Trans athletes in women's sports: Is this fair?

[@cheekcake779]

I never got the fairness argument. If we are to say, “Sports is unfair anyways, why try to make it fair now?” then why not remove the division between men and women’s sports completely? The reason for the separation in the first place is because we acknowledge the physical advantages men have over women. But if you’re going to accept these and still go on with it, then why limit it to trans athletes?

[@woolfie8766]

I mean there’s no reason to keep a division. Sure there will be a lopsided representation of men over women but since it’s purely competition, no reason not to allocate athletes to divisions purely by performance. Un-ironically many sports SHOULD remove gender divison

[@boredom2go]

@@woolfie8766 There is no gender division. There is no such thing as a men's sports. Leagues that are mostly or all men are open to women. The problem is that women can rarely compete at the level men do, so the leagues appear to be men's leagues. Women's leagues were started because women wanted to play and compete in sports too. Allowing men to compete in women's leagues takes us back to a time when women will simply not do sports. That is unacceptable.

[@WalkingTravisty]

@@woolfie8766 I don't think you appreciate just how lopsided such representation would be. Sports would be *dominated* by men. Many elite female athletes will lose against teenage boys. Celebration of female athletic excellence would be almost impossible. Women and girls who love sports would have to accept they would likely never be able to properly compete. What a tragic, misogynistic world that would be.

[@hanjoyitsu1414]

@@boredom2go Dude. thats called gender division. you said yourself..."The problem is that women can rarely compete at the level men do, so the leagues appear to be men's leagues." if gender division is not a thing, women and men can compete in the same match. I still dont get what you are trying to say. From what i understand is that you dont see the "division" because 'hey, women can play that sports too. just like the men. so there really is no gender *division*'. I think what you are trying to prove is the fact there is a *representation* of women in the sport that is "fair". not about the gender division topic..

[@boredom2go]

@@hanjoyitsu1414 I'm saying that the leagues that men compete in are already open to any gender. There's no need to create some combined leagues because they already exist. Women's leagues were created because either women compete only with other biological females or they don't compete at all. Women's sports should be off limits to transgender women (biological males).

[@Tser]

I'm a dressage trainer and therapeutic horseback riding instructor, and equestrian sports stand out as not being segregated by sex, even at the elite level. On the other hand, there's one big unfair advantage that determines a person's high level success at these sports, and that's money. There are exceptions, of course, but starting out wealthy is a big indicator of whether you can ascend to the top level. Competitive sports are not fair in many ways, and I love the concept of meaningful competition instead.

[@Stop_Gooning]

I feel like the horse is the one doing all the work, if we're being honest.... lol

[@Doty6String]

Are male horses stronger than female horses? I have no idea

[@mattdale81861]

Can we really call this a sport? You do less work than a race car driver.

[@zackwolf4625]

YES COMRADE!!!❤

[@pjaypender1009]

Money is a huge advantage in every single sport. I'm glad you agree that it's an *unfair* advantage.

[@MedlifeCrisis]

Congrats on taking on a ‘controversial’ topic and conveying the complexity of the science as opposed to taking a ‘stance’ as is often expected from commentators. I note that people on both sides of the conversation have a tendency to over-simplify and reach for easy answers, which sadly are not readily forthcoming. I use the same term to describe athletes btw - freaks! But the physics conference follow-up burn was perfectly on brand 🔥😂

[@thethreeheadedmonkey]

We demand more videos with various poorly attempted accents, Rohin.

[@AiguilleVoodoo]

Both sides tends to over-simplify but it’s pretty obvious that ONE side is doing it on purpose and on repeat to further their hateful agenda, while the other side is simply trying to defend a marginalized group, sometimes in a clumsy manner. The dynamic is such that there is a clear aggressor in this discussion and I find it ironic to reduce this to “both sides are wrong”, because it’s an oversimplification.

[@maverick9708]

@@AiguilleVoodoo sounds like steel man/strawman interpretation based on perspective. One could be just as uncharitable and say "one side is protecting a marginalized group (women) and the other is trying to set progress back by excluding women's achievements and purposefully misrepresenting the facts" Like your statement, it's an incredibly unhelpful summary and not acknowledging that these divisive ways of talking about these issues aren't moving the needle for any dissenters

[@elizabethhenning778]

@@maverick9708 There's plenty of other evidence that the great majority of people screaming loudest about "save women's sports" (1) actually couldn't care less about women's sports and (2) hate any kind of gender nonconformity.

[@TheBenjaminsky]

Nothing brings me more joy than seeing one of my favorite youtubers adding a well thought out comment to a video from another.

[@springbloom5940]

Im a female. I box. I fought a 17 year old boy that I could break over my knee like a dry stick. About all I remember is a yellow flash and the canvas hitting me in the head. He hit like a truck; one of two times in my life Ive been KTFO. Its much more than muscle mass and gross strength. Its about the way your body is put together. Well trained, experienced, fit and 15lb heavier and I couldn't hit as hard as that little noob on my best day

[@rickl5596]

But surely you know that the ability to hit hard is often not a determining factor in boxing competition. Speed, accuracy, stamina, determination, arm length and a host of other things all play large parts.

[@Pyr0Ben]

⁠@@rickl5596The point of a "woman's boxing competition" is to see which WOMAN is the best at boxing. Letting a man compete is an insult to both men, women, and the concept of sports itself

[@ams_19_]

@@rickl5596it is when you’re talking about KO’s.

[@deanniematheson1062]

There was a comedian somewhere that suggested we should have one "normal" person off the street compete as a "control"... just to up the entertainment value.

[@eeeaten]

i saw the suggestion yesterday that the olympics should have a random public draft - that it's just random people who are called up and you just have to do it. i'd watch.

[@timothyandrewnielsen]

That's actually a really good idea.

[@Alkis05]

@@eeeaten You would have a bunch of broken necks in olympic gymnastics.

[@eeeaten]

@@Alkis05 party pooper

[@Alkis05]

@@eeeaten Hey, I didn't object. It would be the olympic version of jackass movies.

[@va3ngc]

"Athletes are biological extremes. Fairness has never been the point of these completions. They are really more like freak shows! Kind of like Physics Conferences." LOL - I love it.

[@GiRR007]

This is a complete misunderstanding of professional sports and athletes. Athletes aren't biological extremes, they are just people that have decided to focus their efforts on improving themselves in their chosen sport like almost anyone can. They aren't special. And fairness has been a VERY important point when it comes to competitive sports where people are playing as a career. Otherwise things like using steroids would be permitted, or really ANY other kind of cheating. To say that "Fairness has never been the point" Is either totally ignorant or willing disingenuous.

[@xynix1549]

​@@GiRR007 athletes aren't biological extremes? how many 5'8" basketball players are you seeing succeed in the NBA? effort is absolutely a major part of the equation, but it's disingenuous to act as though biology has nothing to do with top athletes' success. you need both to succeed.

[@GiRR007]

@@xynix1549 no you need both to be one of the best, you only need 1 to succeed.

[@xynix1549]

@@GiRR007 okay, how many successful 5'8" basketball players are there in the NBA?

[@GiRR007]

@@xynix1549 quite a few, actually theres one guy who was in the NBA at 5,3

[@deirdre108]

In martial arts it is axiomatic that a good, large fighter will defeat a good small fighter. There are exceptions, but this is exactly the reason there are weight classes in these sports-- they create a level of fairness. And I won't get into how the gambling aspect helps drive this system.

[@amorfo9127]

Yeah...trying to blunder the meaning of "fair" it wasn't a solid argument...first time I caught her on a slopy point though, usually solid as rock.

[@arturintete2461]

“create a level of fairness” that doesn’t mean it’s fair. It just means it’s more fair. Not to mention this same logic doesn’t apply to every sport.

[@arturintete2461]

@@amorfo9127 nah, it definitely was completely logical. It’s an undeniable fact that athletic competitions are heavily impacted by your genetic makeup. do you really think splitting competitions between male and female makes it fair? She already listed every variable and difference. feel free to try to argue against it 😂

[@erseshe]

@@arturintete2461 The same logic applies to all sports. It's not fun to watch a 2000 elo play against a 400 elo chess player past the first few rounds. It's not fun to watch the world's most athletic men compete against the world's most athletic women.

[@arturintete2461]

@@erseshe no, it doesn’t. Because not every sport separates people in the same way, lmao.

[@markbrown9765]

In the video you explain that the advantages decrease over time with the administration of hormone therapy. I think this situation is compounded by the fact that, for the most part, sports are a young persons game. Very few athletes stay relevant even in middle age. The average age of medal winning gymnasts at the 2021 Tokyo Olympics was 20.6 years old. Athletes don't have the time to wait for the playing field to level. I also guess, but don't know for certain, that the biological differences between the physical performance of men and women is most pronounced at younger ages, the age demographic where they athletes are competing.

[@EbonyPope]

Still you have body height and bone structure even without going through male puberty. It just isn't fair. Especially in stregnth based sports. She said that it is not so much the case with endurance but even there the difference is not as small as she made it look. It is still significant.

[@XXXX-yc6wv]

Laurel Hubbard is a good example of what you're speaking to. She competed in the Olympics at age 43 and was considered a serious medal contender having ranked 7th in the IWF's women's +87 kg division. The biological women she was competing against were 10 to 20 years younger than her. She had a previous lifting career, then took more than a decade off and did not compete internationally for 16 years. That is an eternity to be out of training for an Olympic level competitor. She had only been training again for 3 years when she was selected for the Olympics. That is a suspiciously small amount of training for that level of competition. The fact that she took so much time off, but at age 43 was an Olympic contender after just 3 years training again demonstrates your point: even though her age has diminished her competitive abilities, as a biological male she continues to lift at the same standard as female competitors who have consistently trained and are in their prime.

[@tarnw3301]

​@@XXXX-yc6wvhe* Can't believe your grandmother gave birth to your mother for you to turn around and reduce womanhood to a costume a man can put on. Get rid of your misogynistic views.

[@localbod]

​@@XXXX-yc6wv "as a biological male she..." That's the problem right there. 🤡🌎

[@hdudidi]

Gymnasts are particularly young, not a great event to choose

[@elijeschke]

I find the story of Tom Dempsey really illustrative here, especially when compared with Michael Phelps. Tom Dempsey was a kicker in American Football who, in 1970, kicked a successful field goal from 63 yards (57.6 meters) out. This record stood for over 40 years, only being beat in 2013 by a single yard. Tom Dempsey also only had half a kicking foot. He was born with no toes on his right foot (and no fingers on his right hand). This mild disability gave him the ability to kick a football straight-on rather than needing to use the side of his foot. The advantages that would give are obvious. He had a custom shoe made to fit his foot, but investigation by ESPN sports science determined that that hadn't given him any more advantage than a normal shoe would a normal kicker. Even so, people were pissed. Noted union-busting piece of shit, Tex Schramm, openly said that he thought there should be an asterisk by Dempsey's record. And in 1977, a rule was made specifically saying that anyone kicking had to wear a normal shoe, no matter how much of a foot they did or didn't have. Tom Dempsey had a unique body that let him do something incredible, and people really didn't like that. Contrast this with Michael Phelps. Michael Phelps is a mutant who was genetically engineered to swim really fucking good. He has a huge torso and short legs (relatively speaking, he is 6'4"), a wingspan longer than he is tall, hyperextended joints that let him move like a mermaid, huge paddle feet, and he even produces half as much lactic acid (the thing that makes your muscles hurt when you work them hard) as his competitors. Michael Phelps and Tom Dempsey both worked incredibly hard and pushed their unique bodies to the peak of athletic ability. But one of them is celebrated, and one of them had the guy who invented the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders and their hotpants say that his record didn't count.

[@yessum15]

This is not random and it makes sense. Phelps is still using his own body whereas Dempsey is relying on specialized external apparatus to enhance his performance. This is like if a boxer lost his arms in an accident and replaced them with metal prosthetics. We would not cheer for him either. Furthermore I should note that Phelps genetic mutation (Marfan Syndrome) is less obvious and well understood by the general public than the idea of having half a foot. So it makes sense that one would generate more ire than the other. They are simply not aware of Phelps' advantage.

[@elijeschke]

@@yessum15 I said in the original post that an investigation determined the shoe hadn't given him any particular advantage. But even so, he still had to have immense leg strength and incredible aim to make that kick. He didn't have a rocket boot attached to his foot. That said, I will grant you Phelps' mutations are significantly less obvious than Dempsey's. But that's honestly kind of my point.

[@yessum15]

@@elijeschke You did say that the investigation determined the shoe gave no advantage. And I ignored that. Just like the people in your story. Want to know why? Because that is likely nonsense and people intuitively know it. People know that the likelihood the man with this rare physical abnormality and specialized equipment also just happens to be the best kicker ever is too big a coincidence. They also know that such a dramatic change to the major variables present having no effect positive or negative on outcomes is basically 0. This is like if every football player kicks a football but I throw a Frisbee and score dramatically different from the rest. It's gonna take more than a scientist simply declaring "the Frisbee made no difference" to convince people. We're going to need a mountain of high quality evidence here. Now consider the problems with getting _any_ evidence at all. Science is a slow process. It operates best when questions are narrowly defined and variables are limited. When sample sizes are large and research is conducted by disinterested neutral parties ashering to strict protocols. The number of variables present here is insane and the physics is very complicated. Having half a foot dramatically changes the muscle to weight ratio between his power generating hips, and the weight of the foot they have to lift. The swing is totally different. And the shape contacting the football is totally different. The traction on that shape is different. His body mechanics as a whole are different. It would take a great deal of money and time to attempt to get a solid scientific answer to these questions. On top of that their sample size is literally n=1 And the "investigation" is probably as far from scientific as one can imagine and is being organized by a non-scientific organization with a vested interest in a particular outcome. This "investigation" probably has about as much scientific credibility as that ridiculous simulated fight between Rocky Marciano & Muhammad Ali. Which is to say it probably has less credibility than the the scripted fights of Rocky Balboa. So given the extremely obvious nature of the deformity, its hugely intuitive likelihood of influencing outcomes, and the dearth of any real evidence to the contrary some skepticism is totally understandable.

