Transgender players banned from international women’s cricket by ICC

Fuck this. Sports are games, they shouldn't be taken this seriously. Like, for example, Micheal Phelps has webbed feet and freaky monster lungs but nobody's banned him from swimming events for that. Every human is different, people need to fucking accept that sports can never be totally fair and realize that's not what this is about.

- How about adding a third category instead: a free for all category where all genders are welcome to compete and can use as much steroid as they want.
I think that gender specific leagues need to go the way of the dodo but while they're here they're essentially weight/strength classes and most transwomen are more fairly matched against AMAB men than AFAB women.
Ideally, we could just realize that having multiple league levels based on body type would be much more equitable.
- most transwomen are more fairly matched against AMAB men than AFAB women.
  Source?
- It really depends on the sport imo. Trans women may retain some more muscle and some parts of the skeleton are largely unaffected, but muscle elasticity, hip rotation, flexibility, and endurance all end up being more dependent on hormones than birth sex in the long term. How much these things matter varies a lot from sport to sport, and the current system is not sufficient to balance these traits even among people of the same sex. Multiple leagues based on broad body types sounds reasonable, but I have no idea how complicated the rules would have to be to make it completely fair, given we already accept a great deal of unfairness currently.
- As a trans woman who works out but doesn't really do sports because people make them suck, I have to say that I don't think that study is correct based of my experiences. Trans women often have lower testosterone than cis women after being on hrt for a while (2 years max typically, but it can be sooner). When I started hrt, literally only about 2 weeks later I noticed massive muscle atrophy and I literally couldn't even help my father move heavy furniture that I doubt I would have had a problem with before. After that I decided to start lifting and it's been a few months since then I am still not as strong as I used to be.
- Petite women compete against tall women all the time though
The problem is that there’s too much money on the line. If certain performance enhancing drugs (like testosterone) are allowed, every athlete will be required to take them if they want to compete at the highest level. Athletes are known to favor short-term gains over long-term health consequences, and they’re pressured by their environment to do so as well.
- Capitalism ruining good things, as always. In the case of trans men on testosterone, though, who cares? I feel like that just levels the playing field for them generally. And as a trans woman? Estrogen has fucked up my body's ability to build muscle if anything. These arguments all boil down to excuses.
Damn straight the reason why people play sports is to have fun.
It’s makes me sick these commentators are their hiding transphobia in their “competitive arguments”.
We don’t need to have these invasive requirements to test someone’s hormones just let people play their gender identity. No human deserves to be excluded from having fun when they only got one life.

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.

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.

- From your link
  Harper analyzed self-selected and self-reported race times for eight transgender women runners of various age categories who had, over an average 7 year period (range 1–29 years), competed in sub-elite middle and long distance races within both the male and female categories. The age-graded scores for these eight runners were the same in both categories, suggesting that cross-hormone treatment reduced running performance by approximately the size of the typical male advantage.
  That reminds me of the swimmer Lia Thomas who placed 6th and 2nd before starting HRT. Raced against men after starting, which dropped her down drastically. Then when she raced against women she resumed being a top 10 athlete, winning her race (didn't even brake female records mind you, just won her race).
  The study has some bias imo. For starters most studies I've looked at say 2 years is when the strength levels start to even out, while most measurements from this one are from a year. The major exception being a study from 2004 that only looked at mass not strength.
  When this study does look at strength it very specifically looked at grip strength and leg strength (this is where I got suspicious of bias). Trans women have larger hands due to our skeletons being forged during male puberty, which could account for the differences in grip strength (easier to grip/more muscles being used when there is more hand to use). And as for the part looking at thigh and quadriceps strength: every cis woman I know has significantly stronger legs than they do their upper body and that is for both the ones that go to the gym and the ones that don't. It is completely possible (and not even mentioned which is where the feeling of bias comes from) that HRT has less of an effect on leg strength than it does upper body/core. If cis women who go through an estrogenized puberty have stronger legs than arms then it stands to reason that trans women would loose less muscle mass in their legs than their arms.
  Edit: bias might be the wrong word here, maybe closer to an oversight than outright bias
  Edit 2: found a more recent study that states endurance things like running and swimming level out by around 2 years, with most things level out after about 4 with the exception of upper body strength. Which is still declining in trans women past that point
  https://academic.oup.com/jcem/advance-article/doi/10.1210/clinem/dgad414/7223439
  So the 1 year that is recommended is too soon for trans women athletes to start competing, but for endurance sports like racing and swimming it should be fine by 2 years. Other sports may need more time, but also we shouldn't be delaying the lives of trans people for so long. We need to find a good middle ground because it's not like exceptional cis women don't exist in those same sports.
  This is all also completely ignoring that if a trans women starts hrt before puberty then there is no real difference. So the real solution is to let trans teenagers transition.
- 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.
- Yeah, something like weight classes in boxing/wrestling/MMA. Brock Lesnar vs Uriah Faber (yes, I haven't watched MMA in a while) isn't a good match for multiple reasons: Brock has way more muscle so he can hit a lot harder, but his muscles also make him a lot slower than Uriah who can use quick moves and grapples to his favor.
  Women are naturally weaker than men, it's a fact. A man can change on the surface (physically appearance) after becoming a woman, but his bone structure and ability to build more muscle is still there.
- African women out perform lots of athletes in nearly all sports, should they be banned from competing? No, of course not, that's bigotry. Trans women don't out perform cis women or there would be overwhelming evidence that they're winning tournaments constantly over cisgender women. Where's the evidence? Good luck finding it, because it doesn't exist, because it's not true.
  And as I pointed out, sports are inherently unfair. It's not cheating to have a biological advantage. It's only cheating if you break the established rules of the actual game. Being more intelligent than your opponent in chess is not cheating, but moving a piece during your opponents turn is. See the difference? One is a biological advantage which is fine, the other is breaking a rule within the sport itself which is not fine.

