomen have breasts that are obviously fake or artificially induced, and transwomen "vaginas" aren't vaginas in the slightest. They're basically just a hole in the transwoman's pelvis, a poor effigy of a vagina that cannot lubricate itself nor does it contain the equipment necessary for pregnancy.

However, some transwomen look more feminine, they have breasts that look natural and fairly convincing "vaginas". Are these transwomen more "woman" than the former example? Who decides? Me? You? Them? If any of us get to decide then it becomes a matter of subjective opinion. Why not stick with the objective biological definition which is neither subjective nor open to interpretation?

**Orlanth**

dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:

In sport - by the chromosome pair they have

So you propose that all competitors be subjected to gender testing?

Would it be necessary? Transgender persons are detectable in society, they leave a legal papertrail.
I think its best to assume that are who they say they are unless given good reason otherwise.

We cant test everyone for everything, but we can act on reasonable suspicions.

**kronk**

Orlanth wrote:
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:

In sport - by the chromosome pair they have

So you propose that all competitors be subjected to gender testing?

Would it be necessary? Transgender persons are detectable in society, they leave a legal papertrail.

If you're willing to spend the time and resources on background checks for everyone. That's a hell of a burden you just put on the officials!

**Polonius**

ZultanQ wrote:

That's still just an opinion and has no basis in biology, whether the law recognizes it or not. Just because it walks like a duck and sort of, kind of looks like a duck doesn't mean it's a duck.

If we want to get into the gruesome details, consider the transwoman anatomy. Some transwomen have breasts that are obviously fake or artificially induced, and transwomen "vaginas" aren't vaginas in the slightest. They're basically just a hole in the transwoman's pelvis, a poor effigy of a vagina that cannot lubricate itself nor does it contain the equipment necessary for pregnancy.

However, some transwomen look more feminine, they have breasts that look natural and fairly convincing "vaginas". Are these transwomen more "woman" than the former example? Who decides? Me? You? Them? If any of us get to decide then it becomes a matter of subjective opinion. Why not stick with the objective biological definition which is neither subjective nor open to interpretation?

I'm struggling to see how "vaginal quality" matters in sports, aside from some of the lifts in pairs figure skating.

If you really think there is an objective biological definition that's clear 100% of the time when it comes to gender, you haven't been paying attention.

The question is if a woman is too much of a man to compete in female sports, not who is or isn't more of a woman. And, there are some pretty good critieria, based on legal status, genitalia, and hormone levels. That means that, athletically speaking, you have a group of women that trend to have larger frames, and that's about it from a competitive advantage standpoint. There are sports where that's a larger advantage, basketball most notoriously.

**stanman**

There are clear biological differences between men and women when it comes to physical events, which is why men's and women's sports are held separately. Even though they underwent elective surgery or live as a different gender it does not mean they have changed their biological make up. Even with long term hormone therapy the body still exhibits some development based on the biological gender particularly in terms of muscles mass and bone density.

I have no problems with transgender athletes participating in gender neutral events as those are open to everyone, but when you have established gender based events they should be barred as it creates performance issues. Competitive sports on the whole focus on pushing ourselves to the limit of our natural ability, but it is not acceptable to go beyond that through artificial alterations. We bar athletes that take steroids who are seeking to alter their biology through chemical means, transgender athletes are altering their biology through surgery and chemicals. If they are allowed to participate in sports it should only be allowed under whichever gender they are biologically.

The majority of the problem comes from biological men who are post op and trying to enter as women, even with hormone adjustments they have an elevated performance ability that biological females don't. If that's allowed we may as well allow open steroid use so that everyone can be the "perfect athlete" regardless of gender.

**Polonius**

kronk wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:

In sport - by the chromosome pair they have

So you propose that all competitors be subjected to gender testing?

Would it be necessary? Transgender persons are detectable in society, they leave a legal papertrail.

If you're willing to spend the time and resources on background checks for everyone. That's a hell of a burden you just put on the officials!

the article in the OP said that she even changed her birth certificate. Which means the paper trail is going to be pretty cold.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

stanman wrote:

The majority of the problem comes from biological men who are post op and trying to enter as women, even with hormone adjustments they have an elevated performance ability that biological females don't.

**ZultanQ**

Polonius wrote:
ZultanQ wrote:

That's still just an opinion and has no basis in biology, whether the law recognizes it or not. Just because it walks like a duck and sort of, kind of looks like a duck doesn't mean it's a duck.

If we want to get into the gruesome details, consider the transwoman anatomy. Some transwomen have breasts that are obviously fake or artificially induced, and transwomen "vaginas" aren't vaginas in the slightest. They're basically just a hole in the transwoman's pelvis, a poor effigy of a vagina that cannot lubricate itself nor does it contain the equipment necessary for pregnancy.

However, some transwomen look more feminine, they have breasts that look natural and fairly convincing "vaginas". Are these transwomen more "woman" than the former example? Who decides? Me? You? Them? If any of us get to decide then it becomes a matter of subjective opinion. Why not stick with the objective biological definition which is neither subjective nor open to interpretation?

I'm struggling to see how "vaginal quality" matters in sports, aside from some of the lifts in pairs figure skating.

If you really think there is an objective biological definition that's clear 100% of the time when it comes to gender, you haven't been paying attention.