[@elijeschke]

@@yessum15 In case of all that, then what would you suggest Dempsey do? Should he not be allowed to play the game because he only has half a foot? Should he be forced to play with no shoe, disadvantaging him compared to every other player? Should he have to have an extra half-foot stuffed into a shoe, and if that's the case, wouldn't that also be a device that could potentially aid him? What's the solution here?

[@yessum15]

@@elijeschke No. Because everything I just described is good reason to _suspect_ an advantage but it is not by any stretch of the imagination proof of an advantage. The best solution is to do what they did. Let him play and let the losers talk trash. I was only pointing out that his detractors' talk wasn't entirely unreasonable. It is understandable why they would feel that way. But that doesn't mean we should act on their feelings.

[@Rheologist]

I don’t think your argument at 10:19 about fairness really follows/makes sense. Especially after showing that the research suggest that trans women maintain a physical advantage over cis women. Even though your point that it’s technically unfair that any given individual has a physical advantage over another is true, I think we still want to avoid letting trans women compete with cis women because in the ultra-competitive world of elite sports trans women with such advantages will likely categorically rise to the top of their ranks and beat their opponents. People want to be aware of and praise the top performing biological females (cis women) for what they can do within that biological category

[@Rheologist]

10:36 I’m pretty sure many people want to know what is the best that someone can perform considering their natural advantages *within the category of biological sex*

[@kennethluedtkejr1903]

I agree with you but here in the posts for this video we seem to be a minority. I believe if a person wants to compete they should be able to. But thing's need to be balanced where they can. The only time I hear the word "fair" in any competition, sports,monopoly etc. is when cheating is suspected. If fair is the bar then a person could only compete against themself. Balanced allows for divisions. But more importantly with rules in place then it's on the person to decide if they will give it a shot. If I enter a row boat race and halfway in they announce we're allowing the use of Motors that's unfair to those that made their decision to compete based on the rules at the time. My question for those that think this happening is ok. So do we allow let's say Olympic athletes who have not won a medal to compete in the Special Olympics? Yes there will always be exceptions. Runners who have lost legs and compete with the help of prosthetics. In some automotive quarter-mile racing we had a Run what you brung. Cars were never even/fair. The choice to still compete knowing the rules was up to you which made it fair. Sorry I should have put this as a post.

[@Hewanliar1]

Yeah, feels like mental gymnastics. I'm so confused when she said this part. We want fair competition so try to make it most fair. Fighting sport usually have weight range which reduce physical advantage.

[@omp199]

@@Rheologist "I’m pretty sure many people want to know what is the best that someone can perform considering their natural advantages *within the category of biological sex"* But why "within the category of biological sex"? Is it just that we are so accustomed to partitioning people by sex that we can no longer imagine not doing it? What if someone wants to know what is the best that someone can perform within the category of having size-9 feet? Or the best that someone can perform within the category of being between 5' and 5' 6" tall? If any attribute affects performance, we can imagine partitioning people based on that attribute. Why single out sex, specifically, rather than any other?

[@chadingram6390]

@@omp199 Because sex is one of the biggest differences. Comparing 5'11" Allen Iverson to 6'10" Kevin Durant is interesting but they also played against each other, neither has played against Diana Taurasi and likely never will because the athletic gap is insane. There's been less than 20 total dunks in WNBA history. There's more difference between the sexes than any other category. There's only a few sports women can even compete with men at the highest level, yet you'll find men of all shapes and sizes throughout professional competitions.

[@tsbrownie]

"... too many opportunities for unethical behavior..." is exactly why pro sports will still exist.

[@baardkopperud]

Perhaps... But the money in pro sports comes from people willing to watch it (and their ads), so if most people turns their back on it because it's just about what rich people/teams bought/developed the most extreme gene modification, the money incentive will be gone. Still people want to be entertained, so perhaps either a shift towards blood/death/gladiator things (humans are humans), or things like driverless motor sport (no driver, so no genetic enhancement - just best motor, sensor, and programming/AI).

[@Lightning_Lance]

@@baardkopperud I think most people would complain but still watch it.

[@TheRealFlenuan]

@@baardkopperud What evidence is there that people would actually do that? Or are you just projecting what you see as an ideal world?

[@danielbergmann7353]

Also sports will always be part of our society because it is part of our human nature in so many ways. And since we love to optimize and earn money (love /need) there will always be the road to professiinalism

[@baardkopperud]

@@TheRealFlenuan I suppose it'll depend on why you follow sports... For the acheivments? Gone! It's about who could afford the best mods. Because you dream it could be you out there, or remembering how you almost made it as a youth? Nope! Anybody good were moded, injected and trained from before birth. Rooting for the underdog? No such thing anymore! Celebrating human acheivment and endurence? No! ...Unless you mean our ability to tamper with genes &c. Sure there are many other reasons to follow sport, but I do think they'd loose many - if not most - viewers.

[@gnuwaves743]

I feel this only ever goes one way. Like how many ftm are being represented in the Olympics?

[@dielizzy-ts2rv]

2024 --> none participated and media tried to bully an athlete that was a cis women, born as a women but looked not that female in the public eyes and was framed by a russian boxing organization that couldn't even name the test they said female athlete failed. In the end the transgender debate will hurt female athletes too, because they don't look like a germany's next topmodel but an athlete of their sports.

[@Spacewith2224]

Several? You don’t hear about them because it doesn’t suit the transphobic narrative

[@smack6030]

One issue not mentioned is bone structure which is a huge factor in why men are more powerful runners than women since their gait is straight versus a woman's gait is more rounded (hip structure allows more circular motion of the leg as it moves). No discussion about VO2 Max, fast twitch fibers, bone density, skeletal structure, and many other factors that contribute to the differences among men and women. A woman's fertility cycle also becomes an issue when she cannot devote an entire month of training. I thought these studies were incredibly simplistic in their view. You cannot limit a study to one or two variables and claim little difference but rather it must be viewed from a holistic approach that takes in all the differences among genders which cumulatively contribute to the differences. Since men lose so little with hormone therapy and they have a distinct advantage in sports in general, the unfairness is limited to the females. A "good" high school male runner can easily beat a world record holding female runner every time. I once compared Florence Joyner's world records for the 100 m and 200 m to high school males and she would not have ranked in the top 400. Those extremes cannot be overcome by simple hormone therapy treatments hence making female athletes unable to compete at these levels. If we are going to dismiss the notion of fairness, then we really don't need women's sports, paraolympics, special olympics, or any other category other than just sports. I am not in favor of the 'games just for the fittest' which would be limited to only male sports. I do believe there is an argument to be made that we must have distinct categories to offer a space for those who can compete at the highest levels just not against their male counterparts.

[@hautedoctor2738]

Well said. I can't believe the arguments put forth by Sabine in this video. The plethora of scientific evidence, decades old, tells us plainly there are significant differences in the kinesiology and performance of females and males. That can not be disproved by a few biased studies on transgender athletes performance that focus on a single metric. But then Sabine, after quoting all of this science, then negates the relevance of any scientific study, because of the "entertainment" factor. Well if a trans athlete competing with women will be more entertaining, why not go for the full show and have men and women compete? There is more to sports than entertainment. Solidarity and support, the witnessing of expertise and performance, receiving inspiration from dedicated people. You can have all the natural advantage in the world, but it's training and dedication that win events.

[@Adam-nw1vy]

What it all boils down to is whether these differences, no matter how large or small, and regardless of whether they are attributable to one or more factors, can be overcome with training and effort. As she mentioned, the average male has no chance of becoming a successful NBA player. If you're 5'8'', no amount of training can overcome this and put you on an equal footing with a 6'6'' player.

[@Adam-nw1vy]

Also, not all of these factors are useful in all sports. As she mentioned, there are certain sports in which women have an advantage over men.

[@Donald6309]

​@@Adam-nw1vyIt matters how large or small the differences are. If they're too vast, no amount of human, non-chemically aided, training could overcome those differences. Which they are, indeed, vast af.

[@Adam-nw1vy]

@@Donald6309 And, like her, I'm saying that the difference between the average person and the typical successful NBA player is too vast, and that no amount of human, non-chemically aided training could overcome this difference. Do you disagree with this?

[@vivianriver6450]

The part at the end about how sports would incentivize unethical behavior brings to mind the Futurama episode where Lela tells fry about the time that steroids became mandatory for all Blernsball players to make the game fair.

[@MisterNiles]

Isn't that essentially the case now? I've heard that in many sports you can't be competitive unless you are taking steroids and other performance enhancing drugs. And none of our current pro sports even have "multi ball mode". As far as I know.

[@fishstyx5028]

the steroids thing is tame compared to genetically modifying babies to maximize athletic output, but we're likely to be dealing with that in all aspects of life if it's not heavily regulated :(

[@Josh1OD]

Lol!

[@adam17tt]

"So maybe the solution is in the end we all just do eSports." I CAN'T

[@petelee2477]

Hey I've seen impressive things in evo

[@KhukuriGod]

Too bad men dominate e-sports as well, and no amount of screaming about "patriarchy" is going to change it that much.

[@69Satan69]

@@KhukuriGod Its a joke calm dowm

[@huyvuminh1048]

@@KhukuriGod yeah but in many fighting games there are woman who consistencely in top 16. Its just that gaming events/ online evironment is generally toxic for woman so I think that I also why woman are less likely to participate in them

[@Gigalisk]

She legit had me waiting for her chuckle. It never came.

[@sanghoonlee5171]

I live in Seoul, Korea, where in 1988 Griffith Joyner set a women's 100-meter dash record of 10.49 seconds that remain unbroken to this day. But that same 10.49 seconds, which no other woman has been able to match for 36 years, would rank Joyner at around 3000th in the world as a male athlete. The athletic gap between men and women, especially when it comes to muscular strength, is quite substantial. World's best female tennis couldn't beat the world's best 300th best male player, etc.

[@EbonyPope]

Sabine picked a one off study. The results are nonsense. We know that even low tesosterone males stil have 5 times (!!!) more testosterone than a high T female. Read LARGE DIVERGENCE IN TESTOSTERONE CONCENTRATIONS BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN: FRAME OF REFERENCE FOR ELITE ATHLETES IN SEX-SPECIFIC COMPETITION IN SPORT, A NARRATIVE REVIEW if you want to know more.

[@andyvirus2300]

It’s not « couldn’t beat », it’s « was utterly crushed » after he has a beer and a smoke.

[@EbonyPope]

@@andyvirus2300 Yeah Karsten Braasch was not the best player. But he absolutely annihilated the Williams sister.

[@koopa5504]

Can't wait to live in Seoul soon

[@CsImre]

And Joyner was doped obviously. She was the female Ben Johnson. Perhaps contributing to her early death (yes I know not according to the official version)

[@landwand]

You had me laughing at, " They're really more like ... freak shows. Kind of like physics conferences."

[@bsanders1]

She recovered from the 'freak show' comment with the 'physics conferences' comparison. I wonder why athletic competitions are more interesting freak shows? Hmm...

[@bcwbcw3741]

It's not fair, at every physics conference I've been to there's someone smarter than me and at every basketball game, many people way taller and somehow they're hardly ever trans. (though not always, that said, my basketball, swimming, and running careers were not derailed by trans people.)

[@LeMotMista]

That line of Sabine's got a spontaneous fist-pump from me! Then I had an urge to check the physics conference photo to she whether she was in it…😜

[@91splamy]

I loved the Meghan trainor “all the right junk in all the right places” line

[@muffinconsumer4431]

@@bcwbcw3741 So what you’re saying is… the true question is why aren’t we segregating physics conferences by sex???

[@rinrin4711]

To be fair, I would love to see professional basketball with different height groups. Not only would that allow for shorter men/women to compete professionally, but it would also be quite refreshing, since different height teams would have to utilize very different techniques.

[@leojanuszewski1019]

I wanna see Lebron James identify as female and go play in the WNBA. 😆

[@smokexsmoke99]

The “transgender women should have their separate sports” argument always strikes me as a rehash of the “separate but equal” doctrine from the segregation era. “White people feel uncomfortable sharing a restaurant with black people! Why do you demand to be let into the white restaurant when there’s a perfectly good black restaurant down the street?”

[@rinrin4711]

@@smokexsmoke99, except here it's not about "comfort", bot fairness.

[@mikesarno7973]

In college, there were under-6' intramural basketball leagues. I enjoyed being able to play against people who did not tower over me.

[@IRex-wm9pd]

Muggsy Bogues disagrees.

[@vids595]

10:18 Sport have been "fair" based on the common understanding of the word "fair". We (humans) have sought to eliminate the most pronounced sources of unfairness (age&sex) by creating alternative leagues or divisions. An inability to achieve perfect fairness (not the goal anyway) is not the basis of an argument to give up on the pursuit of fairness entirely.

[@Hero_Girl]

In terms of biological sex, trans women are closer to cisgender women than they are to cisgender men. If you are truly interested in pursuing fairness, you should know it's unfair to have trans women compete against cisgender men who haven't transformed their bodies and biochemistry in ways that align more with women than men.

[@CS_Mango]

Well said.