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.

- Except they just don't. The idea that trans women are going to dominate women's sports simply has not played out in reality, despite the fact that trans women have been allowed to compete in women's divisions for many years before these bans.
  I don't know how else to put that. The feared outcome just has not happened, despite regulations being more lax than they are now.
  Further proof of this is found, ironically, in the examples brought up by people pushing this fear. It's the same small handful of trans competitors, most of which did not make any significant impact. If trans women were dominating women's sports, they would have more, and better, examples.
  TERFs have been raging for months over a trans women finishing 6171st in a marathon. People still bring up a specific trans MMA fighter as if she was destroying the competition, when in reality she had a mediocre record, lost to a cis women with a mediocre record, and retired back in 2014. Trans women have been allowed to compete with women in the Olympics since 2004, with looser hormone regulations than those currently in place, yet we saw the first one compete only in 2020 where she didn't even medal.
  The strongest example is one swimmer who was also very strong when she previously competed against men. And people ignore that she still lost to cis women in multiple events. They ignore that her times dropped dramatically after starting HRT.
  The fears have not played out in reality.
- Are these trans women dominating women sports leagues in the same room with us?
  Serious response: look for statistics for trans women consistently kicking cis women out of cis sports to the point your position predicts they would. They don't exist. Sports leagues that allow trans women require them to undergo hormone therapy for specific amounts of time, which levels the playing field. Ironically, this requirement is preventing cis women from competing.
  Personally, I don't give a shit about sports, but anyone with a minimum of intellectual honesty understands that if the claim
  Trans women out-compete cis women in nearly all sports they are allowed in. Its nonsense to say otherwise.
  were to be true, it would be easy to find outrageous situations where all athletes with any possibility of winning in certain leagues would be trans women, but these cases don't exist. The closest thing this kind of arguments are accompanied by are specific cases of trans athletes who are successful, which must necessarily exist due to statistics, unless what you want are ludicrous rules that forbid them from participating no matter the reality of their physiology.
- TBH I could live with it if the world accepted and honored trans people, and trans people recognized that the biological legacy of their birth sex makes it unfair for them to compete in gender segmented sports. Maybe someday we’ll find a better way to segment sports. Maybe not.
- Except this just doesn't happen
- Source? I thought current evidence said HRT does a good job at leveling the playing field

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that not many users on Lemmy follow Cricket or understand it fully. My comment isn’t going to cover if the decision by the ICC is correct (or otherwise) but to provide a little insight into the men and women’s games

Speed / pace is a noticeable difference between the sexes. I don’t believe there are any current female players that consistently bowl pace over 120km/h. In contrast, male pace bowlers generally try to meet a consistent speed of 135km/h for the same role. The upper bounds for men is roughly 160km/h and maybe only one or two pro players globally can do this.

There are enough men’s bowlers who can bowl at 150km/h. At this speed an average batter would find it difficult to see the ball. Arguably batters in baseball receive faster pitches but at 150km/h+ including the ball bouncing makes it incredibly difficult to face.

The batting is also different but it might be harder to explain to a non-cricketing audience why this is.

