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.

Is there some sort of agreed upon standard for 'hormone treatment'? I get the time standard, but I am speaking more towards amount.

I would assume hormone treatment starts with a baseline that is adjusted as recommended by a medical professional, like most forms of treatment/medical care.

I wonder if they could restrict her on doping grounds. She claims to be woman, but it would be easy to show that she had been on high levels of testosterone for years (when she was a man). If you could show that for any other woman that would clearly be grounds for disqualification.

So what happens when they stop taking their hormones and start bulking back up? And how do you decide how much hormone is enough? Say, the doctor proscribes 100 milligrams of estrogen each day for five years. But you think to yourself "well, I'm going into sports, so..." and you instead take 80 for the next five years by shaving pills or something. You've now increased your "male-ness" by 20%, but are you still female?

What if I wanted to compete against females, so I got the surgery and found (read: bribed) a doctor who proscribed exactly one milligram of hormone per year for three years - I've had the surgery, I identify as a woman (as far as anyone knows) and I've been on hormone treatment for three years...

Well, I think the gist is this, though I could be mistaken:

- the major athletic differences between men and women are due to hormones. In a nutshell, men are basically juicin' all the time due to higher testosterone levels. Women have higher oestrogen levels and lower testosterone levels, though women do have some testosterone (and men have some oestrogen too I think). The major source of testosterone in dudes is the testes.
- so, preop trans women have hormones to shut down the testosterone production in the testes, which leaves them around where most women are. At the same time, they have some amount of oestrogen, but I don't know if that has any effect on athletic performance.
- postop trans women, not having testes, don't have elevated testosterone production anyway and have similar levels to most women, and presumably very similar athletic performance. Then they have a similar amount of oestrogen to most women from supplements.

The woman in this case is apparently post-op, so she can't stop taking pills and turn into the Hulk or something.

That's my understanding of the process.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
- postop trans women, not having testes, don't have elevated testosterone production anyway and have similar levels to most women, and presumably very similar athletic performance.

The thing is: I used to quite like running at high school. I haven't had 100m time since, but when I was about 14-15, I got a fairly respectable time of 11.1 seconds. For a man that's not really noteworthy, but for a woman it would be insane. To put it in perspective Jeanette Kwakye came 6th in 100m finals at the 2008 Olympics with a time of 11.14 seconds. So as a teenager I could have potentially beaten 3 of the worlds 8 fastest women (though to Jeanette's credit she is only 5'3").

Now if I was to change my gender, firstly I wouldn't suddenly become 5'3", so I'd have that going for me, and with regular exercise I doubt I would lose much muscle even over 3 years, why should I? So I as an athlete would have gone from 'not noteworthy' to possible Olympic finalist, without really improving. To me that sounds unfair on the female athletes who didn't get to spend their entire youth making huge gains in height and muscle as a guy.

 Smacks wrote:
Now if I was to change my gender, firstly I wouldn't suddenly become 5'3" so I'd have that going for me, and with regular exercise I doubt I would lose much muscle even over 3 years, why should I? So I as an athlete would have gone from 'not noteworthy' to possible Olympic finalist, without really improving. To me that sounds unfair on the female athletes who didn't get to spend their entire youth making huge gains in height and muscle as a guy.

A) you would be changing your sex, not your gender. Loads of people in this thread seem to get the two confused and it's a very very important distinction in this kind of discussion.

B) You would lose muscle. I know you have this whole "but it's not really that big a change" thing going on, so you think you'll be able to keep the muscle, but it is a big change. Muscle growth and retention is dictated in part by hormones, so HRT will cause you to lose muscle mass.

C) since when was height an advantage in anything other than basketball? I know you're trying to make the point that "they're not quite the same, after all" but height isn't really a defining factor in most sports. In many it's a disadvantage, so saying 'she's taller because she's trans* so she shouldn't be allowed to compete' is silly.

 Goliath wrote:
A) you would be changing your sex, not your gender. Loads of people in this thread seem to get the two confused and it's a very very important distinction in this kind of discussion.

Nahhh.

 Goliath wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
Now if I was to change my gender, firstly I wouldn't suddenly become 5'3" so I'd have that going for me, and with regular exercise I doubt I would lose much muscle even over 3 years, why should I? So I as an athlete would have gone from 'not noteworthy' to possible Olympic finalist, without really improving. To me that sounds unfair on the female athletes who didn't get to spend their entire youth making huge gains in height and muscle as a guy.