[@covid19alpha2variantturboc7]

This video made me realize that this channel is not about science at all but rather about indoctrinating people into leftist ideology

[@raakareiska9804]

Just legalize hormones and put everyone in the same league without exceptions on weight, gender or age. Lets ruin all sport careers for once as we have already started with women

[@SynMonger]

There's no common understanding for fairness, only constant negotiation and renegotiation.

[@trishna_6815]

would have been good to have a look at safety issues in contact sports. international rugby did quite comprehensive research into the safety of those who haven't gone through male puberty, playing with/against those who have, and there was about a 30% increase in injuries, including concussions. given that we are learning more and more about the very serious and long term affects of concussion, it seems extremely irresponsible to allow women who haven't undergone male puberty to be put at increased risk.

[@EbonyPope]

Sabine picked a one off study. The results are nonsense. We know that even low tesosterone males stil have 5 times (!!!) more testosterone than a high T female. Read LARGE DIVERGENCE IN TESTOSTERONE CONCENTRATIONS BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN: FRAME OF REFERENCE FOR ELITE ATHLETES IN SEX-SPECIFIC COMPETITION IN SPORT, A NARRATIVE REVIEW if you want to know more. Yes! Women are way more injury prone. There are also studies looing at the injury rate in the British Navy I think. It was even hihger than your numbers. Women have crazy high injury rates in these fields.

[@thealrightygina5725]

Don't you mean men who haven't gone through male puberty?

[@trishna_6815]

@@thealrightygina5725 i actually mean people (cis women and girls, some transwomen and girls, and prebuscent boys) who haven't gone through male puberty are at risk playing with people (cismen, some transwomen) who have gone through male puberty. its not that hard to use clear language and also not be an a-hole.

[@ZeketheZealot]

@@thealrightygina5725 They should, but i think they’re hiding bigotry behind concern trolling

[@thealrightygina5725]

@@trishna_6815 Oh, so you mean that you believe both that transmen shouldn't be allowed to play contact sports with cismen and that transwomen shouldn't be allowed to play contact sports with ciswomen because there's a purported 30% increase in injuries amongst transmen and ciswomen in such groupings? The way you put it didn't make a lot of sense to me but I think perhaps I've got it now.

[@prenssen]

Science as it should be. Not just throwing numbers and studies at the viewer, but actually understanding the method used, number of subjects tested and context of the study to weight the real compatibility of the resulta with the whole population. Keep up with the great content!

[@weakamna]

as well as contextualizing the dry facts into the real world with societal nuances!

[@plagueisthewise2580]

Really, this is the most neutral yet extremely informative piece of video essay material on a touchy societal/social subject I've seen

[@seth7745]

That being said, the numbers in these studies are quite small. Too small by most standards (11-12). Also, who funded the studies? Unfortunately, science is rarely unbiassed as there is always an incentive to satisfy the stakeholders (funders) with results they want or expect. After all, The tobacco industry funded peer reviewed studies that determined cigarettes are good for you and Coca-Cola funded peer reviewed studies that concluded that sugary beverages have no adverse health effects.

[@lananiella]

I am trans myself and heartily support the LGBTQ community, but prior to viewing this wonderful thoughtful educational video, I was also of the opinion that this was an unfair practice. Bless you for your no-nonsense fact based analysis that presented all sides without bias or sensationalism. Knowledge is power. I just wish more people sought after wisdom and acquiring knowledge rather than having knee-jerk reactions by listening to social media disinformation, their feelings or unquestioningly following the crowd. What a wonderful world it would be.

[@gwen9939]

@@seth7745 Not all studies follow american practices that can lobby and pay off results to their liking. There is an international scientific community where this kind of practice simply doesn't work. We also have far more transparency with the scientific community today, so while your extremely common knowledge examples from over 50 years ago are examples of one kind of practice that does not mean that practice is a universal concern in an internet age where peer reviews, conflicts of interest, money trails, credibility of scholars, universities and institutions, are under constant scrutiny from anyone with an internet connection. "That being said", studies on top trans athletes in particular might be quite small, studies on the effects hormones have on muscle atrophy and or muscle increase, on the performance of top athletes with invisible intersex conditions, on the sexually dymorphic traits that influence competitive advantages, how prominent they are, and to what extent trans people carry them, are better documented, at least to a point where we can have a much more informed opinion on the issue even if we don't reach a definitive consensus. And keep in mind, the tobacco industry and Coca-Cola directly benefitted from these studies being published which is why the studies are directly related to what they are selling. Who exactly would benefit financially from trans people being allowed to compete in sports? I gotta be honest, I've yet to hear a person bring up "big money" being involved in regards to trans people being treated fairly and equally in society that didn't end in "the jewish question".

[@Alloran]

"They're freak shows. Kind of like physics conferences" that is pretty much spot on. There's no better argument for Borg infiltration than attending a large conference.

[@trumanburbank6899]

Ya, that was hilarious.

This statement was hands down the best! 😆😆

[@watcher8582]

What do you mean, why would the Borg help?

[@LordTelperion]

@@watcher8582 I think he means "take me now, make it stop", lol.

[@metatechnologist]

Really though, aren't conferences actually dating forums for scientists now??

[@elio7610]

"This is why I suspect a century from now, professional athletics will not exist anymore. It creates too many incentives for unethical behaviour." I agree that competitive athletics create incentives for unethical behaviour but that hasn't stopped anyone yet.

[@noxiousophidian9634]

And it breed animosity within children and promotes troubling dynamics of power (e.g. bullies get a platform)

[@rolisreefranch]

It won’t exist because people won’t exist

[@ivarbrouwer197]

Yeah, I find that prediction somewhat unlikely, what will happen though is that records will be reset as they cannot be compared to older ones.

[@charlesfowler4308]

@@noxiousophidian9634 I don't think anyone is talking about the end of sports in general especially not for kids.

[@richdobbs6595]

The existence of many incentives for unethical behavior hasn't done that much to get rid of politicians or elite universities.

[@ganglestank]

Sex is not “assigned at birth”. It is OBSERVED at birth. Even by the progressive definitions, it would be gender that is assigned at birth, not sex.

[@ethervagabond]

You think that pro sports will disappear due to high incentives for unethical behavior? I admire your optimism. Personally, I think we're much more likely to increase unethical behavior than get rid of sports.

[@oscarstaszky1960]

perhaps it all boils down to people just wanting to enjoy the thrill of overcoming or outcompeting each other without any care for the methods or ethics involved therein...

[@BooksAndShitButNotLiterally]

Being trans is unethical?

[@JustinShaedo]

The definition is professional is to get paid for the activity. The idea is that the money gets removed from the equation. But yes, agreed, I can't see prof sports going away in the foreseeable future.

[@user-bl2vr9jj2z]

@@BooksAndShitButNotLiterally did u even watch the video…?

[@BooksAndShitButNotLiterally]

@@user-bl2vr9jj2z Some of it.

[@ACGG4891]

Thank you for offering such a fair and unbiased look at the issue. As a transperson I cannot tell you how sick I am of everything trans-related being political or pushed with an agenda one way or the other. Please keep making great content, bringing facts, and offering many angles; It is refreshing.

[@harpwolfe3471]

I know what you mean. It's also really condescending to be told to not talk about politics as much or to watch less news as a trans person when everyone is out here making our very existence political -_- Edit: Not trying to make, /are/ making *

[@michaelturner7641]

it's really not an issue either You're a man or you're a woman It's pretty simple

[@thewiirocks]

I think we’re all sick of the politics. I personally feel like we could have had a reasonable discussion about this as a society, taking into account the challenges of natural advantage balanced against the feeling of the individuals. There’s probably no perfect solution, but we could keep trying to make it better with time. Instead, it has been politicized with one side saying you must accept it without question and the other side predictably reacting to try and prevent all of it under concerns like unfair advantage. Both sides are ignoring the science, resulting is a lot of improper transitions (causing serious harm in society) while further stigmatizing those with actual physiological needs from the other end. It really is the extremes that are killing us.

[@juiceoverflow]

@@michaelturner7641 pretty sure you mean people have either male or female genitals but can express themselves externally in a large amount of ways that don't conform to your backwards worldviews

[@Hero_Girl]

@@michaelturner7641 It's actually not that simple unfortunately. Some people don't identify as male OR female. They're known as "Non-Binary" and might prefer an "X" gender marker on their ID. They don't generally look like boys or girls, but something in between. They feel uncomfortable using men's AND women's restrooms, and probably wouldn't feel comfortable competing on Men's OR Women's sports teams. They're the only reason we need a third bathroom or a third sports league; for the nonbinary individuals who don't want to be viewed as male or female. 🙃

[@cato451]

“They’re really more like freak shows, kind of like physics conferences.” Lol!!!! Great presentation.

[@jamesdriscoll_tmp1515]

I lol

[@souplife1]

11:16 context for those curious like me, she's talking about how professional athletes already represent the best of the best and can't be considered representative of the rest of the population.

[@chriskennedy2846]

That's right. And if in reality I was a Chemical Engineer, Structural Engineer or some other scientist who actually worked for a living, but insisted on admission into the Physics conference because I "identified" as a Physicist, then I could increase my chances of consideration if I took enough cognitive suppressing drugs that allowed me to share in the wonderful joy of string theory, supersymmetry and all of the other topics presented at the average conference.

[@andrewharrison8436]

I knew someone would get this comment in before me - Sabine excelling herself (again).

[@LongcatRevolution]

"Woah woah woah, you used to say you were a Chemical Engineer but through years of hard work and persistence in study, you now have a paper certifying from the experts of your higher learning institution that you have a degree in physics and you want to be let in and treated like a Physicist since accredited experts say you are one? Nice try, Chemical Engineer. Maybe in another life" - physics conference people *and _certain other folks_

[@auntiegravity7713]

Another sport where females tend to do as well as, and even better than males at times, is rock climbing. I'm just adding this to the pot.. I love how someone actually addressed the complexity of what is "fair" in sports, and what is meaningful. For the record I was a downhill mountain bike racer (I was much better at working with gravity than against it) I was also 35 when I started. This sport belongs to 19 year old males and I don't care.. I'm a HUGE fan of these wonderful freaks... my god they are fast and fearless. I love that. I was proud to be a part of this sport and showing women, even older women, that it's do-able. I've even seen older male cancer survivors enter races and I love this too. There is a bond between all of us. Age is definitely a huge factor. There were no age classes in women's DH mountain biking. I was competing with women half my age who lived in the resorts I was racing at. (They also had a training advantage) There was a controversy as well, with the first trans woman competing with the women in this sport. I wasn't at the pro level, so I had no problem with it. In fact, she was cheering all of us women in sport class at the end of the course, This was something I'll always remember. If I were at the pro level, I don't know what I would think, to be honest. One problem I have is when those with any kind of advantage stick around in beginner, sport, or expert classes when they should be competing in the sport, expert, or pro levels. (sandbagging) It's also true that some advantages may be because of funding.. I was lucky to be sponsored and had a great bike and mechanics in my corner. Sometimes it's about funding and access to resources...and now we can talk about Formula One and Nascar racing.. (Danica) and get into an entirely new discussion. Most of all, as a former competitive athlete, there has to be some meaning and entertainment value. For me, I was happy to just be on the race circuit. I was more of an ambassador to the sport. The primary entertainment value belongs to males in their late teens and early 20's. And I'm there for that. At the same time, this sport taught me so much and is accessible to women and older athletes as well. We all hung out together. I'll never forget that. Sponsorships can also happen for more reasons that being biologically exceptional. I was obviously not sponsored because of my great speed or technical abilities, but to be an ambassador for the sport. The point: It's complicated. LOVE this video. Thank you, Sabine!!

[@Trikipum]

they do well yes, they dont do better than males.. all the ones doing the craziest and hardest tracks are always men...

[@randykayser4145]

I was initially worried about how this video would shake out, but it was remarkably clear headed and dignified to all! I should have known that ultimately Sabine would end by completely dunking on professional athleticism entirely.

[@jcon2060]

What? You're not even qualified to understand the pubs yet you're confident in your understanding of the validity of the peer review??

[@mahmutcankaya3321]

​@@kathleenpearson-dh9od Those are entirely different moral questions. We are here to talk about the science, at least Sabrına is. What you are doing is shaming another person for not entertaining a personel belief on a science video, which I think is indefensable. I would be happy to discuss why the beliefs you hold are bigoted however. I am not a scientist (though I am a med student) so discussing morality is more in my wheelhouse.

[@jogennotsuki]

@@kathleenpearson-dh9od Kathleen - take a fucking chill pill.

[@PedricCuf]

Yes. I had to laugh that the final conclusion was that sports are dumb and incentivize poor ethical behavior. Such a nerd argument. I loved it.

[@rainrunner2233]

@@yttrxstein4192 that’s usually how it is. Lots of new stuff are happening, so it’s to early to tell, and there might be things that might occur in the future that might take what we already know, and flip it on its head. Mainly due to reality being extremely complicated.

[@mobatyoutube]

@Sabine, in the video, you presented percentage statistics for the effects of hormone therapy on trans men and trans women. But percentage increase vs. decreases aren't directly comparable. A 1% increase in body mass does not always correspond to the same amount of mass as a 1% decrease. The former can be smaller than the latter when starting from different body masses. This is important in comparing the statistics about the effects of hormone therapy on trans women and trans men. If the body changes happen after puberty, the trans women's changes are likely measured from a larger body mass than for the trans men. So a 1% decrease in body mass for trans women can on average be a larger amount of mass than a 1% increase in body mass for trans men. In comparisons between countries with different population sizes, this kind of problem is handled by quoting changes per some fixed amount of people (e.g. percent per 100,000 of population). Might a similar comparison help somewhat here (e.g. percent per kilogram of body weight)? It may not change which of trans women and trans men experience the larger change, but it will make the gap appear smaller.