The question is if a woman is too much of a man to compete in female sports, not who is or isn't more of a woman. And, there are some pretty good critieria, based on legal status, genitalia, and hormone levels. That means that, athletically speaking, you have a group of women that trend to have larger frames, and that's about it from a competitive advantage standpoint. There are sports where that's a larger advantage, basketball most notoriously.

I don't see the point of your argument if you going to say "No your wrong except for these several examples". Seems like you said it for me. Keep transwomen out of female basketball is an opinion I hold, so I guess we agree on that. Or do we?

**Polonius**

ZultanQ wrote:
Polonius wrote:
ZultanQ wrote:

That's still just an opinion and has no basis in biology, whether the law recognizes it or not. Just because it walks like a duck and sort of, kind of looks like a duck doesn't mean it's a duck.

If we want to get into the gruesome details, consider the transwoman anatomy. Some transwomen have breasts that are obviously fake or artificially induced, and transwomen "vaginas" aren't vaginas in the slightest. They're basically just a hole in the transwoman's pelvis, a poor effigy of a vagina that cannot lubricate itself nor does it contain the equipment necessary for pregnancy.

However, some transwomen look more feminine, they have breasts that look natural and fairly convincing "vaginas". Are these transwomen more "woman" than the former example? Who decides? Me? You? Them? If any of us get to decide then it becomes a matter of subjective opinion. Why not stick with the objective biological definition which is neither subjective nor open to interpretation?

I'm struggling to see how "vaginal quality" matters in sports, aside from some of the lifts in pairs figure skating.

If you really think there is an objective biological definition that's clear 100% of the time when it comes to gender, you haven't been paying attention.

The question is if a woman is too much of a man to compete in female sports, not who is or isn't more of a woman. And, there are some pretty good critieria, based on legal status, genitalia, and hormone levels. That means that, athletically speaking, you have a group of women that trend to have larger frames, and that's about it from a competitive advantage standpoint. There are sports where that's a larger advantage, basketball most notoriously.

I don't see the point of your argument if you going to say "No your wrong except for these several examples". Seems like you said it for me. Keep transwomen out of female basketball is an opinion I hold, so I guess we agree on that. Or do we?

I'm actually arguing that actual evidence of a competitive advantage should be a factor in deciding if a transwoman can participate in an event. The flip side is that I'm arguing that a lack of such evidence should allow for a transwoman (in this case, a post-operative and hormonally treated one) to participate in female sports.

You seem to want to close the door to all transwomen, under some mistaken notion that there is a clear definition of natural born woman.

**Frazzled**

Interesting that the Ancient Greek wrestled (pun intended) with the same issue for their Olympics.

**DarkTraveler777**

stanman wrote:
Polonius wrote:
{{Citation needed}}

Spoiler:

Oh, look! The brony is trying to be cute.

**ZultanQ**

Polonius wrote:
ZultanQ wrote:
Polonius wrote:
ZultanQ wrote:

That's still just an opinion and has no basis in biology, whether the law recognizes it or not. Just because it walks like a duck and sort of, kind of looks like a duck doesn't mean it's a duck.

If we want to get into the gruesome details, consider the transwoman anatomy. Some transwomen have breasts that are obviously fake or artificially induced, and transwomen "vaginas" aren't vaginas in the slightest. They're basically just a hole in the transwoman's pelvis, a poor effigy of a vagina that cannot lubricate itself nor does it contain the equipment necessary for pregnancy.

However, some transwomen look more feminine, they have breasts that look natural and fairly convincing "vaginas". Are these transwomen more "woman" than the former example? Who decides? Me? You? Them? If any of us get to decide then it becomes a matter of subjective opinion. Why not stick with the objective biological definition which is neither subjective nor open to interpretation?

I'm struggling to see how "vaginal quality" matters in sports, aside from some of the lifts in pairs figure skating.

If you really think there is an objective biological definition that's clear 100% of the time when it comes to gender, you haven't been paying attention.

The question is if a woman is too much of a man to compete in female sports, not who is or isn't more of a woman. And, there are some pretty good critieria, based on legal status, genitalia, and hormone levels. That means that, athletically speaking, you have a group of women that trend to have larger frames, and that's about it from a competitive advantage standpoint. There are sports where that's a larger advantage, basketball most notoriously.

I don't see the point of your argument if you going to say "No your wrong except for these several examples". Seems like you said it for me. Keep transwomen out of female basketball is an opinion I hold, so I guess we agree on that. Or do we?

I'm actually arguing that actual evidence of a competitive advantage should be a factor in deciding if a transwoman can participate in an event. The flip side is that I'm arguing that a lack of such evidence should allow for a transwoman (in this case, a post-operative and hormonally treated one) to participate in female sports.

You seem to want to close the door to all transwomen, under some mistaken notion that there is a clear definition of natural born woman.

My definition of "natural born woman" is someone who was born a woman and didn't decide they were a woman later in life. Now, if you're going to imply that babies are born gender neutral then that's a whole new can of worms but just know that it's going to result in a entirely new walls of spastic text that are outside the scope of the OP because IMO babies/children should not be treated as gender neutral because this is quite harmful. But I have nothing else to do today but argue on the internet lol. Well, there's FNM in a few hours.

The fact that you have to submit transgendered people to all kinds of tests to determine whether or not a given individual is fit for a sport is a good indicator that they aren't, it should be evident from the start. Why? Because you're never going to come to a satisfactory result and there is always the possibility of an unfair advantage.