A) you would be changing your sex, not your gender. Loads of people in this thread seem to get the two confused and it's a very very important distinction in this kind of discussion.

B) You would lose muscle. I know you have this whole "but it's not really that big a change" thing going on, so you think you'll be able to keep the muscle, but it is a big change. Muscle growth and retention is dictated in part by hormones, so HRT will cause you to lose muscle mass.

C) since when was height an advantage in anything other than basketball? I know you're trying to make the point that "they're not quite the same, after all" but height isn't really a defining factor in most sports. In many it's a disadvantage, so saying 'she's taller because she's trans* so she shouldn't be allowed to compete' is silly.

A: Meh. The distinction might be useful but it's hardly universally accepted.

B: It will cause me to lose some muscle, but no one can really say how much. Will it be exactly enough or more that I correspond fairly as a woman? What if I'm also training, is maintaining muscle as a woman going to be as hard as building it in the first place? And if not then can you really say it's fair?

C: I think height can be an advantage because it increases the length of your stride. Obviously you need to have a corresponding build to take advantage of it. Lots of very tall people are a bit lanky which might not be an advantage, but if you look at someone like Usain Bolt who has a sprinters build, but is also 6'5" then: "Ohshi! He's way faster than everyone else!".

EDIT:
I found a picture of the woman in question:

She certainly doesn't look like she's short on muscle. Look at her stomach and thighs. I think she look very bulky and powerful for a girl. Are you really going to say 'that's all just hard work in the gym', and nothing whatsoever to do with 'used to be a man'?

Also found this video, of Caster Semenya, the SA athlete who turned out to be a hermaphrodite. Obviously it's not the same thing, but it's still interesting to see what a little testosterone can do...

There's a big difference between legally being a woman and genetically being a woman, can't crossfit rename the bracket from 'female' to 'XX Sex Chromosome'?. I have zero sympathy for the athlete in question and in all honesty, limited sympathy for anyone who's chief complaint is society not labelling them with the correct gender/adjective. South Park summed up my thoughts with their dolphinoplasty/negroplasty episode - I struggle to see the difference between someone wanting to be treated by society as the opposite gender and someone wanting to be treated by society as a dolphin (or a tall black basketball player).

For those who say there isn't much difference between a male weakened by hormone therapy and a female, what about snowboarding? Differences in male/female bone structure give males a large advantage on a snowboard - the angle of their hips (called the Q-angle) makes stability and landings more problematic for females.

Though saying that, I couldn't care less because I fail to see the value or importance of winning in any competitive sport. As far as I'm concerned, athletes should be able to have whatever surgery/implants/steroids they want - might make spectating more entertaining. It just winds me up when people go around pathetically suing others....

Lesebyst wrote:
There's a big difference between legally being a woman and genetically being a woman, can't crossfit rename the bracket from 'female' to 'XX Sex Chromosome'?. I have zero sympathy for the athlete in question and in all honesty, limited sympathy for anyone who's chief complaint is society not labelling them with the correct gender/adjective. South Park summed up my thoughts with their dolphinoplasty/negroplasty episode - I struggle to see the difference between someone wanting to be treated by society as the opposite gender and someone wanting to be treated by society as a dolphin (or a tall black basketball player).

Well, the difference between the two is that this man has actually changed his sexuality in many ways through legitimate, proven medical methods. He was born as a woman in mind, and underwent surgery and years of hormone treatment to become a woman in body, and it's been reasonably effective.

Kyle, on the other hand, had Mr Garrison's testicles implanted in his knees so he could play basketball with the tall kids. Remember what the plastic surgeon said at the end? About how it was just cosmetic? That's the message. Changing how you look doesn't change who you are, not 'gender modification is wrong'. People actually did accept Kyle as a tall black kid.

That's ignoring the fact that South Park should never be referenced in a serious argument.

 iproxtaco wrote:

Well, the difference between the two is that this man has actually changed his sexuality in many ways through legitimate, proven medical methods. He was born as a woman in mind, and underwent surgery and years of hormone treatment to become a woman, and it's been quite effective.

It hasn't been effective though, it's just cosmetic. No real difference between having your penis split and pushed up inside you to having spacer material put in your knees. Unless they can 'repair' his Y sex chromosome he's still a male.

I haven't said gender modification is wrong, I'm just saying it's wrong to force others to accept you as what you aren't.