[@gerry4b]

MANSPLAINING!

[@dsrtsnw]

@@gerry4b shut up

[@dnyalslg]

Good point!

[@katokianimation]

@@gerry4b you are not funny

[@exandra.]

@@gerry4b a - this joke died half a decade ago b - this isn't "mansplaining" at all, by the terms definition

[@bsrfuchs55]

and let's not forget that those competitions mean something to those who put a lot of effort into training to compete! it is not only about winning a trophy but also money and opportunities afterwards.

[@yucol5661]

I mean, most won’t get any money and opportunities afterwards. Thinking about profesional sports as a competition for money is flawed because most will make extreme sacrifices and still don’t make money. The effort and years of training and dedication do mean something to the athletes. But it’s not as if sports being unfair and taking away money that could have been theirs is their main risk.

[@amandamcgovern5744]

@@yucol5661 nobody said it was the “main risk” Simply another cost for women from men participating in their sports.. despite their leagues being separated BY sex. It’s just so ridiculous…

[@ZawieHa]

Arguments of some people that sport in general is unfair because for example some women are taller than others, therefore, they have advantage in playing basketball makes no sense. It's only natural and normal that within a sex category (male or female) obviously the people with the best physical attributes for a given sport will participate in it. Tall women will play basketball etc, short women might go into figure ice skating etc.The issue comes when we have a group of the best female athletes, both when it comes to a talent and innate physical attributes necessary to perform best in a given discipline, so we cannot actually find anyone better in the female category, and then comes someone whose only talent was being born male. All female basketball players will be tall and female, but one can be as tall and male. And this is what makes it unfair.

[@theshadowsroses]

"All female basketball players will be tall and female, but one can be as tall and male" and what does it matter? In that case "male" means you have another power, being genetically stronger what is an advantage just like "a tall woman". So the Person would have simply two advantages, being a Woman that is tall and genetically stronger. It is not the Gender that is the problem, it is the genetically advantage the Transwoman has then. But that doesn't make her less of a Woman. Just a double strong Woman. Therefore Sports should be devided by abilities and advantages, that take the biological sex obviously in account. But the Biological Sex has not to do with what Gender the Person is. It just shouldn't be called Women Sports or Men Sports, if it excludes Transpeople. They should just say Sports or use Terms that refer to the Genetically Advantages and Abilities. But thats "difficult" and "complicated" so people rather refer to it as Women and Men Sports, even if it excludes Men or Women with different Biological Advantages. There are alot of Ciswomen that are Tall and just as strong as a man, that have the two advantages then. But then it would be fine? As already said, Sports should be seperated by abilities, not gender.

[@tradfluteman]

I'm increasingly skeptical that science actually has much to say on this. It's a democratic, collective issue, not a facts-and-logic issue. All this discussion of HRT is a red herring. The point of female athletes is for women to have relatable individuals to look up to in the domain of sports and physical achievement. The same for male athletes. The majority of the female population is cis. It's only fair that they get a category that fits their general experience. Ideally there's simply a category for everyone. Who cares which is most prominent... the Special Olympics can be incredibly meaningful for the athletes who compete in it. And objectively it is just as "hard" as the regular Olympics, if not harder. Similarly for the hypothetical Trans Olympics.

[@tradfluteman]

We don't allow employers to join unions because we recognize it is not in the collective interests of the majority of the workers. But employers *are* employees, they work for the company too. And there are pro-labor employers out there, who identity with workers and would likely not negatively impact the union. There's no perfect dividing line. Yet unions generally don't open membership to employers. There's just bits of inflexibility in the world that you have to accept, because none of these institutions are perfect, and none by themselves safeguard the general welfare.

[@ZawieHa]

@@theshadowsroses Well, you can say that transwoman's gender is "woman", but her sex is still male. The division in sports has never been based on gender (self-identification) but on sex (physicality) because that's what matters in sports performance. I find it "fascinating" that although "gender community" has always been saying that sex and gender are two different things, now they seem to conflate the two when it benefits them.

[@tarnw3301]

​@@ZawieHahis sex is still men. It's pretty offensive towards women that just because a man says so, he is suddenly seen as a woman. It's denigrating and humiliating against real women. And the women that support this misogyny are just women too eager to humiliate middle class workers by forcing us to accept men in the same bathrooms our daughters are.

[@barfyman-362]

Sabine, it is possible that the low testosterone scores for elite male athletes was a result of them coming off of their steroid cycle. These kind of scores are often seen in athletes who are known to use steroids, Jon Jones is a good example. It is very unlikely that a man with levels of testosterone comparable to elite female athletes would be able to compete at an elite level with men… unless of course he’s just coming off a steroid cycle

[@originalsinquirls1205]

... i'm not sure she actually critically examines every study she shows. actually i'm rpetty sure she doesn't.

[@sandrawiersma2512]

Just read the discussion of the paper. These levels were measured after an event, and extreme stress can deplete your testosterone levels apparently. Often this is recovered after a good night's sleep. This study was a spin-off from a study on the effects of doping, so roids have definitely been checked for :) The interesting part of this paper isn't necessarily about testosterone, but differences in lean body mass. They even conclude that using serum testosterone as a means to exclude certain women from competition is untenable, and that LBM is likely a much more important marker.

[@walkingwith_dinosaurs]

Yeah that was weird

[@ivoryas1696]

@@sandrawiersma2512 Good on you, dude-ette!

[@bz2376]

@@sandrawiersma2512doping still takes place at extraordinarily high levels at the olympics and not usually in very specific and borderline undetectable way, very hard thing to control for even in a study of this magnitude

[@leobat7007]

11:35 That's just wrong. We did not segregate sports by sex because otherwise they'd be too predictable. A non-segregated sport would be no more predicable than a male sport, since women would simply fail to qualify. And we know this, because many "male" leagues are in fact "open". We segregated sports because we wanted women to practice them, and this requires that they have a change of winning. Not winning the Olympics necessarily, just winning at some level. And allowing transwomen to compete against women does defeat this goal. It's like allowing non disabled people in the Paralympics.

[@lomiification]

Huh? You're still see women compete when you see trans women compete. The goal is still met

[@leobat7007]

@@lomiification Transwomen are men. But even if they were women it would be irrelevant, because the goal is to protect a physically disadvantaged group, hence the criterion has to be physical not psychological.

[@tinkergnomad]

I like the idea of "meaningful competition." We don't have to account for every variable either. Boxing has weight classes. Why not apply similar classes to sports based on advantages? Yes, it would be imperfect, but most things are until we observe and adapt.

[@katherineberger6329]

I find it funny how the "fairness" goons are trying to force women's sports that include trans women to exclude them. The fairness goons FUCKING HATE flat-track roller derby because we've told them in no uncertain terms to get bent.

[@soren3569]

It's not just a matter of 'imperfect'; it's a matter of 'does it work at all'. For instance, the same blow landed on a woman will be much more likely to cause injury than on a male, due to bone strength and size (the latter applying even in cases of similar height-weight, curiously enough). So a woman competing against a man in a boxing match will be much more likely to suffer a broken bone or other serious injury than her opponent, EVEN IF they fall into the same weight class. That is neither fair nor meaningful competition.

[@OutsiderLabs]

We already divide them into classes for fairness - those classes are called male and female

[@katherineberger6329]

@@OutsiderLabs And you actively try to destroy anyone and anything who steps outside those classes because those classes aren't about fairness.

[@ryanh7167]

​@@katherineberger6329 'actively trying to destroy'? What on earth are you talking about? People pointing at the scientific literature and demonstrating that temporary HRT exposure doesn't magically erase the significant physical differences between male and female competitors are not trying to "destroy" people who don't fit neatly into "male" and "female." There is a complicated ethical discussion to be had about intersex people who have advantages within female sex segregated sports (with the most significant being XY chromosomal people with partial/complete androgen insensitivity and as a result naturally present as female). That conversation has nothing to do with the fairness of allowing natal males to compete against natal females under the (empirically verified to be false) presumption that undergoing hormone therapy to aesthetically appear more female makes one physically equivalent to a natal female competitor in sports performance.

[@entangledmindcells9359]

Simple questions.. Why are there women sports to began with? Why is it considered "cheating" for women to take steroids?

[@Tesla_Death_Ray]

Because otherwise, athletics would simply be closed to women.

[@lucfitt]

It starts at the local town level with casual play. If there are large groups which have a high difference in aptitude it makes sense to play separately (sex, weight etc.). Competitions arise from this separated casual play. In the case of sex separation we overdo it sometimes out of habit (darts, pool etc.) but the sensible origin is clear.

[@EbonyPope]

Sabine picked a one off study. The results are nonsense. We know that even low tesosterone males stil have 5 times (!!!) more testosterone than a high T female. Read LARGE DIVERGENCE IN TESTOSTERONE CONCENTRATIONS BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN: FRAME OF REFERENCE FOR ELITE ATHLETES IN SEX-SPECIFIC COMPETITION IN SPORT, A NARRATIVE REVIEW if you want to know more.

[@hllytmh]

Completely playing devils advocate here but following the logic of some, so what if sport becomes completely closed to women? There’s natural variation within the population that gives advantages to some. Obese and elderly people have a disadvantage too. Unless every possible disadvantage is catered for with a separate category, why should women get one?

[@Tesla_Death_Ray]

@@hllytmh those are examples of fitness issues. It's fine to discriminate on that basis since it's the main part of athletics.

[@megan_alnico]

"Sports have never been fair" It's a fantastic way to put it. Just look at the birth months of professional baseball players. August 18.6 26.6% September 17.8 21.1% October 15.9 8.2% Why would this be? What does their birth month have to do with ability? These kids were as old as possible when they start school. In fact in many states if haven't turned five by a certain date you don't have to start school that year. This means children will be larger and have an advantage in sports for their age. This is an example of the Matthew effect where people with an advantage gain more advantages over time. The month that you were born in contributes overwhelmingly to the possibility of you being a professional athlete. That's definitely not fair.

[@raptoress6131]

No it's not, the only reason women's sports exist is to let women compete against other women without men. Excluding males from competing is the entire reason women's sports exist. It's a terrible argument.

[@AiguilleVoodoo]

I learned this fact a few months ago and was so surprised. It perfectly shows how unfair sport is. People really underestimate the effect luck have on an outcome. So many people like to believe it’s all a 100% hard work.

[@juimymary9951]

Uhm...you do know that correlation doesn't imply causation, right?

[@megan_alnico]

@@juimymary9951 Absolutely, but everything we're talking about today is statistical. Taller basketball players are statistically more successful in basketball, but that doesn't erase the fact that Muggsy Bogues was successful and was only 5'3.

[@megan_alnico]

@@AiguilleVoodoo We all like to think that we deserve what we have because we work hard, and while working hard does contribute, there is so much luck in everything we do. Being born into a country where you can get an education, being born to a family that can afford to feed you good food, pay for college and on and on. It's uncomfortable fact that working hard is only one factor in being successful in anything.

[@krdmd7795]

When I first read the title, I thought to myself “oh no, is she really gonna go there?!” I’m sure glad you did! I’ve never seen this topic tackled in such an objective and multidimensional manner and I commend you for doing so.

[@althepalno1164]

Me too! Another really good video.

[@thequantumnexus4270]

I agree. It's a "hot topic," but a valid question to ask and discuss. And science should be able to ask the uncomfortable of questions and look at them in an objective way. Although it may be a hallmark of transphobia, I believe it isn't transphobic to discuss how trans people in sports should work, or in prisons. And this was a good discussion of those issues, without being bogged down with feelings.

[@AndreAngelantoni]

Obliterating the gender divide after decades of hard work giving women a fair way to play is objective?

[@beatenplastic]

I was also worried! But I thought this was very well done

[@allisongross2946]

I feel like this creator is interested in a purely rationalistic approach. Such an approach seems to support the basic tenets of trans rights.

[@Author-dad-veteran]

I used to compete internationally at orienteering. It’s an interesting Sport in that all competitors can compete at self assigned levels, males and females, young and old, able bodied and those with disabilities, or those outside these groups. Awards were given for fastest time, as well as by gender, age and category. If you won in lower levels you moved up, regardless of body make-up. Seems like a very fair way of doing things.

[@curtisnixon5313]

Right on Luke. That's the way forward in sport without alienating any competitors.

[@jaewok5G]

presumably, making out of the forest alive is 'winning,' but how many categories will be enough? how many gender categories were there?

[@lordgarion514]

That sport is basically irrelevant to physical ability, unless you're really messed up. Orienteering is more mental than physical. You might be able to run 4 minute miles, but if you suck at reading maps, you're probably not going to do all that well. The same way physical ability doesn't matter much in chess. I don't think anyone would really care who was what in chess. Nor would they in orienteering. But physical sports are a whole nother ballgame, so to speak. A 140 pound female would get near killed on a NFL field full of men....

[@neuuser7071]

@@curtisnixon5313 women’s sports won’t exist. The top 1,000 male runners are faster than the fastest woman.

[@jonasjorgensen8759]

The reason we seperate sports by sex is so females can win something

[@HoJackson2011]

sense of fairness is important to competition. for certain contact sports such as wrestling, boxing or karate, weight is used to level the playing field. a 50kg player will be disadvantaged against someone who is 100kg.

[@lucforand8527]

Its interesting to note that the paralympics do classify people by giving them a handicap; thus enabling many people with varying levels of the same type of handicap to compete against one another. Of course this doesn't remove all differences, but does allow for a certain level of reasonable competition. In the end this is all that can be done; like the way we separate competitors with respect to age. Today we even have senior competitions. Should we provide every person in the world with a handicap evaluation such that someone who is half-blind can complete on the same level as someone who has perfect vision in archery? I'm sure there isn't a perfect answer to this question; as the answer will depend on the objective of competition. Is it to amuse the spectators, it is to make money for the performers, or profit to the business people? Good luck solving that riddle!!

