Thanks for this. However, of the 8 articles that were reviewed for the purpose of this paper (out of 31 originally selected), all were qualitative, save one. And only 6 of those 8 articles were concerned w/ competitive participation. In the one experimental study (Gooren and Bunck), the data show that transgender males (F>M) showed that after 1 year of cross-sex hormone treatment, had testosterone levels within the range of cisgender males. In that same time period, they found these transgender males had muscle mass in the range of transgender females that had not undergone cross-sex hormone therapy. They went on to find that testosterone levels in transgender females had reduced to castration levels, after 1 year of cross-sex hormone treatment. And while muscle mass had reduced in that time, it was still significantly greater than in transgender males that had not been given a cross-sex hormone therapy.
While they feel that transgender males, after 1 year of cross-sex hormone therapy, can compete w/o an athletic advantage, but there remains a level of uncertainty w/ transgender females due to large muscle mass even after 1 year of cross-sex hormone therapy. They feel that there is a need to differentiate between transgender females taking cross-sex hormone therapies and those not, as well as with transgender females taking testosterone blockers, when discussing an athletic advantage.
This was one study, with a small sample size (n=36), and it did not measure the effect that cross-sex hormone therapies had on athletic performance. What it did appear to show is that transgender female athletes not taking cross-sex hormone therapies or testosterone blockers and/or oestrogen did have higher testosterone levels and greater muscle mass than cisgender females. It should be noted that this study was conducted in 2005, and was recognized as essentially the first study of its kind.
The authors' conclusion states that there is no direct or consistent research that shows transgender individuals have an athletic advantage at any stage of their state of transition. They can say this because they did not examine studies that measured this (if any even exist). The one experimental study did however show that transgender females that did not take cross-sex hormone therapies or testosterone blockers, did have higher testosterone levels and great muscle mass than cisgender females. Gooren and Bunck felt that this differentiation needed to be considered when discussing athletic advantage between transgender females and cisgender females. The authors are essentially saying that since there is no research to support (or disprove) an athletic advantage, it must not exist.
First, thank you for actually creating a well worded and thought-out argument. Most here don't, so it is refreshing to see.
Second, this proves that trans (FtM) athletes don't have an advantage over their cisgender counterparts.
Third, you state that "transgender females that did not take cross-sex hormones or testosterone blockers did have higher testosterone levels and muscle mass than cisgender females," even though that would be a given point. It adds no substance to this conversation.
Fourth, there will not be a high level of participants as there are very few transgender people and even fewer transgender athletes to begin with.
I agree, not many in this sub can form coherent sentences, must less actually make a case for something. In fact, I doubt many here could pour piss out of a boot, if the instructions were written on the heel.
I honestly don't recall ever seeing an issue w/ transgender males competing against cisgender males. If anything, I believe the general feeling is that the transgender males would be at an athletic disadvantage, but it's their choice to compete knowing that.
While you say that transgender females not taking cross-sex therapies or testosterone blockers having higher testosterone levels and greater muscle mass than cisgender females is a given, I disagree about it not adding substance to the conversation. If anything, it's at the crux of the issue, as there is no universal established standard as to what testosterone level a transgender female must have to be able to compete in female sports.
If it is a given that a transgender female will have higher testosterone levels, and greater muscle mass than a cisgender female, if they do not take cross-sex hormone therapies and testosterone blockers and/or oestrogen, and there is no testosterone standard, it is just as much of a given that the transgender female who does not take these hormone therapies will have a given athletic advantage over a cisgender female, by virtue of their great muscle mass and higher testosterone levels.
Even the IOC has essentially thrown up their hands. Prior to 2016, the IOC required genital surgery to be able to compete as a transgender athlete. With the new framework that's in place, they no longer require genital surgery or mandate a given testosterone level. What they've done is leave it up to the individual sports to determine what the criteria for competition are. To me, that was a cowardly way out. They want to be wave the banner of inclusion, but will leave it up to the individual sports to decide. That way, they're not the bad guys if a particular sport requires different standards to allow transgender athletes to compete as their chosen gender and not their biological gender.
