this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
67 points (95.9% liked)

World News

38695 readers
2308 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The International Cricket Council has become the latest sports body to ban transgender players from the elite women’s game if they have gone through male puberty.

The ICC said it had taken the decision, following an extensive scientific review and nine-month consultation, to “protect the integrity of the international women’s game and the safety of players”.

It joins rugby union, swimming, cycling, athletics and rugby league, who have all gone down a similar path in recent years after citing concerns over fairness or safety.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Benj1B@sh.itjust.works 26 points 10 months ago (1 children)

For those who don't follow cricket closely, there are a few significant rule variations for women's cricket - namely a smaller/lighter cricket ball and reduced field\boundary dimensions.

There are also implicit limits in the upper end of cricket performance- Elyse Perry holds the record for the fastest womens cricket ball bowled ag 130.5 kph, while Shoaib Akhtar holds the overall record at 161.3 kph. There's an interesting article here that goes into more detail on the precise physical characteristics that influence bowling, where they define male fasf bowling at >122.9kph and female fast bowling at >97.8, a 30% ish difference: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35259727/

This is all to say that there are very clear and established differences between men and women's cricket in the interest of safety and fairness already baked into the laws of the game. If you accept that male puberty leads to a disproportionate advantage in bone density/muscle mass vs cis women, then this decision is sensible. The exact numbers are hard to quantify, skill and natural technique plays a huge part in cricket, but on the bell curve of something like pace bowling the risk of a trans woman significantly outperforming cis women is undeniable.

[–] Pasta4u@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Recently in the uk didn't a football player have thier knee broken by a transgender woman and then all the women refused to play that team again ?

[–] Hegar@kbin.social 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Sport is the most boring show on TV by far, and yet the actors are paid insane amounts. The fandom is the most toxic bullshit out there and the show runners encourage it.

Cancel sport already, it's really dumb.

[–] tygerprints@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago

As one of the characters in (the book) Jurassic Park says, "the two most boring things in the world are sports and fashion." I couldn't have said it better myself. But I do have a lot of family members who are athletic, and some have gone as far as olympic competitions. So, I can't really say they have no valid right to enjoy their sport. And those family members are the most kind and welcoming people, they are absolutely appalled by all this bigoted negativity toward trans athletes, and are smart enough to see if for the fascist malarky it truly is.

[–] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

In theory trans women are superwomen and then in reality they're weaker and derpier than the top female athletes and all of this is just a scare tactic because these theories havent played out in the real world at all.

On the sports angle, esports looked like it would finally be the place for me to be a fan because the athletes are relatable to me. But no, they got bought up by the Saudis, so all I get for relatable media is drag queens and furries or whatever.

[–] ShaunaTheDead@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

The ultimate reason it's wrong to ban transgender people from competing in athletics competitions is that the implication is that testosterone can be considered a performance enhancing drug -- even if the athlete in question is well within hormonal levels of any other cisgender athlete in the same sport.

If that's the case, then it opens the door to banning other athletes for exceeding the testosterone limit, and guess what? Cisgender women with African heritage naturally produce more testosterone than the average woman world-wide. So banning transgender athletes leads to potentially banning African women which is obviously racist and wrong to do.

Also, poly cystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is a condition that affects about 1 in 10 women and a very common side effect of PCOS is elevated testosterone levels. So 1 in 10 women would be banned for medical reasons outside of their control. And banning people for a medical condition is ableist and obviously wrong to do.

And, ultimately, sports aren't fair. We try to make them equitable by making the rules universal, but biological advantages are just part of sports. If we start banning athletes for hormones, why not ban athletes for being taller than average? Why not ban athletes for having better vision than average? Or better peripheral vision? Or faster reflexes? If only the absolute average, or below average people were allowed to compete then nearly half of all people would be unable to compete.

Plus, the vast majority of athletes say that they don't want transgender people to be banned from their respective sports.

And not to mention that it's just rude to exclude transgender athletes, and if it were truly such an advantage to be transgender then why aren't transgender people winning tournaments left and right? About 1% of people are transgender, so if transgender people are winning 1% of all tournaments then that would mean that they're exactly on exactly equal footing with their competitors. But I suspect that less than 1% of tournament winners are transgender which means that transgender people are actually at a disadvantage, which again, is fine because sports are inherently unfair as I outlined above.

At the end of the day, transgender athlete bans hurt everyone, and anti-transgender jerks are just making a big stink about it because it sounds reasonable on it's face to uninformed people and so it's a good wedge issue to bring up. Anti-transgender people don't care about the sports they're "trying to save", they just hate transgender people and want to see them suffer, and anyone who entertains their non-sense is complicit (probably unknowingly) in that suffering.