[@grejen711]

Perhaps what should then be included in professional sports is an active 'handicapping' negotiation segment where teams or individuals are handicapped based on pre-event negotiations by the managers or coaches. Like in hot rod street racing! Michael Phelps, no one will race you unless you give them x seconds head start!

[@formulaic78]

This is a crazy utopian idea that will, if implemented, destroy elite sports for spectators and thus lead to their complete collapse. We watch sports to see the amazing feats the very best athletes can pull off. Seeing Bolt win by 0.5 seconds in a ten second race makes more people want to watch, not less. Seeing a man who identifies as a woman beat people by that distance in a women's race, would have those who aren't utopian fantasists throwing their remote control through the TV and not replacing it.

[@kaing5074]

Paralympics is rife with cheating

[@therongjr]

I thought the random Meghan Trainor lyric would be the highlight of this video, but then there came: "Athletes are biological extremes. Fairness has never been the point of these competitions. They're really more like freak shows. Kind of like physics conferences, basically." 😆

[@dansfrance188]

This quote is so degrading to people who put in hard work and determination. And also degrades the people who lose... As though winning is the only reason we have sports. A tall lazy man always loses to a short hardworking one. The people who think trans people can compete don't even watch sports.

[@vladimirrodionov5391]

@@dansfrance188 There are no lazy tall athletes at elite level. They are competing with other motivated abnormally tall athletes. The short person has no place there no matter how hard he/she trains.

[@66Kusmu]

@@dansfrance188 a lazy female trans athlete also loses to the hardworking female cis athlete

[@notaskaven964]

​@@dansfrance188 why do you think trans people can't compete? Does the transgender particle stop them from being able to pick up a ball or something?

[@abelgonzales3695]

@@66Kusmu Us women’s Olympic soccer champions lost to 15 and under boys. Same with the Australian women’s Olympic soccer team. They lost to 14 year old boys. Trans men have an unfair advantage on women when it comes to physical sports. That’s why you don’t have any examples of transitioned women to men in male sports.

[@Dadumples]

I really appreciate the sources in the comments. So many popular and trusted channels provide no sources which I think is messed up. Its a huge relief to be able to watch your videos and not have to worry about being lied to.

[@raykings5244]

I get that about other topics but if you need sources to know women get crushed by trans women idk what is going on up there.

[@hollisticc]

@@raykings5244 that's because that doesn't happen. Hard to find sources about something that doesn't happen. That's like trying to find sources about the dimensions of Santa's house in the North Pole.

[@darkness4839]

I will never trust anything without a source, so I love this channel.

[@Majorfuckinghero]

@@hollisticc But it does happen, and it will happen more and more.

[@cottoncandycloudsart]

@@hollisticc wdym it doesn't happen?

[@terrytracy9806]

Excellent breakdown. Your analysis exposes the challenges here and the need for divisions in sports without going overboard. There are obvious differences, amateur vs pro, high school vs college, women vs men, weight classes in boxing and wrestling. Differences that are undeniable but within those divisions you are free to excel. I started racquetball league in "C" class, but after winning the league I had to move up to "B" league and then "A" were I was outclassed by about half my competition. Was this due to an unnatural advantage they had? No, they worked harder than me. Should I have been allowed to stay in "C" class where I had no competition and no one else had a chance to win? Why should someone who has worked hard, a lot of them most of their lives, to excel within their division be forced to compete with those that obviously don't belong in that class that?

[@mr.pavone9719]

11:24 regarding the entertainment value of sports; It's more interesting to watch a sporting event where the contestants are closely matched but have slight variations in abilities than watching one team curb-stomp the other. That is, of course, unless the one doing the stomping is the one that is considered the underdog.

[@jamonnaranjo]

That's not true, Usain Bolt stomped his competition for over a decade and was really fun ti watch

[@joelwexler]

Or any team against the Dallas Cowboys.

[@Docmajor16]

@@jamonnaranjo Now replace all his opponents with the fastest women.

[@cjohnson3836]

If its the Pats or Colby Covington getting stomped, I'm here for it any day.

[@annehaight9963]

I think this is going to be the ultimate relevant factor in sports competitions. Does anyone really want to watch a trans man destroy a bunch of cis women in any kind of competition? Is that interesting? Exciting? It would be boring as hell, and honestly would make me pretty mad. I don't see how any trans man can possibly think he is earning that win. If I joined a kid's competition and wiped the floor with them, have I earned it? It's not a fair competition. Everyone knows it isn't. The trans man especially should know that it isn't. No one is going to pay to watch events like that.

[@mustafaemrebasaran7701]

Very informative and well-articulated. I especially appreciate the brief coverage of intersex conditions at the start, the philosophical exploration of "fairness" in sporting events at the end, and the humourous bits interspersed throughout. Thank you for making this.

[@mcmxxi1172]

But it isn’t though it’s the same exact thing every other person says “yes it’s not fair but sometimes life isn’t fair” ignoring the difference between controllable and uncontrollable advantage

[@deuscoromat742]

It was a low quality compared to what she normally produces. Her conclusion is literally a Nirvana fallacy lol. Her analysis is also lacking a lot of relevant physiological differences between males and females yet she only focuses on males who have undergone "transition" of which the data pool is extraordinarily small while we already know for a fact that muscle insertions, distribution, and bone density stay the same. She, like so many others, is afraid of having her career assassinated by political zealots.

[@mcmxxi1172]

@@deuscoromat742 EXACTLY !!!!!!

[@thomascuriel7611]

@Deus Coromat if she would care to be canceled, she doesn't criticize hardly string theory.

[@ronaldhunt7617]

Intersex people are so rare you may as well say they are statistically zero. The issue is not people being born with female and male parts, it is people who feel they do not have the right parts.

[@jim23mac]

The fact that sport, like life, is not exactly fair, is not an argument for making it less fair. If it was then we would remove all categories: sex, age, disability etc. but nobody is arguing for that, so I don't see why anybody can make a special case for sex.

[@dkolendo]

disabled athletes CAN compete… its just that due to (depending on disability) they may not qualify. same with age, you can be 60 and try to qualify all you want, your just probably wont make the cut. the trans in sports argument outright bans those competitors, preventing them from even qualifying.

[@jim23mac]

@@dkolendo they are not banned from competing - they can compete in the open (male) category

[@dkolendo]

@@jim23mac right, but the entire point of this argument is that women are banned from female categories, in case you missed it

[@jim23mac]

@@dkolendo only if they take drugs or bring the sport into disrepute

[@reginaldforthright805]

@@dkolendo not women though, are they dominik

[@teamrocket5704]

i am OUTRAGED and OFFENDED that you think my Boston Red Sox will cease to exist in 100 years

[@kevinbarnard355]

I'm reminded of an analysis of world speed records. I believe the conclusion wasn't just that some athletes born since the 1900s are longer limbed and faster, but also that they have much better technology to assist their training and performance. The improvements in running footwear, performance monitoring, nutrition/hydration improvements, training and much more all play a part. It's not entirely accurate to say that the worlds' athletes are better/taller/faster now than 100 years ago, but that they are better trained, have better gear, and have been socially/financially selected for specific characteristics that push them into those fields as well as possibly being born with more/different advantages than their predecessors. Is it "fair" that some nations are willing to spend more to select and enhance their athletes for certain events/sports than other nations can? That's an advantage that could be controlled for, yet we don't. They certainly have better outcomes most of the time. Look at China/Russia with gymnasts. You see nations recruiting people from around the world to compete in their sports, when those people could be representing their nations of birth if that country had similar resources to train/promote their athletes. Not unlike politicians who can spend/fund raise unlimited money vs those nations where campaigns are limited in from where and how much money they can spend, it makes a huge difference in the outcomes and representation of the general population.

[@erseshe]

Explain to me how that justifies men joining women's leagues. If sport's unfair so who cares anyways, then just get rid of women's leagues and disability leagues entirely, no?

[@PeteQuad]

Yes this sounds to me like a good reason to get rid of women's sports altogether. It's going to be unfair anyway so why do we need it?

[@alberteinstein8862]

yeah no this argument sounds dumb

[@deuscoromat742]

Ladies and gentlemen this is a Nirvana fallacy. "Because we can't filter all the contaminants out of the water we shouldn't filter any" ps. If your ideology is blatantly embracing a fallacy as its Flagship argument you should probably reevaluate Your alliance.

[@deuscoromat742]

@@alberteinstein8862 Your instincts are correct.

[@sleekbrain8575]

Hi Sabine Appreciate the video and quite informative. I must say though, I'm a bit lost with the conclusion, or it has gone over my head, but it appears you are arguing that segregating sports by sex is not benefical, "because athletes have so many differences (usain bolt legs, etc) that sex alone is insufficient"... however it occurs to me that if we removed sex as a category, or removed all categories, and women and men competed together, does that not mean we will never see women tennis players competing in finals? women soccer teams competing at high levels? women boxing, women any physical sport pretty much, because men will simply dominate in every field? I saw a website which compared 16year old school boy athletes against Olympic level adult women and by direct comparison the school boys would have gotten gold/silver/bronze in almost all categories when compared against adult women? So essentially, my question is, by removing categories as suggested, are we not simply erasing women's chance for competing at top levels? Is that an end result we want to achieve? Thanks

[@LLlap]

erasing women's chance for competing at top levels? Is that an end result we want to achieve? -YEs. Obviously.

[@kirablagoev8534]

That wasn't her point. She said that while gender makes sense as a categorization, not every difference does. So the question of trans people in sports is one of interesting competition, not whether there's a difference. Trans women have been allowed to compete with cis women in the olympics since 2003, but they're not dominating the playing field. It seems pretty clear that despite the differences between trans and cis women, there's interesting competition there.

[@mikesarno7973]

@@kirablagoev8534 While it's true that transgender athletes have been allowed to compete in the Olympics since 2003, none openly did so until 2020. Two did that year and one qualified as an alternate. The one who was an alternate did so in freestyle BMX. Not sure how much advantage being born male brings to that sport. This was also the first year it was an Olympic event. Of the other two, one was competing and contending for a medal at an age that is extremely rare for Olympians in her sport, weightlifting. She had trouble at the Olympics, but was ranked 7th in the world even as an older competitor. The other trans woman athlete at the 2020 games received a gold medal. Yes, while technically true that trans women are not dominating the playing field, it is still early days and the data we have seems to indicate that it is possible, if not likely.

[@noschoolitscool7191]

@@kirablagoev8534 the incidences of men with identity issues beating women off the podium are increasing in number. I notice men's sports are not at all affected by this issue.

[@itsgonnabeokai]

@@noschoolitscool7191 do you really have to be this transphobic? it's gross

[@uruson]

4:35 - "And there was a significant overlap between them." Not seeing much overlap on those slides myself. Unless you mean 'significant' to mean 'it exists' rather than 'there's a lot of it.' Re: 'Fairness' - The broader a net we cast to find a person fit for a certain task, the more 'extremely fit' our finds will be. If we search 10 people, we're unlikely to find anything extraordinary. If we search a million, we're likely to find many. If we search a billion, we'll find the people absurdly fit for purpose. Thus it's worth thinking about the selection pool w.r.t 'representation.' Trans people being a tiny minority, casting a net therein should yield mediocrity compared to the much larger selection pool of men/women in general. Yet trans women excel. And trans men do not. I don't think there's a great mystery to be found here, or anything particularly difficult or complicated to parse. Male puberty brings advantages that don't seem to go away, and the sex categories in sport were introduced precisely to work around this. If, in the end, we find that the top spots are consistently taken by trans women, then the 'women's category' becomes one where the biological women play second fiddle to trans women. I think it's a self-correcting problem in the end; Women will eventually object to losing to trans women. Then the trans women will be kicked out of their league, or women will make a new one with requirements that keep trans women out of it. As for your argumentum ad absurdum 'if we're going to make a category for trans people, why not for everything else as well?' I'll note that this argument cuts against categorisation as a whole, not just against the idea of a trans category. And as both you and I know that we're not abolishing the whole categorisation system nor introducing infinitely many new ones until we hit the individual level, presenting this idea seems either pointless or at best misleading. We could of course simplify the whole thing by just making a lot of 'leagues' anyone can compete within to rise to the 'league' above. The 'top 100' league would be the top 100 people in the world. Top 200 would feature the 101st to the 200th, and so on. In some competitions we'd start finding women in the 500-1000's. In others, we'd find them near or in the top 100. I don't know how much interest people would have in looking at the 500-1000's, so it seems likely to abolish 'female sports' in those areas. Who knows, that kind of competition might bring out new and interesting things in our female athletes.

[@RealDieselMeister]

The Problem of the TOP 100 Leages is, that in most sport you will never find a woman in there, because of the huge differences between the sex in the "exceptional" people.

[@Darth_Insidious]

By significant she probably means statistically significant, meaning it is enough of an overlap to not be a statistical anomaly. So yes, significant as in it exists.

[@emilianosintarias7337]

This is the red flag. I can't understand how natural T levels can overlap between healthy, athletic men and women without drugs. A man with a level of 300/DL is borderline hypogonadal. How many women on earth are walking around with that much testosterone? That's crazy

[@nikitademodov3446]

Thank you for your objective and honest depiction of the science! An important (in my opinion) question that hasn't been addressed here is the question of whether trans people might also have to deal with the disadvantage of having gone through gender dysphoria? I.e. are trans people statistically less fit than other people of their biological sex at the start of their transition?