Lesebyst wrote:

 iproxtaco wrote:

Well, the difference between the two is that this man has actually changed his sexuality in many ways through legitimate, proven medical methods. He was born as a woman in mind, and underwent surgery and years of hormone treatment to become a woman, and it's been quite effective.

It hasn't been effective though, it's just cosmetic. No real difference between having your penis split and pushed up inside you to having spacer material put in your knees. Unless they can 'repair' his Y sex chromosome he's still a male.

Physical changes will always be cosmetic. The important thing in all this is that she thinks of herself as a woman, so strongly in fact that she underwent pretty major procedures to make herself as close as physically possible. The difference between her and someone born as a female are entirely physical.

I haven't said gender modification is wrong, I'm just saying it's wrong to force others to accept you as what you aren't.

Why shouldn't we consider her female if that's what she wants to be considered as? Because of her genetics? That seems completely arbitrary and irrelevant in day to day life.

It's arbitrary and irrelevant until he/she wants special treatment such as being able to compete against people who are genetically female.

Lesebyst wrote:
It's arbitrary and irrelevant until he/she wants special treatment such as being able to compete against people who are genetically female.

Why do genetics matter more than her actual physical attributes in this case?

Because genetics can make a difference in cases like this. The example I gave above for snowboarding would give a gender-reassigned female a noticeable advantage over her female peers. Being allowed to compete against them is blatantly a case of wanting special treatment.

Lesebyst wrote:
Because genetics can make a difference in cases like this. The example I gave above for snowboarding would give a gender-reassigned female a noticeable advantage over her female peers.

Can being the operative word. As has been previously noted several times in the thread, gender reassigned people can compete in their preferred category providing they fulfill certain criteria in the most important sporting event in the world. Why shouldn't this woman be allowed to compete in this small competition when she would be able to compete in the Olympics as a woman?

Being allowed to compete against them is blatantly a case of wanting special treatment.

It's always 'special treatment' when a minority challenges society on issues like this. God forbid someone wanting equal consideration.

Why not just dispose of the whole concept of male/female events and allow them all to compete against each other? If you're going to allow people to pick their gender it makes a mockery of the system. Not that I care one way or another about competitive sport though.

It's always 'special treatment' when a minority challenges society on issues like this. God forbid someone wanting equal consideration.

I'll happily defend the rights of minorities, but I don't see why I should care one bit about a man not being able to compete against women in a competition if the organisers and/or other competitors don't think it's fair.

 Lesebyst wrote:
Why not just dispose of the whole concept of male/female events and allow them all to compete against each other? If you're going to allow people to pick their gender it makes a mockery of the system. Not that I care one way or another about competitive sport though.

It's always 'special treatment' when a minority challenges society on issues like this. God forbid someone wanting equal consideration.

I'll happily defend the rights of minorities, but I don't see why I should care one bit about a man not being able to compete against women in a competition if the organisers and/or other competitors don't think it's fair.

Except she's not a man; she also didn't pick her gender. Just like sexual orientation it's not actually a choice

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
Except she's not a man; she also didn't pick her gender. Just like sexual orientation it's not actually a choice

Fine, replace 'man' with 'person with XY sex chromosomes'. Pandering to someone's delusion is not the same as accepting something which isn't a choice (sexual orientation, skin etc). I'm not saying they have chosen to be delusional, but I see comments from transsexual people, who say they have always felt as if they were a woman, to be a sign of a mental condition. How anybody can 'know' what it feels like to be the opposite gender is beyond me. Mutilate their bodies if that's what they want, but expecting the whole world to bend over backwards to accept their fantasy seems ridiculous. I also have no sympathy for religious people who complain when their religion is offended by other people's actions (ie same sex marriage, blasphemy etc), to me it's the same as getting pissy because the mean people won't let you compete against real women (oops I mean 'people with XX sex chromosomes') in a pointless sporting event.

 Goliath wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Well looks like im the loner here. She should have the right. She is legally a female. And this policy directly discriminates against Transgendered. And believe it or not. Those men going under hormone therapy are actually loosing muscles.

From the point at which they started hormone therapy, sure. But unless the man starts hormone therapy at puberty, he'll always have an unfair advantage over women who have always been women.

due to what? Increased bone density? Any increase in muscle brought about by being male is nullified by hormone replacement therapy.

This is completely untrue. Muscle doesn't just disappear when you start taking estrogen. Also, if you've ever been muscular, and lose it, it's a hell of a lot easier to get it back than it was to gain it in the first place. This coupled with postural / bone structure differences gives an unfair advantage to this competitor over women who have always been women.