So please, those of you who are reasonable, shut down any discussion of transgender sports bans.

[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago

IMHO, if fairness is the goal, then categories should be based on performance history alone. People should be competing with others of their class in the sport being played.

If I'm the best at tennis, I want to compete against the other best players, not the other best players with (or without) a peen or some other stupid grouping.

[–] geophysicist@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Your argument is "there is natural variation therefore we can't set limits" could be missing the nuance that there can be a much larger impact from puberty changes than current hormone levels

Another commenter below shared this study that describes the effect of make puberty as being much more impactful on explosive strengthb than current testosterone levels.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33289906/

What are your thoughts on this?

[–] ShaunaTheDead@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That study is irrelevant and their findings don't change anything about my answer. That study could say "African women have more lean muscle mass and are taller than the average athlete" and you wouldn't be sharing that study around saying that African women shouldn't be allowed to compete with other athletes because that's racist and stupid.

And besides, taking an extreme example and comparing it to the average is dishonest. The best way to determine if transgender athletes are actually dominating in sports is their top level tournament wins. As I said, about 1% of people are transgender, so about 1% of tournament winners should be transgender if everything is even. Anything above, means an advantage and anything below means a disadvantage.

So where are all the transgender people absolutely dominating tournaments above the average of transgender prevalence?

You can't show me that because it doesn't happen, and even if it did happen, that's just sports! You simply can't ban people for a biological advantage in a hobby where biological advantages are literally everywhere. Height, vision, reflexes, agility, intelligence, etc.

[–] geophysicist@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Take a note on how the other user responded to my question. You instead responded with hostility, good luck convincing anyone if that's how you engage with a genuine attempt to discuss the topic

[–] ShaunaTheDead@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I apologize if you're not a transphobe, but you reposted a singular study whose findings are trash at best and outright bigotry at worst. I think it's natural for me to assume you're a transphobe trying to troll considering I specifically said:

...anti-transgender jerks are just making a big stink about it because it sounds reasonable on it's face to uninformed people and so it's a good wedge issue to bring up. Anti-transgender people don't care about the sports they're "trying to save", they just hate transgender people and want to see them suffer, and anyone who entertains their non-sense is complicit (probably unknowingly) in that suffering.

So please, those of you who are reasonable, shut down any discussion of transgender sports bans.

Of course trying to continue the discourse would make me assume that you're transphobic. You should have been more clear if that's not the case. Regardless, it shouldn't take away from my point. Again though, I apologize if you posted it from a perspective of honest discussion, but I hope you understand that this topic is often a target of trolls who seek to muddy the water by "just asking questions" in bad faith.

[–] geophysicist@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You don't get to decide what people can and cannot discuss. And if someone replying was transphobic then maybe responding calmly and rationally would help change their mind. Just calling people transphobes does more to turn people away from your cause than just not replying

[–] Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You're just some person on the Internet arguing for the sake of arguing. For trans people these arguments are used to slowly erase our rights. Don't demand civility from people you help oppres because you were board.

[–] Thann@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago

My fist thought was "why does the International Criminal Court care"

[–] AnotherAttorney@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago (5 children)

The whole uproar about banning transgender athletes from competing in women's divisions is weird.

We've banned athletes from taking performance enhancing hormones for decades because of unfair advantage. Allowing someone who is scientifically a male to compete in a women's division raises the same hormonal-related concerns of unfair advantage. It's irrelevant whether or not that male is choosing to socially identify as a man or woman.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] PuddingFeeling907@lemmy.ca 0 points 10 months ago

Get that terf garbage out of here.

[–] beetsnuami@slrpnk.net 0 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Hej, I‘ve seen quite a few comments using weird expressions to refer to trans women here, so to clarify, a trans woman is not:

  • a scientific male (trans women are scientifically women)
  • a biologically born male (Biologically born? Yes. Male? No.)
  • a biological male (as, usually, biological markers such as anatomy, hormone levels, chromosomes and behavior in trans women are ambiguous)

A trans woman is:

  • a woman (female) who was assigned male at birth
  • often, but not always, a person who has gone through testosterone puberty, but identifies as female

Just use the words trans woman and cis woman, it‘s concise, correct and respectful. I‘m not saying that there are no differences between trans women and cis women, but simply that trans women are women. If you disagree with that, go watch ContraPoints or PhilosophyTube.

Consequently, the international cricket council should call it the elite cis women‘s game from now on, that would just be consistent.

[–] wheels@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I am still confused. My understanding was that trans people change their gender. This is something I am able to wrap my head around because gender (man/woman) is a human construct anyway and people should have the freedom to choose where they are on that spectrum.

But isn't sex a genetic thing that can't be changed? If it's the case that a person can choose whether they are male or female then science is going to need new terminology to replace male/female for XY and XX because the words science used to use have been commandeered to mean something more like gender?