[@theskull1030]

10:16 THIS! This is something I've been thinking a lot. Can we not do things to make this more fair? How come combat sports have not only gender division but also weight divisions that allow a much wider range of people to participate, while if I, for example, I'm not lucky enough to be at least 2m tall, my chances of becoming a professional basketball player are basically crashed.

[@theskull1030]

@@RobustPhysics And yet, combat sports could do it better.

[@didrikmesicek4825]

Firstly, there are many basketball players well under 2m, usually playmakers, Spud Webb even won the dunking competition at 1.7m. Of course height helps, but taller players are often also way clumsier and slow so it's a fairly fair trade off. Volleyball is actually the sport where height matters a lot more. But anyway, you can't really create a separate league for players 170-180cm, another for 180-190cm players, etc, whereas division by gender is very simple and also (in most sports) not something that can be overcome with training. A team of average sized male players would still destroy a female basketball team with everyone being 190cm+ for example. The differences are far bigger. The same actually comes into play in martial arts, as someone with about 80kg I have absolutely not chance against someone of roughly similar skill with 100kg, body mass just matters that much more in those sports

[@theskull1030]

@@didrikmesicek4825 The fact that 1.7m is remarcably short for a basketball player tells you a lot about the role height plays.

[@TheStatisticalPizza]

We already do this by having different leagues ranging from hobby to professional, there are amateur and semi-pro leagues for virtually every sport including fighting. But the sports that people watch are the best of the best, they want to see the top athletes competing and that's where the money is, the more you try to include athletes at lower levels, the less people will want to watch.

[@theskull1030]

@@TheStatisticalPizza I'm talking more about physical divisions rather than skill ones.

[@allijnera]

This is probably the most honest and well researched take on this issue, thanks for taking the effort to clear things out

[@allijnera]

@OGSF exactly i wanna see some cyberpunk shit like adam smasher competing in the olympics

[@josephcunningham5482]

No completely solar panels can be placed in area like water canals that would help with algae growth without disturbing land also solar can work with distribution verses Transission and battery storage like Hopedale Australia has proven the concept while also showing how batteries have helped during g peak operation instead of starting up a peaked plant which is vastly expensive saving the customers money united Arab emeritus use solar for pumping gas at 5 cents a kilowatt hour and if no sun or wind for 3 days we'll we would have another more to worry about than energy

[@thebeatnumber]

Sorry, but she's a professional LIAR: TWO QUESTIONS THE SABINE HOFFSTEDER AND OTHER LIARS WILL REFUSE TO ANSWER Firstly, if at some point in a physical endeavor, strength becomes a secondary factor to endurance, and women are supposedly able to cope better than men when it comes to physical endurance, why is it that even in extreme endurance events like the Navy Seals Hell Week and Ultra Marathon Runs that men still continue to show significantly higher levels of endurance than women? Why is it that only ONE woman Grace O’Rourke, has ever been recorded in all the history of Hell Week to endure its brutal and punishing physical regimen and practically ALL the most significant endurance records listed in the Guinness Book of World Records are held by men? Secondly, if fairness is essentially a meaningless concept in competitive sporting events, what’s the point of even having rules that punish cheating or doing anything that gives one competitor an unfair advantage over another?

[@allijnera]

@@thebeatnumber long distance swimming records are all women

[@thebeatnumber]

@@allijnera That was based on skewed data collected from the Manhattan Island Marathon Swim ( between the years 2009 and 2010). The women in the Manhattan Island Marathon Swim were on average significantly YOUNGER than the men (33.7 versus 41.5 years) In marathon swimming events where men and women are the same age, the men dominate.

[@trishoconnor2169]

"Fairness" is indeed a complex concept in sports. I have a condition that was at one time known as "Clumsy Child Syndrome," but despite the name, I did not grow out of it. It is more than just what typical people mean by being "clumsy," but is not the same level of physical impairment as would be seen in, for example, cerebral palsy. (At one point, it was thought to be on a spectrum with cerebral palsy.) I cannot compete "fairly" with typical people in sports. With very hard work, I might be able to get to the low end of normal in some specific sport, but if the people I'm competing against work just as hard or even quite a bit less hard, I will still lose. Whether you call it "fair competition" or "meaningful competition," the only way for me to have it would be if there were a Clumsy Child Syndrome version of Special Olympics. There isn't. For one thing, there aren't enough of us. "Competing with myself" is not an absurdity to me; it is the only meaningful participation in score-keeping sports I can have. I sometimes say that I am "the worst bowler you will ever meet with my own ball and shoes," and I get very excited if I can bowl my age, a feat which, obviously, keeps getting more challenging as I get older, but still involves a score even most casual bowlers would consider embarrassing. Interestingly, the one and only advantage my condition has given me is that I do not have very strong left/right hand dominance; I am fairly ambidextrous. But the rules of bowling say I cannot use this advantage, because it would be "unfair" to people who weren't born with ambidexterity. Funny how that works, huh? The ONE advantage I, a very disadvantaged bowler have, would be "unfair" to everyone else, but my clumsiness is not considered "unfair," just the way things are. I can't help but think, "Oh, NOW you care about fairness? Heads you win, tails I lose, THAT'S what's 'fair'?" See what I mean about fairness being complicated?

[@lonelycubicle]

As a kid, used to play pickup sports with someone who definitely would have fallen into “clumsy child syndrome” (tripped a lot, odd way of running). I THINK he started taking a certain medication and ended up being one of the better athletes on high school sports teams (especially basketball.) Was an amazing transformation.

[@JimmyMon666]

I was just a nerd. I sucked at all sports, though I wasn't as bad as they portray it in movies, I could actually hit a softball. I did actually play youth soccer, but I was a bench warmer. My coach would put me in a few minutes a game.

[@FractalParadox]

Fairnes does not exist. It's an illusion of perception, an abstraction like luck, success, money, and power. Nothing is really fair. It's just rules we invent to make sense of the world. Should we even be surprised those rules are biased to our beliefs and, in essence, also unfair? Luck, or random chance, is by far the most important factor for anyone's success, and yet successful people still attribute most of it to their hard work or talent. Most world records in runs were achieved with a tailwind. Most professional athletes are born in certain months, and becoming super rich is mostly achieved by already being richer than average to begin with. The entire discussion of fairness on inconsequential things like sports or art or what have you, is meaningless. Is it fair that most workplace accidents with power tools happen to left-handed people? Is it fair that the chances of achieving your dreams are basically 99% determined by where you were born? No. Of course not. Should we still strive to make it fair? Probably. Will we ever get there? Absolutely not.

[@lonelycubicle]

@@FractalParadox That said, what would you suggest for trans women athletes? Seems to me it’s “fair” to allow trans women athletes to compete if did not experience puberty as a male as a start while the issue is looked into more (the position taken by one of the sports institutions.) I’m curious if competition by weight class regardless of gender would be a solution.

[@trishoconnor2169]

@@FractalParadox The fact that something is an "abstraction" does not mean that it does not exist as something "real," even if it is intangible. For example, "success" means "achieving your goals." It doesn't in itself define what the goals are, and some goals people set for themselves are more achievable than others. People succeed at a wide variety of things every single day. In a similar way, just because some things are things that we realize we will never fully achieve does not mean they are not real, any more than an asymptotic value is unreal in math. It is real as something to be striven toward, even if it never becomes real as something already achieved. People who too readily say "Life will never be fair" sometimes use that as an excuse not to strive to make it any more fair than it already is. I think it's good to value fairness as a real concept, because it keeps us striving. It's also worth considering that maybe "unearned" is not always "unfair." It is what we do with unearned advantages that can determine whether a situation is fair. People of equally good will may not always agree on what's fair, but it's worthwhile to continue debating it, such as whether ambidexterity is any more "unfair" an advantage than other unearned qualities that increase performance in sports. I think in the course of that debate, some people might face the fact some of their own advantages are just as unearned as those they want to outlaw because they happen to be held by other people rather than by themselves.

[@brocknspectre1221]

Gender is not assigned at birth. Gender is observed at birth and it can be observed before that with ultrasound.

[@Brave-tamer]

Pretty sure that's sex

[@JM-us3fr]

I disagree Sabine. I think sports will eventually devolve into reality TV, but never truly go away

[@chrisangel6833]

r u talking abt wwe

[@JM-us3fr]

@@chrisangel6833 That’s actually a really good example

[@JM-us3fr]

@@markus4925 She spends the second half of the video saying that it’s not just about physiology and they need to analyse fairness, competition, and entertainment. Did you not watch that far?

[@HelliOnurb]

@@JM-us3fr Maybe they were too eager to voice their disappointment and couldn't continue watching.

[@sherpajones]

Sports are ALREADY reality TV.

[@DrKvo]

When I saw the card, I can't say I wasn't concerned. This is something that hits close to home for me. After watching it I have to say this was extremely well done. Thank you for compiling all this data and presenting it as you did.

[@mina_en_suiza]

I was concerned too, but Sabine did an excellent job. Again.

[@hq4287]

++

[@athenachavez8]

+++

[@vauchomarx6733]

++++

[@b.6603]

Same here. And let's not forget why this topic is hot right now. Because American conservatives, who never cared for woman sports, are creating a moral panic around trans people.

[@slimpaco3561]

Did I miss the discussion on bone, heart, and lungs differences in men vs women?

[@TheGiantRobot]

Yeah, I was disappointed by that exclusion, too. How about the fact that men have proportionally longer legs, making them faster runners? People were really impressed by the impartiality of this video, but I felt it fell a little flat in the science department. This isn't in any way a sort of close call physically.

[@n0madtv]

Skeletal shapes as well. Post-puberty hormones aren't going to change the shape of your hips, shoulders, jaw, hands, etc...

[@dmonster1528]

@@TheGiantRobot yes I was impressed

[@barbarakauppi9915]

@@n0madtv Which also affect center of gravity, a significant factor in many sports. Another point ignored in this video. Unfortunately, this video includes just enough bits of science-related factors to make it appear as if it's actually scientific, but it isn't. Selective data is junk science, anti-science, whatever term you want, but to say that it's flawed is a considerable understatement. So much so as to undermine her credibility, which is also truly unfortunate.

[@n0madtv]

@@barbarakauppi9915 It is unfortunate. I liked her physics videos, but after a little too much misinformation on various subjects, including physics, I've now unsubbed.

[@julienrocher1]

Thank you Sabine. Your work is amazing. Your communication is very clear and the sprinkling of humour is refreshing.

[@philipripper1522]

This made me nervous, seeing the topic, but you've earned my trust enough that I gave you a shot, and I think you've earned that trust again.

[@lylelaney8270]

She doesn't take any stand and only presenting what is. I think she rarely doesn't if ever in any of her videos.

[@philipripper1522]

@@lylelaney8270 there is no such thing as not taking a stand -- you can't avoid making a choice

[@lylelaney8270]

@@philipripper1522 unless she clearly said I agree or disagree or this is right or wrong then it's not.

[@philipripper1522]

@@lylelaney8270 That's still a stance. You think she doesn't editorialize? She'd correct you herself.

[@lylelaney8270]

@@philipripper1522 If she does then she does. I'm pointing out unless she says it unambiguously then it's not a stance. That's all. It's unfair but it's still OK. It's wrong but it's acceptable. It didn't fit the current fact but it's still not contradictory. That's basically what she said. (Rephrasing)

[@gparser]

At 10:20 “the most important factor isn’t your sex it’s your age…” - well that may be the case within the same sex category but definitely not between the sexes. Also I may have missed it, but didn’t hear a good explanation for why trans men in male sports has not been an issue (I.e. because there barely are any that will be competitive in vast majority of categories).

[@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017]

She totally strawmanned the anti-trans position. Everyone knows Lia Thomas is a narcissist with a bone to pick with his brother. Women's collegiate swimming was destroyed by a male sibling rivalry.

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Hi All, I can't be here when the video appears but I'll check in tonight!

[@thesunreport]

I loved your video Sabine, I found it very informative and it certainly gives food for thought and further discussion. 🙂

[@giulia885]

It's unbelievable how such basic concepts (the difference between males and females when it comes to strength, endurance etc, and not only in terms of testosterone) are now "controversial". Great of you to talk about it, many don't have the courage and unscientific messages are allowed to go around and spread.

[@thesunreport]

@@giulia885 Nice trolling, how helpful.

[@tormaid42]

@Kaleigh O'Grady Well said

[@giulia885]

@@thesunreport who's trolling? You're the one who's insulting without even trying to come up with an argument. An example of why this kind of videos are so important

[@DudeWatIsThis]

"Well sports is not fair, so we can be unfair here as well" is the worst cop out ever. Imagine if anyone said "Some people are poor. But we're not going to attempt to do anything about it, because life is unfair, sorry!"

[@phamdung3884]

I understand your frustrations, but tbf, very little people who have a problem with trans athletes also happen to have a problem with the well-known unfair bits of their favorite sports. You must agree that’s a double standard, yes?

[@DudeWatIsThis]

@@phamdung3884 How about we turn the tables? I'm not tall, so I could never be a basketball player. I'm also kinda bad at sports, so I'll never be a professional athlete. Or a astronaut. Or a billionaire. Some people were born in the wrong body, so they can never be professional athletes. It's okay if they want to do sports recreationally or in "Sunday league"/amateur competitions, that's fine! And this way, it's much less discomfort, and less controversial, for everyone, especially regarding women's sports.

[@phamdung3884]

@@DudeWatIsThis eh… maybe? I don’t necessarily disagree with your suggestion on how we could go about it as I dislike the concept of elite sports (the kind people watch on TV) since it’s so detached from fitness reality. I’m just asking whether you think it’s a double standard towards trans athletes that *THIS* is the aspect of “fairness” we’re focusing so much on. Side note: while I respect a bandaid solution in the mean time we figure out a *real* one, I also doubt that half of the people currently against trans athletes actually want to build a better system. Granted, just allowing people to announce their gender willy-nilly like Canada’s lifting did was a pretty bad bandaid.