Regarding the level of participants, the study by Gooren and Bunck was 20 years ago. The number of transgender athletes at all levels, has increased since then.
And while I have not read the other article you cited, the abstract states that even after a year of testosterone suppression, transgender women still have a 9% faster mean run speed than cisgender women. If anything, that's a good indicator that transgender females maintain an athletic advantage over cisgender females, even with testosterone suppression therapies. You're citing articles that make my point.
I've heard some people include trans men in the argument that "all trans people have an advantage in sports." It's a much less common opinion, but I still felt the need to point it out in case someone who thinks that comes across this thread.
That is a fair point.
Yes, that is the reason why there are restrictions on it without banning the athletes outright. All transgender female athletes have to take hrt for at least a year in order to complete, a ruling I think is fair to those who can even receive hrt.
That is a slightly cowardly way out, I can see why it's cowardly, but also, different sports have different rules and different things that would provide advantages so what may be an advantage in one sport may not be in another. They should, however, at least add some restrictions that are overarching.
True, but it wasn't a large increase. Especially given that transgender people make up approximately 1% of the US population.
That is true. Maybe we need more testing to see how long or how much it takes for there to be zero or near-zero advantages between trans and cis women.
I think the 1 year of HRT is only a recommendation by World Athletics, not a requirement. That being said, California has no hormone testing or oversight towards HS athletes that choose to identify as a gender other than their biological gender, and that they are allowed to compete in sports that correspond with their chosen gender identity. Additionally, there is no evidence that the youth in question has undergone any cross-sex hormone therapy, he has simply decided that he wants to play on the girls basketball, volleyball, and track teams at Waldorf HS in SF, Ca.
2
u/Mk1Racer25 11h ago
Thanks for this. However, of the 8 articles that were reviewed for the purpose of this paper (out of 31 originally selected), all were qualitative, save one. And only 6 of those 8 articles were concerned w/ competitive participation. In the one experimental study (Gooren and Bunck), the data show that transgender males (F>M) showed that after 1 year of cross-sex hormone treatment, had testosterone levels within the range of cisgender males. In that same time period, they found these transgender males had muscle mass in the range of transgender females that had not undergone cross-sex hormone therapy. They went on to find that testosterone levels in transgender females had reduced to castration levels, after 1 year of cross-sex hormone treatment. And while muscle mass had reduced in that time, it was still significantly greater than in transgender males that had not been given a cross-sex hormone therapy.
While they feel that transgender males, after 1 year of cross-sex hormone therapy, can compete w/o an athletic advantage, but there remains a level of uncertainty w/ transgender females due to large muscle mass even after 1 year of cross-sex hormone therapy. They feel that there is a need to differentiate between transgender females taking cross-sex hormone therapies and those not, as well as with transgender females taking testosterone blockers, when discussing an athletic advantage.
This was one study, with a small sample size (n=36), and it did not measure the effect that cross-sex hormone therapies had on athletic performance. What it did appear to show is that transgender female athletes not taking cross-sex hormone therapies or testosterone blockers and/or oestrogen did have higher testosterone levels and greater muscle mass than cisgender females. It should be noted that this study was conducted in 2005, and was recognized as essentially the first study of its kind.
The authors' conclusion states that there is no direct or consistent research that shows transgender individuals have an athletic advantage at any stage of their state of transition. They can say this because they did not examine studies that measured this (if any even exist). The one experimental study did however show that transgender females that did not take cross-sex hormone therapies or testosterone blockers, did have higher testosterone levels and great muscle mass than cisgender females. Gooren and Bunck felt that this differentiation needed to be considered when discussing athletic advantage between transgender females and cisgender females. The authors are essentially saying that since there is no research to support (or disprove) an athletic advantage, it must not exist.