 Lesebyst wrote:
Why not just dispose of the whole concept of male/female events and allow them all to compete against each other? If you're going to allow people to pick their gender it makes a mockery of the system. Not that I care one way or another about competitive sport though.

Double strawman.

We wont and shouldn't dispose of the system because the vast, vast, vast majority of people still identify as either male of female and so much of society is built upon the perception of what is male and what is female. We aren't just letting people pick their gender. That statement is deliberately ignorant of gender realignment of this sort.

It's always 'special treatment' when a minority challenges society on issues like this. God forbid someone wanting equal consideration.

I'll happily defend the rights of minorities, but I don't see why I should care one bit about a man not being able to compete against women in a competition if the organisers and/or other competitors don't think it's fair.

She's not a man.

 iproxtaco wrote:
Double strawman.
We wont and shouldn't dispose of the system because the vast, vast, vast majority of people still identify as either male of female and so much of society is built upon the perception of what is male and what is female. We aren't just letting people pick their gender. That statement is deliberately ignorant of gender realignment of this sort.

What has gender identity got to do with whether or not males and females should compete together? My suggestion would prevent this from ever being an issue. Let mutant compete against mutant without gender getting in the way.

She's not a man.

Her genetics say otherwise, stop being obtuse

 Lesebyst wrote:

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
Except she's not a man; she also didn't pick her gender. Just like sexual orientation it's not actually a choice

Fine, replace 'man' with 'person with XY sex chromosomes'. Pandering to someone's delusion is not the same as accepting something which isn't a choice (sexual orientation, skin etc)

It's not someone's delusion, you not pandering to it, it's treating them as an equal. It's genuinely something they feel, that can't change it, they didn't choice to feel that way

. I'm not saying they have chosen to be delusional, but I see comments from transsexual people, who say they have always felt as if they were a woman, to be a sign of a mental condition

100 years ago being homosexual was viewed as being a mental illness

. How anybody can 'know' what it feels like to be the opposite gender is beyond me. Mutilate their bodies if that's what they want, but expecting the whole world to bend over backwards to accept their fantasy seems ridiculous. I also have no sympathy for religious people who complain when their religion is offended by other people's actions (ie same sex marriage, blasphemy etc), to me it's the same as getting pissy because the mean people won't let you compete against real women (oops I mean 'people with XX sex chromosomes') in a pointless sporting event.

You don't have to "bend over backwards" to accept who they are as a person. It's not ridiculous in the slightest.
and she is a woman; regardless of how you feel about the issue it's what she is. Good to see religion doesn't have a monopoly on bigotry

How is the belief that the feelings you are experiencing belong to the other gender anything other than a delusion? Unless you have a pretty vivid recollection of a previous incarnation you cannot know how a gender is supposed to feel.

I would employ a transsexual person and afford them the same rights as anyone else. Let them use whichever toilet they want or receive letters addressed to Miss instead of Mr, I couldn't care less. However I don't see the ability to enter a privately organised competition as a right - enabling someone to take an organisation to court because they think your entry in a competition is akin to cheating is pandering to their delusion!

 Lesebyst wrote:
How is the belief that the feelings you are experiencing belong to the other gender anything other than a delusion?

Because male and female brain structures are actually different in some non-trivial ways. Seriously, do some basic research here: there's really no controversy (other than whiny bigots) over the fact that you can have a brain/body mismatch.

Unless you have a pretty vivid recollection of a previous incarnation you cannot know how a gender is supposed to feel.

Not true at all. Your brain has an internal "map" of how your body is supposed to work. For example, if someone loses a leg in an accident their brain can still think that the leg is there, feel "pain" coming from it, etc. In the case of gender issues you get the brain "map" of one sex, but something goes wrong in development and you end up with a body that doesn't match the "map".

Also, it's not necessarily a perfect understanding of exactly how the other gender is supposed to feel. There's also an overwhelming feeling that something is wrong with your body, even if you can't describe exactly how it should feel.

enabling someone to take an organisation to court because they think your entry in a competition is akin to cheating is pandering to their delusion!

And calling it a "delusion" is incredibly ignorant and offensive.

Well, I think that able-bodied cis-people shouldn't be allowed an opinion, because they haven't suffered enough to have a clue what they're talking about.

See? I can make sweeping generalisations too.

However, get this straight in your heads.

A trans-woman is a woman. Hence, trans-woman. A trans-man is a man. Hence the name trans-man.