[@DudeWatIsThis]

@@phamdung3884 I don't believe it's a double standard. It's had arguably the highest impact regarding results, besides using performance-enhancing drugs. It was sudden, it was impactful and it is recent, so it is talked about. If you're trying to dig for latent transphobia, you won't find it here. Just because I'm in favour of social progress, it doesn't mean I'm not equally critical of it as I am about other political or social views. Nobody should get a pass for BS. Not even those in our side. I don't think we're doing the community any service by defending this issue. I do enjoy elite sports extensively. And I find this to be unnecessary. It's like putting lemon in the conservatives' wounds. Why would you give them legitimate reasons to hate other people?

[@DudeWatIsThis]

@@phamdung3884 Okay so KZbin just deleted my 3-paragraph response. Thanks, KZbin!

[@8BitCyberWarrior]

So in short: no it's not fair, but who cares? If I were an athlete I would care very much if my competitors had an inherent advantage over me. Even if that will always be the case we should still try to preserve the integrity of fair and meaningful competition

[@pseudonamed]

yeah it's a bit dismissive to say that since it can never be TOTALLY fair then who cares if becomes even more unfair

[@8BitCyberWarrior]

@@pseudonamed Exactly. Just because we can't technically measure how big of a difference something makes doesn't mean it's difficult or irrelevant to understand it's real implications. I could care less about competitive sports, I honestly think they are a waste of time and not enjoyable to watch. However, I very much respect the integrity of that hobby/career choice, and I support the idea of regulation and fair competition, at the full (if admittedly imperfect) discretion of participants and/or their elected representatives. The same goes for government and all aspects of human society. Just because math and science cant definitively give us all the answers doesn't mean we should stop caring and ignore people who have enough experience in the real world to determine the implications of a variable

[@AlinaTowers]

We should care if we womens sports records are going to become in achievable to women.

[@michaelccozens]

@@AlinaTowers Trans women have been competing for decades. Has that happened? How did you miss so obvious a question, unless you wanted to?

[@michaelccozens]

You're missing the fact that trans women have been competing in sport for decades, and there's been no "takeover" or anything remotely like it. You seem to think trans women just appeared when you deigned to notice them. Why? Frankly, your arguments are much more akin to those used by people who sought to keep Black athletes out of "white" sport than anything else.

[@Ariel_is_a_dreamer]

Before I went on HRT I tried to see how many pushups I could do. My sedentary ass could do 10. Now I'm 6 months on T, and I could do 20. I'm still a sendentary ass obviously. But it kinda surprised me, cuz it had never been easy for me to do 20 pushups, even back in my weird gym bro phase

[@JUPiTER0117UwU]

Bro I’m 24 pre Hrt (MtF) and I can only do 11💀

[@sjb3460]

Why can't you do a pushup? I was 32 when I went to US Army basic training in Jan of 1982. I started training for my enlistment and was in much better shape than others were. I was 5'7" and weighed 130 lbs. At the end of USArmy Basic Training I was able to do 67 pushups in 2 minutes, 69 situps in 2 minutes and run 2 miles in 13.2 minutes. 20 years later, at age 50, I could equal the same scores. At age 34, I went to USArmy Parachute school. I saw Marines get run off. I saw men that were age 18 - 30 drop out of runs that were very challenging. At parachute training school, 5 women got their wings. They weren't men transitioning to female. They were petite, small girls. There is no reason a man cannot do a pushup. If you are willing to train, you can do it. Your mind is your biggest enemy. I was never an athlete. In school, I was always the last one picked. I couldn't run fast, I couldn't throw a ball, and I couldn't get a basketball into the basket. What happened? What was different at Airborne School? I decided I was a winner. Nothing was going to stop me. Attitude is the key.

[@MD-kv9zo]

I just came here to flex on you specifically. I can casually do 20 push-ups no drugs after not doing it for weeks. To be fair I'm a short teen but still.

[@tueanhtata5609]

@@MD-kv9zo That's the dumbest way to flex I've ever seen in my life

[@MD-kv9zo]

@@tueanhtata5609 I didn't know a better way to state that I can do 20 push ups without doing it everyday.

[@finnwillows6031]

Surely, a scientific approach would be to look at actual sporting results. For example: men's record for javelin is 98.5 m and women's is 72.3. A pretty clear advantage for males.

[@blacktigerpaw1]

You're asking for too much.

[@ishmamahmed9306]

*Cisgender men's record; *cisgender women's record I suspect for transgender women who compete professionally, those on HRT anyway would achieve records between those two figures.

[@planarian]

@@ishmamahmed9306 I agree with your assumption, which reflects that transwomen athletes have an advantage over biological women. This means they should not be allowed to compete in the same category/for the same prizes.

[@blacktigerpaw1]

@@ishmamahmed9306*Men's records *Women's records The sexes are not 'cis' or 'trans'. You keep saying transwomen have always competed, so what are these athletes and what are their times?

[@kalidwapur]

But this is compounded by societal advantages. There are way more males participating in most sports than female. If you want an accurate evaluation of potential performance you need to look at more general measurements.

[@dundundun7215]

This was a really comprehensive analysis of the situation, i would have liked to see more of an argument from the pov of gender and how diversity in sports can be a good thing. But i agree with your conclusion that athletics is a too extreme form of entertainment to survive for much longer

[@boozebeard9501]

I love Sabines sense of humour. Like when she said an extremely popular, multi billion dollar industry will go away because of ethics. haha.

[@RP-dy5mu]

It's not about industry it's about human nature. We always compete. It's what makes life fun.

[@rogerstone3068]

Yes, but look at Stricly Come Dancing. We COULD watch the very best dancers, but we don't. We watch a bunch of celebs competing to dance, not so well, but there's going to be a winner. Athletics could go this way.

[@omeryanar1191]

She is german afterall. They aren't particularly popular for their humour

[@joeiborowski9763]

@@rogerstone3068 I doubt it. The Olympic games started over 2700 years ago and it is still around. Humans are competitive by nature, that is what evolution has created in order to survive. We are still competitive in modern society in an economic way as men want money and power because that attracts a mate and a woman wants beauty and charm. There are outliers, but this is rather a rule for the vast majority. Simple evolutionary biology. People want to see the extremes of what a human body can do, so there will always be competitive physical sports at the highest limits because that is also a way we can say our team (tribe) is better than your team (tribe).

[@major7thsharp11]

@@joeiborowski9763 "It is still around" makes it seem like it has been practiced continuously for 2700 years, whereas the reality is that the modern Olympics were rather spontaneously created about 130 years ago. As an aside, I've noticed that people who say something is categorically "simple evolutionary biology" are often the least suited to explain evolutionary biology to others.

[@clifftlee]

What is unambiguous is that there are no (that i am aware of) cases of trans men beating out the male counterparts in elite sports (there are numerous trans athletes competing at that level). if there is a need to continue to marginalise woman, then there should be a separate category for trans athletes and their female counterparts ie two potential winners(even with different times ) and separate records. But for this aspect of the gender debate, I think you should be allowed to live your life your way and how you choose, without harassment.

[@hydrogenfluoride2382]

Schuyler Bailar, a trans man, swam in NCAA Division I for Harvard and scored in the top 15%.

[@RealPackCat]

You can live your life, but like the first admendment, you do not have the right to control other's lives. If a trans person takes a slot on a roster, they are effectively harming an otherwise legit person the ability to compete in their respective category. Tell me that a system should be forced to allow someone with Tourettes, to attend lectures and disrupt others. Sounds fair, but life is not fair. But we should not force behavior that disrupts the rest of society. This is why gay men should not be Boy Scout leaders.

[@treali]

@@hydrogenfluoride2382 Top 15% is far below top 1% in terms of performance. There is a magnitude of difference between top 10% and top 1%.

[@claie171]

I am very used to seeing videos with titles like this one ending up being statements of opinions with half hearted proofs, and I am very happy to have learned so much in this one! Very comprehensive and truly instructive, thank you for making this topic so understandable !

[@RAF71chingachgook]

It’s very sad that you think you learned something from her rationalizing and pandering.

[@quibble9003]

@@RAF71chingachgook shut up karen

[@josephcunningham5482]

Yes if your certain you are Wright then oh oh possibly an error has occurred

[@josephcunningham5482]

Life is not fair soon going to be hard for sports to be truly fair as spectators kinda know this already fans still like to watch it is entertaining

[@eme.261]

@@josephcunningham5482 - Who is "wright"? Are you referring to one of the Wright Brothers-- Orville Wright and Wilbur Wright? 🤔

[@justanamerican9024]

We need to make a separate category for them. I have no bad feelings for trans people, to each their own. However, just because someone wants to become another sex identity does not mean you developed the same.

[@galev3955]

"professional athletics will not exist because it creates too much incentive for unetchical behaviour"... Who is going to tell Sabine about politics? 😅 Jokes aside, good video. One thing I think could have been useful to talk about is the "real life" data of how trans athletes perform. I am not sure if there is data on that, but if on average trans athletes dont win more medals proportionally than cis athletes that also reflects onnwhether they have an advantage or not.

[@mina_en_suiza]

As far as I know, there hasn't been a single olympic medal won by a trans athlete so far.

[@Bitchslapper316]

@@mina_en_suiza There arent many trans athletes competing in the olympics.

[@rosehipowl]

You can tell by a quick google that when biological males - no matter how they identify - compete in female sport, they tend to win regardless of their testosterone levels and the time that they have spent transitioning. This is purely due to the fact that males develop with testosterone and those effects cannot be reversed with oestrogen (if they choose to take it): the muscles and bone structure, even lung and heart capacity. This is a problem. The whole idea of sex segregated sports was exclusively for female benefit, as a way for women to compete against other biological women and have the chance to win. You can see this by the fact that biologically female athletes, regardless of how they identify, have never won a competition in the men's category. I don't even know if any have entered. But biologically male athletes regularly win in female sports. Now that the women's sports category has become "not man" instead of "female", women are losing out on not only winning in competitions, but qualifying in the first place. This is especially difficult for young women and girls who are doing sport - now they not only have to beat the other competitors, but they also have to beat someone who is going/gone through male puberty and the sporting advantages that it brings. I could see myself just giving up at that point, and many unfortunately do now. It stops being fun when it becomes a vanity project for someone else. Just recently two trans women cyclists took first and second place in a woman's cycling race. The third place was biologically female. You can tell by looking at them on the podium that they had obvious advantages: they had drastically bigger muscles and skeletal structure than the woman who won third place. One of them had only recently announced that they identified as trans and did not even wait long enough for their testosterone levels to go down, but nobody at the race organisation seemed to care. It was obvious they would win to anyone looking, so that means two biologically female competitors were not given a place in the competition meant for female athletes, and that two biologically female competitors were not able to place at the end. This is done despite biology, not because of it. But speaking about this is considered an issue because it goes against what people - especially biologically male people - are saying. It is not transphobic to point this out, it is misogynistic to not talk about it. There is a reason that there are sex categories in sport, and as humans are physically incapable of changing sex, they should be stuck to in the interests of fairness for *all* participants, not just the ones with the trans identities. Personally, I think there should be a third category that anyone can compete in regardless of sex. We know realistically that it would be dominated by anyone who has gone through male puberty, but that can be the one that we pretend is fair based on gender ideology rather than sex, not turn to old-fashioned ideas about women being "not-men" and the throwaway category for everyone else instead of a section of sports on its own. Women deserve better than that - that's not transphobia, that's just the truth. It's insulting to the women who spend their lives dedicated to their sport to lose to a male however they identify. It doesn't do women's sport justice that this is being fought over when there is no issue with this in men's sport for obvious reasons. It doesn't do women's sport justice that the women and athletes who speak about this are ignored and criticised as "right-wing" and "transphobic" (for what it's worth, I'm a scary disabled lesbian communist who has done work in both disability rights activism and feminist activism). When the people (women) who are affected most by this are saying that they don't like it but are overlooked in favour of the people (men) who run the sports governing bodies and don't have to compete (and can profit off of the perceived goodwill it brings), there's something going wrong. Even if every single female athlete (and the plenty of male ones, too) who has criticised this hates each individual trans person...well that's a lot of people, maybe we should ask them why and not assume we know their reasoning. We all know what assuming does.

[@blu3260]

@@rosehipowl I had biological sex with your dad and he seemed to like how it identified so you must have a skill issue or smth

[@StilleStadhouder]

@@rosehipowl The real travesty is all of the women who never stood a chance because they were born lacking talent. Sports are not and have never been fair, this is just the next installment of unfairness.

[@brycebyte]

We're going through some of this in our sport, powerlifting, with a heavy component of strength (and as a result, testosterone plays a large role in performance). We think the international governing body will only be forced to take a position if and when a trans athlete wins their weight class at the world level. I really appreciated your comments on fairness in general amid the genetic differences in the human population as a whole. In sport, we never see clones facing off against each other. Thanks for the video!

[@sianmilne4879]

@@rudolphschmitler725 Yeah, and she didn't complete a single lift... I think that's proof enough that being AMAB doesn't automatically make you better 🤷

[@mattrondeau7466]

@@sianmilne4879 If you think that proves something, you really need to go back to high school biology class. The science is overwhelming. Average male athletes utterly dominate world-class females 1st time out. There are dozens of examples of this and more every day. Educate yourself.

[@revspikejonez]

@@mattrondeau7466 if you didn't get the point that was made, you're not the genius you think you are.