[–] beetsnuami@slrpnk.net 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

In particular when referring to humans, the definition of sex is ambiguous, as is the term “biological male”. And I think this problem is intrinsic: Gender and sex are complicated (with many different markers which may be congruent for many people, but are not for trans and intersex people), and the usefulness of categories depends on context. For example, in a dating context, gender might be a useful category. In a medical context, sex is not a useful category for trans and intersex people: It's not sufficient information, and sometimes ambiguous.

I agree that it would be nice to have other words than for XY/XX chromosomes (or small vs large gametes), this would make the language more exact and inclusive. However, I (and others) dislike the term “biological male”, because I think it exists only to create a category that equates cis men with trans women. Even if we agree on defining “biological male” as a person having XY chromosomes, in a sports context this is an unhelpful category because there are large differences between XY cis men and XY trans women. When there is apparently so much concern for fairness and safety, why not ask the big questions: How can we make sports inclusive, safe and fun for everyone (including trans people!), regardless of genetics? Are sex or gender useful categories to separate competition — or are there other, more useful markers? (And maybe even: Are international competitions as we have them now a desirable system?)

[–] Rednax@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Nobody is excluding trans woman from the sport. They are excluding trans woman from the tier of physically less strong participants.

Note that cis men who are born with non sex related disadvantages are also excluded from this tier. If a man has a hunchback, he still has to compete with the men, despite having a serious disadvantage. From my point of view, such a disadvantage is no different from the disadvantage that XY trans woman have.

[–] Gabu@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

However, I (and others) dislike the term “biological male”

I dislike the lack of an enclosing comma. Would you, pretty please, fix that?

[–] Gabu@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

Uh oh, someone is conflating gender and sex again, despite claiming to be a trans ally.

[–] smackmyballsoff@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I agree with much of what you said but have to nit-pick a part that I found confusing.

trans women are women

And cis women are cis women?

Comes off as if an afab person, who has always referred to herself as simply "woman" now has to refer to herself as "cis woman" to be exact, whereas trans women have now adopted "woman"

I'm a guy, and I'd be pretty irritated if people suddenly started insisting that I not refer to myself as "guy" anymore, because trans guys are now "guys" so they get my old title but now I have to specifically state that I'm a "cis guy" everywhere..

Like why would I have to give up my title? It's one thing for them to adopt it as well, not like I mind, more the merrier! But why am I having to change my title when I've been the same all along?

It's like if people began changing cats into dogs, and claiming the name "cat" for the former dogs. Cool, do what you will, but then they tell me that my "cats" aren't "cats" anymore, they're cis-cats and I must refer to them as such. Why? They've always been cats to everyone? How you gonna tell me that you get the name "cats" but my lifelong "cats" are now something else?

[–] bdx2023@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Trans women are women, and cis women are women. Simple. No one is "taking" someone else's name.

[–] smackmyballsoff@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Last comment stated international women's cricket should be renamed international cis women's cricket 🤔 because women who experienced testosterone puberty are excluded

Whereas a group of TW playing football can 100% use "Women's football league" Even if the league is 100 trans women and cis women are excluded

That's all I'm saying, how's that not taking a title? Not saying this with any malice, hope that's clear I've no dog in this race other than supporting everyone but that's weird to me

[–] bdx2023@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 10 months ago

... But where is that women's football league that excludes cis women while still calling itself "[just] women's football"?

Whereas we already have many women's leagues in sports that exclude trans women.

So if it's actually happening, then sure I'll agree to calling it "taking a title" and honestly be against it; imo it sets the fight for trans rights back if we use "woman" exclusively for trans women and cis women only ever get called "cis women". But again, where is that happening? Who is calling for that?

I only ever see people claiming that cis women should have exclusive use of the word "women", not the other way around. Which is just another way of arguing that trans women "aren't really women"...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ThatOneKirbyMain2568@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Safety of the players? How do trans women playing cricket endanger cis women?

[–] AnotherAttorney@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Cricket balls are hard dude. Like really hard.

[–] ThatOneKirbyMain2568@kbin.social 4 points 10 months ago (6 children)

100%, but the hardness of a cricket ball doesn't change with who's using it. A really really hard ball moving really really fast is still a really really hard ball moving really really fast, so it's not like there's some significant difference in danger posed. And even if there was such a big danger posed by someone assigned-male-at-birth playing cricket, why would it still be perfectly fine for men's cricket?

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I'd be mad except... it's fucking cricket.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

Cricket is the second-most popular sport in the world.

I've literally never seen a game of it, and know nothing about it, but this affects a lot of people.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Like baseball but slower.

load more comments
view more: next ›