Not trans-hybrid. Not trans-freak.

Even a non-operative trans-woman who has a penis and never intends to undergo sex reassignment surgery is a woman.

It's not about "wanting to be perceived as". It's not about crossdressing. A pre-op trans-man in a skirt is crossdressing, just like a cis-man in a skirt is crossdressing. It's about not having to be constantly reminded about the fact that their body is flat-out wrong by people who don't understand.

Lesebyst. Your genetics say you're a fairly intelligent person. Why do you insist on trying to prove them wrong with this idiotic bs you keep spouting? I dunno, maybe you're just trapped in a smart person's body. I suggest you see a counsellor.

All of these things are completely irrelevant to the discussion over whether Chloie Johnson can get money out of CrossFit or not. Somehow, they seem to have taken over the whole thing. Should Johnson be allowed to compete with other women? Hell yes, she should. There is so much conflicting evidence about the relative physical capabilities of men and women out there that it's all bunk anyway. For example;

http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/diet-fitness/personal-training/men-vs-women-upper-body-strength.htm

Excerpt 1 wrote:Kutin deadlifted a staggering 209.4 pounds (94.9 kilograms) and squatted slightly less [source: Zeveloff]. To put that Herculean feat into perspective, the New Jersey elementary school[girl] successfully squatted around 215 percent of her body weight -- the same body weight percentage a 180-pound (81.6-kilogram) adult man could likely squat

Excerpt 2 wrote:Acknowledging this gender difference doesn't imply that weight-lifting women can't combat this bit of biological determinism and beef up their biceps; instead, men simply have a head start in that department thanks to their elevated levels of testosterone. The sex hormone has anabolic effects, meaning it promotes muscle development. Secreted by the pituitary gland, testosterone binds to skeletal fiber cells and stimulates the growth of proteins, the building blocks of meaty muscles [source: Roundy]. At the same time, however, testosterone also may shave off men's strength for the long haul.

See? You can use statistical manipulation to prove anything.

CrossFit determined that competitors in the event had to compete in the gender of their birth.
...
"The fundamental, ineluctable fact is that a male competitor who has a sex reassignment procedure still has a genetic makeup that confers a physical and physiological advantage over women," according to the letter from CrossFit's lawyer sent in October.

Seems reasonable...

"(Jonnson) doesn't have an advantage over other women. She's been on estrogen for such a long time," he said about his client.
...
McCoy said that CrossFit should change its rules to be more like the International Olympic Committee, which allows transgender athletes to compete in their identified gender after undergoing sexual reassignment surgery.

I'm surprised by this... can they compete immediately after undergoing the surgery for the Olympics? Is there a waiting period?

Anyway, people's bodies and lives are their own, but that doesn't mean they're going to have the right to compete in a controlled sport that already bans hundreds (thousands?) of things from entering competitors' bodies... you have the right to be transgender, but you don't necessarily have the right to compete in an event if you're, say, a male taking extra testosterone... or in this case, someone who was originally male but is undergoing therapy to lessen their testosterone.

I see those as extremely similar and one is clearly banned (taking extra testosterone). If this case were opposite, and a woman wanted to compete against men, they would be taking testosterone therapy and thus would already be disqualified.

...to use another example, you can smoke marujuana legally in some states (at least, according to state law) but whether you can compete in a sport while under the influence of it (or alchohol, or anything) is entirely up to that sport's governing body.

This person can do Crossfit training all they like... but to compete in a Crossfit competition they will have to follow the rules of the event, and if their therapy does not meet the rules then they can't compete. I don't see any right being violated at all... again, any more than athletes not being allowed to take extra testosterone, this person would've started out with extra testosterone and thus can reasonably be barred from competing.

 RiTides wrote:

"(Jonnson) doesn't have an advantage over other women. She's been on estrogen for such a long time," he said about his client.
...
McCoy said that CrossFit should change its rules to be more like the International Olympic Committee, which allows transgender athletes to compete in their identified gender after undergoing sexual reassignment surgery.

I'm surprised by this... can they compete immediately after undergoing the surgery for the Olympics? Is there a waiting period?

 marv335 wrote:

Actually, since May 17th 2004, they would if the Transgender athlete in question had met three criteria.
1. They must have had gender reassignment surgery
2. They must have legal recognition of their assigned gender
3. They must have at least two years of hormone therapy

So looking at the case, she would be able to compete in the Olympics, so I can see her winning this one.

emphasis mine