This isn't about male bowlers though. The physiology of transgender people changes very quickly after starting Hormone Replacement Therapy. Do you have data on transgender women and bowling in cricket? Because data relating to male bowlers is not applicable.
To add extra weight to this comment. It is a common tactic to attempt to "bounce" a batter out, which basically means bowling with enough speed at such a short length that it comes towards the body, and especially, the head. If a batter is unprepared, it usually requires getting out of the way because trying to play a shot is likely to end up with you getting out or struck by the ball.
The ball is much harder and denser than a baseball and even a famous up and coming professional, international, batter died when he failed to get out of the way and was struck in the head.
Basically, there is a very real safety concern for players when it comes to something like this.
Cricket is like Blurnsball, right?
- it’s slowly becoming that, yeah.

Just make it third category.

female sports won't get affected
fairness will increase
fans can watch their own "cup of coffee "
possible pretenders will no longer be motivated by easy winning

It's own category with like 5 people in each sport. Great idea.
- What is the alternative though that won't ruin female's sports that was built as part or followup of female's emancipation ?
This is just a complete non solution to the problem and effectively just ends up with trans people being banned from sports altogether.
"Trans" sports teams/leagues (whatever that means) can't really exist at the amateur local level anywhere but the biggest citiess due to there being not a lot of trans people, and even less trans people who want to play sports.
The struggle to even get enough trans guys or trans girls to form a team for football or whatever would be a challenge in and of itself, and then this team would pretty much have to fly across the country (or possibly to a different country altogether) to even play a match.
This is not a reasonable solution for anyone but the people who want to ban trans people from sports.
The second issue is that this is just fear mongering and not an actual issue to be solved but that's being argued all over this thread already.
- What is your suggestion than?
Two categories:
Women
Open
Perfectly fair and simple.
- It's already the case, most sports allow for women to play in men's leagues... But they don't. And trans women would suffer the same way cis women would in men dominated categories (or would they? Depends on the sport I guess, nobody would complain about trans women in F1 Academy I bet)
- women as females or identifier ? Open is males + trans females + trans males ?
- I'm not sure i follow. So you basically suggest to keep male and female categories but rename them? Or do you suggest to devide female category to stronger and weaker ?

Studies have shown that after around 2 years of HRT the strength of trans women level out to the average of cis women. The only things that really stay the same are things like bone length /bone density, and it's not like there are no cis women with dense bones that are tall.
Edit: taken from another comment of mine:
found a more recent study that states endurance things like running and swimming level out by around 2 years, with most things level out after about 4 with the exception of upper body strength. Which is still declining in trans women past that point
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/advance-article/doi/10.1210/clinem/dgad414/7223439
So the 1 year that is recommended is too soon for trans women athletes to start competing, but for endurance sports like racing and swimming it should be fine by 2 years. Other sports may need more time, but also we shouldn't be delaying the lives of trans people for so long. We need to find a good middle ground because it's not like exceptional cis women don't exist in those same sports.
This is all also completely ignoring that if a trans women starts hrt before puberty then there is no real difference. So the real solution is to let trans teenagers transition.
- Aren't their trans women who don't take HRT?
Trans women aren't biologically men.
The word you're looking for is biologically.
Simply because there is a huge difference, biologically, between a cisgender man and a transgender women who is on HRT.
You can argue that there is still residual advantages remaining after transition, that's fine. But to call them men is both plainly incorrect, and also offensive.
Why did my comment get removed?
Hmm I wonder

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.

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

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

- 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?

As someone who is not an athlete and not really interested in sports as a spectator either, I've used arguments like that before in good faith. Why is it a problem? Most people never get the chance to compete at a high level in any kind of athletics, full stop. Participants at the highest level are all, necessarily, exceptional individuals.
Can you help me understand what makes that particular exception to be so important? Why would women who have undergone one puberty or the other cast aspersions? Like you said, there are methods like testing hormone levels to ensure a level playing field. Given that, it seems like the only aspersions to be cast would be that their history somehow makes them less of a woman, which I can't agree with.
- I can't speak for everyone but ime when people use the argument they are often more interested equality or inclusion at all costs. Their good intentions blind them to the fact that womens' sport has spent centuries trying go gain validity / parity with mens' sport.
- Participants at the highest level are all, necessarily, exceptional individuals.
  Bullshit. High level athletes, artists, chefs, etc. aren't exceptional by god-given talent, but by relentless pursuit of that skill. Some of the best football (soccer) players of all time had unwanted physical builds or even small "defects". Some of the best volleyball players were way shorter than their peers. The problem with having trans women competing on the same field as cis women in most sports is that the biological advantage they might get far surpasses the most rigorous training they could do, i.e. it becomes about genetic makeup.

Lotta bigoted users are really going mask off on this thread huh

That is the whole point of "trans women in sports" discussions. That's why conservatives selected this issue to push.
- They can act like concerned people when in reality they dgaf and never were interested in them in the first place
For real. These people are brain dead.

fairness or safety

my ass..

(edit to clarify: the only concern in making these decisions are the fragile egos of cis people)

I'm all in for all of us holding hands and walking into the sunshine. But if someone has a concern about a potential unfair advantage because their oponent used to be male/female, they are automatically labeled as having "fragile ego"? That sounds very condescending. What should they do, just walk it off because you don't like it?
They should make tests for all sports and decide if there is a potential advantage to be gained from being born male/female and decide on a case by case basis. If there is none, perfect, game on!
I think there was a scandal in the US with a swimmer some time ago? My wife used to play tennis as a child and she said it was brutal when they were training and playing against males. It was a completely different level.
Also not a big fan of being called "cis", to me it sounds offensive.
- Cis is the term that just means you are the gender you were born, you aren't trans.
- not a big fan of being called "cis"
  If you aren't trans, then you are cis.
  If you aren't gay, then you are straight.
  Do you also dislike being called straight?
- Oh my god get over yourself cis is not offensive.
  Fucking cislord scum.
  Now that? That would be offensive.

- honestly his use of the term superhuman athlete makes the whole thing just silly. men are not automatically superhuman athletes either but in many physical sports they might as well be compared to women. Mens sports generally allow both sexes so are open to all, womens are basically so that women athletes have an outlet where they can reasonably succeed. Otherwise its like chess tournaments always allowing computers.
- [1] If this issue is so clear cut, then I wonder why like any guidance by medical organizations for transitioning people state clearly "expect muscle and strength loss at the level that it might affect your grocery carrying experience" (like this https://www.wpath.org/publications/soc ). [2] Don't forget junk science has targeted women of color, intersex women, and even normal women with high testosterone levels https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/07/sport/athletics-testosterone-rules-negesa-imali-running-as-equals-dsd-spt-intl-cmd/ for exclusion from female sports. [3] Now to your "academic" points. Your first reference is written by an inarticulate person reciting long debunked gender stereotypes in some third-world journal, without even backing it up. Low quality article all around, appears like a targeted attempt to give academic substance to age-old stereotypes. In contrast Scientific American has published that "trans girls belong to women's sport" https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trans-girls-belong-on-girls-sports-teams/ since "there is no scientific case for excluding them" and "a visualization of sex as a spectrum" https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sa-visual/visualizing-sex-as-a-spectrum/ which I guess debunks all certainties of the said article. [4] Your second reference is a cherry pick from an article that states exactly the opposite "The 15-31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy." (from the abstract), so what you have written might be just a little bid ...dishonest? [5] And the third is a N=1 case study of one champion? It compares a single person before and after hormones to the "established sex differences"? Come on! I could even bring in articles on your side of the argument that could be more hard to debunk. The Karolinska Institute study is one for example http://biorxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/782557, who went to great lengths to skew the sample to make a seemingly neutral contribution. [6] Look for systematic studies, cherry picking is cheating: Here is a systematic review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5357259/ It is inconclusive whether testosterone drives athletic performance, and studies are inconclusive about trans women having unfair advantages. But they do point out that prejudice stigma and violence is a factor for transgender athletes. If anyone wants to be fair has to factor in the shit trans women will take in male sports, plus that some male athletes may find it unfair to compete them in case they recognize them as women. Also some athletes and commentators have switched sides about their prior strong rhetoric on the matter https://www.thedailybeast.com/mma-fighter-rosi-sexton-apologizes-to-fallon-fox-for-transphobic-comments and I think Joe Rogan himself apologized to.

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

Cricket is as a fun as baseball.

I thought I told you to get rid of those sideburns! ..."But Mr Burns I don't think know you what sideburns..."
I've had it with your attitude! You're outa here!!
Downvote this foo!
Or don't, I'm not your mama.

Get that terf garbage out of here.

It's worth noting that "scientifically a male" is genuinely a more complicated phrase than it might initially seem at first, because trans people generally do more than just socially transition, changing their name and clothes. Sex differences are primarily mediated through sex hormones, and radically changing one's hormonal profile, as happens with hormone therapies, causes very real biological effects. A trans woman, while being stronger than your average cis woman, will lose a meaningful amount of muscle due to the lack of testosterone (and will also generally develop better cardiovascular health, again due to the lack of testosterone). Depending on the sport and the individuals in question, it's not unreasonable to suggest that there are cases where some amount of residual muscle doesn't necessarily confer a particularly large benefit such that a blanket ban is warranted.

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

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.
Like baseball but slower.

Appropriate then, that the issue is dicks

Not all trans women have

no transphobia here
citation needed