[@mattrondeau7466]

@@revspikejonez There was no point made there. If you think men do not have an inherent (and overwhelming) physical advantage over women (I can't believe that this is even a conversation. This world is insane), then show me one example of a woman competing with men at a high level in any sport. NCAA, Olympics, NFL, etc. Go ahead. I'll wait.

[@MrHEPBO3AH]

@revspikejonez to his point, with 0.4%-0.7% representation in general population that weight lifter almost managed to get to the finals. If this truly doesn't make a difference, wouldn't we see trans men represented in men sports?

[@bananewtf5326]

In regards to genetics engineering ending professional sports, I think a few points have been missed. One such point is that we don't always know what constitutes a genetic advantage. It is especially true for complex sports. Who would have guessed that one of the best football (soccer) players of all time would be a short man with growth problems as a kid? Even in more simple events, it can be hard to know. In the early 2000's it was generally accepted (and backed by research) that the ideal body for the 100m dash was a fairly short and very muscular to achieve the best compromise between top speed and acceleration. Fast forward a few years and the fastest sprinter of all times is 6ft5. I think that in most sports, genetic engineering won't provide as much of an advantage as we think. Another point, and perhaps the most important, is that professional sport has only one main driver : money. As long as people remain interested, there is a financial incentive. The numerous doping scandals have never stopped people from watching the olympics, so I don't see why genetic engineering would. I guess my conclusion is that I don't see professional sport disappearing anytime soon.

[@Lynnessanovember]

Thank you, this conclusion to the video really seemed like a huge slippery slope.

[@katherineberger6329]

Basing "advantage" on who can do more push-ups or whatever stupid one-dimensional metric gets used is bad-faith "science," as well. It's creating a predetermined conclusion and backforming procedures to find the measurements that will most likely reach that conclusion.

[@exosproudmamabear558]

The point isnt whether genetic engineering is too much of advantage.The point is countries will try to create super-sport babies to win the Olympics, that's why it incentivises too many ethical problems therefore will or should get ridden of if the time comes

[@notyetidentified9720]

@@exosproudmamabear558 Maybe it should, but if anything I would say its going to be the other way around - countries are more likely to use it as another race and the competition will be partially moved from a stadium into the lab.

[@exosproudmamabear558]

@@notyetidentified9720 She just thought the best case scenario, bless her heart, but yeah the world doesn't really go a sociologically and politically good place despite technology moving faster than ever. This discrepancy going to give unwanted results one way or another, so your scenario is more likely to happen than hers.

[@photostockcanada]

Of course some people have athletic advantages over others. The goal of sport is to see who is best. Categories exist to allow similar types of people to compete against each other, to make it fair. Fairness is a goal of sport. That is why we have so many different events. This allows the opportunity for those with many different body types and skill sets, to participate in sport. I think you are incorrect to say you could never be an athlete. Have you ever trained enough to find out what your athletic abilities are? It is motivation which is a major factor in ability, however whatever sport you competed in it is highly likely a man (who also trained for that sport) of same age and size would beat you.

[@tremkl]

Really interesting video. On the subject of endurance in sports, my favorite sport to watch is actually women’s tennis. Men’s tennis has a much higher focus on hitting the ball so hard and fast that the opponent is unable to respond to it. Women’s tennis has a much higher emphasis on using strategic angles to force your opponent to run more than you do.

[@cyberpsybin]

Tennis is not an endurance sport.

[@FriedEgg101]

@@cyberpsybin While not being classified as an endurance sport, with the scoring system allowing for long matches, it's a sport containing elements of endurance.

[@LazyGoose872]

@@FriedEgg101 but its not in anyway an endurance sport, the scoring system is irrelevant as you could just have each player scoring aces its a rally sport

[@AlexZander688]

And when Serena and Venus Williams tried to play doubles against the lowest rated pro men's teams, they got smoked. As good as Serena and Venus are at women's tennis, they still couldn't beat the lowest ranked men's. Serena would not beat Nadal, Federer or Djokovic in an honest head to head match. So I don't want to see Trans-Women playing in women's sporting events with an unfair advantage. If Nadal, Federer or Djokovic decided to trans years ago, Serena would have a lot less tennis titles to her name.

[@blacktigerpaw1]

@@cyberpsybin Yes it is. The Williams sisters were defeated by a rank 200 man.

[@RyanK-100]

Fair is an imprecise word. It is a morality concept, so science has nothing to say about "fairness", only about the objective claims on either side of an issue. Life itself isn't fair; we are not all born blank slates with the same abilities, and that's not fair. Should only strong men be allowed to become professional football players, or should we say that each team must have a diversity of testosterone levels in their players? And should we mandate that women be represented on each pro football team? Umm. No. That's not fair, and most people would say that's OK. So fairness is only relevant for a cause with good marketing.

[@justawhim]

In otherwise fairness deals with what ought to be. Science only can speak of what is. You would notice all bad takes tend to mix the two types of statements about the world together. They tend to confuse say how reality should be with describing how reality is.

[@TheGiantRobot]

In co-oed sports, there is a minimum number of women required on the field, so if people wanted that in pro-football, they could have it. It would be incredibly dangerous to the women, of course. I'm agreeing with you, basically, though fairness clearly has a place in sports, and has to do with honest competition. Some people are trying to argue that pitting men (who call themselves women) against actual women is honest competition.

[@justawhim]

@@TheGiantRobot Ehhh… One) you can argue those people are not men but artificially induced intersex people. Two) What about transmen? You can’t legitimately put them in the female category either. Though safety concerns are valid, what constitutes fair typically is what is most entertaining not honest competition (though honest competition does serve for entertainment value but not always *looks at WWE*) soooo….

[@TheGiantRobot]

@@justawhim One) You could argue that if you want, but that's not what intersex means. Also, have you seen Lia? That's a man. Two) No, you can't put transmen with females unless you want to turn women's sports into a doping competition. They have chosen to take hormones, they could compete with men - the divisions are to protect women's sports. The men don't need protection on the field nor in the locker room from women. I don't agree at all with the assertion that fairness is about entertainment. Never heard that notion before this video and I hope I don't hear it after.

[@justawhim]

@@TheGiantRobot I mean think about it, what are sports fundamentally? Entertainment. Therefore, the rules will not be designed so one team will win automatically. There are instances, I remember an example such as the basketball 3-pointer shot being implemented because well, the base game has basically been cracked and become monotonous. Though safety reasons are in part why some sports have classifications such as men and women, with the latter getting less attention due to historic and political reasons. Some are further sub-divided into weight classes. Like imagine the sports without those divisions, there will be lost entertainment value because matches will become predict, certain competitors will be knocked out of the pool completely. essentially, even if safety is ignored there it won't be as entertaining. And safety was never a concern for a sport as long as culture permits it. As long as people deem the risk acceptable. Like jousting and dueling back in ancient times. This is talking about entertainment value for both the performer and the viewer btw. On intersex, sure I do. Intersex people are those who are born with sexual characteristics that do not match typical notions of gender binaries. Though I know the keyword here is born, I am focusing on the sexual charastics part as it relates to trans people. For those who medically transition, though they are not born, their state of being is artificially induced to somewhere between male and female because, well, modern medical tech can do wonders but it can't change everything, some traits of their former gender is still there as you noted, especially for the post puberty transtioners. Though pre-puberty there is no traits carried over that effect athletic performance. But you can still argue that they can be they are closer to intersex than a man than a women. Even if you look at intersex, there is a gradient, with what amounts to men with working ball sacks with womb inside to just a women with higher amounts of testerone running in their bodies, things you might not know unless you do a disection and a blood test.

[@gabrielpichorim8191]

The "sports are not meant to be fair" argument is not valid because although diffences in performances due to genetics are not responsibilities of organizations and some people really do have an advantages from the start, sports still have different weight, age, disability and gender classes. If it wasn't supposed to be at least somewhat fair a 270lb men, would compete against a 45 y/o women, and a 120lb kid. There are limits to the unfairness of sports.

[@gabrielpichorim8191]

Ok this was actually covered on the video

[@valdemarjrgensen8128]

Sabine, we don't and never have separated sports in gender and weight classes to make them less predictable. We separated them to increase representation. If you remove the women's division in basketball you won't suddenly get pro women's team getting predictably shit on by male teams, you just won't have any pro female basketball players. If you remove weight classes from boxing you won't see small fighters get beat up by big fighters, you'll just only see big fighters.

[@sf4603]

Thats a fair point. As Sabine pointed out, trans women are currently underrepresented in sports so they don't appear to pose any threat to the representation of cis women competing in the same league. On the other hand if trans women were to compete in the men's league that would certainly quash what little trans women representation there already is in sports. So it would seem that unless we get to a point where trans women are over-represented there need not be any concern. When and if that happens some course correction would possibly be deemed necessary. A common refrain I hear from people opposed to trans women and cis women competing in the same league is that trans women should compete in their own league. If theres not enough financial investment and trans women athletes to create meaningful competition in that league the representation of trans women in sports may further decrease so that would seem to be the wrong choice. On the other hand, having their own league and their own opportunities might drive up engagement and end up being a good thing. Either way it seems that we'll get our answer based on representation. I think an obvious follow-up question is who is deciding who's representation matters here? As Sabine mentioned its age that is the heighest determinant in athletic capabilities not sex and we dont seem overly concerned about older people being represented in sports. Some might say well the free market decides by supporting whichever leagues are deemed the most profitable. By that logic it would seem that circles back to Sabine's point that entertainment value does in fact play a role here. That and all sorts of other societal factors that determine what makes a sports league profitable. Personally I wouldnt be surprised if at some point in the future we end up with gender non-descript sports leagues. The idea being that the league you are placed in is based on your athletic potential not your gender. You would presume young cis men would be over represented in one category and older cis women in the other but there would hopefully be several intermediate leagues for people that fall into any number of demographics so long as they have similar athletic capabilities. If the goal is representation it would seem this model would maximize our success.

[@valdemarjrgensen8128]

​@@sf4603 I think a lot of things are getting conflated here. We have gender categories in sport for representations sake, but we don't have sport for representations sake. We have sport for its entertainment value and entertainment value is somewhat linked to predictability. How succesful sport is as a whole is determined by entertainment value and how much representation there is room for is determined by the sports success. If we make the assumption that MtF trans athletes have an advantage over cis female athletes and we allow those trans athletes to compete with the females, they don't have to outnumber the cis athletes to be a problem for the cis athletes. If the trans athletes has an advantage that leads them to win -> they'll make the sport predictable -> the sport become less entertaining -> less people will watch it -> less athletes can go pro in that sport -> in turn representation is lowered as less people participate. Let's take are more obvious example, with boxing (again). If the boxing today had 2 weight classes 65kg and bellow and 80kg and bellow. No one that can make 65kg will compete at 80kg, you aren't big enough. If you are a small guy you are in -65. But lets say we think it's a shame even bigger guys have no representation, stop fat shaming and whatnot. So we say the 80kg class is now open for people up to 100kg. If there's only one big guy who is actually naturally 100kg at en elite level that wants to compete, he'll beat everyone. Size is a huge advantage in boxing. The sport will be boring because everyone knows big dude will win every fight he participates in, viewership will fall and the sport as a professionel sport will die. Now neither the guys at 80kg nor the one dude at 100kg is represented. Alternatively there isn't just one big dude but a lot. In that case the sport will be dominated by big 100kg dudes and there's no room for the fighters originally in the weight class that was naturally around the 80kg mark. So you haven't added any sort of representation, you have just changed who is represented. If you wanted 100kg athletes to be able to compete you don't let them fight with the 80kg athletes that are at a clear disadvantage, you make a new weight class for the 100kg athletes. That's what people are worried about (of the people that aren't just transphobes and want any excuse to exclude trans people because they are bigots). It doesn't matter if there are a lot or a few trans athletes, if there are many there'll exclude female participation and if there's a few they'll kill the sport entirely. If both cis females and trans athletes are to be represented, the trans athletes need their own league, but there aren't enough of them for that. So it's a loose loose situation and it's just a question of deciding who do we pick to loose, the cis female athletes or the trans athletes. "Personally I wouldnt be surprised if at some point in the future we end up with gender non-descript sports leagues." We for the most part have that. Many if not most male leagues aren't actually men only, they are open for everyone, it's just that since men have an advantage all the athletes good enough to compete are male. "The idea being that the league you are placed in is based on your athletic potential not your gender." again, we already have that. It just only the athletes that compete in the most competitive league (or maybe two most competitive if the sport is popular enough) are professional, the rest can only do it as a hobby. People only want to pay money to watch the best of the best. If you make a league specifically to be worse than the other league people wont watch it. That we have women professional sport in itself is not a given and it's relatively speaking new. In most sports there weren't professional female athletes just going back 10-30 years and it's the reason female athletes are still paid way less than men. Women sports has worked really hard to be taken serious and just have a fraction of the paid athletes mens sports have, and they are in my opinion justified in being scared that trans athletes will kill the progress they have worked for over the last half a century. Male athletes couldn't care less. Being a FtM trans athlete is a disadvantage and if someone overcomes that disadvantage they'll take one of many sports from cis male athletes, nobody cares. But MtF trans athletes could make women sport less popular, ruining hundred of cis females opportunity to go pro in the sport. Realistically speaking the trans community have two options, there athletes there accept they'll have to compete against the men, where they for the most part are allowed to compete. Or the trans community commits to supporting their athletes through trans only leagues, putting their money where their mouth is so to speak. Pretty much doing what cis women has had to do.

[@gamingwhilebroken2355]

@@valdemarjrgensen8128 I don’t think people realize how hard people fought for women’s sports to effectively exist. It was a huge social issue in the 50s-70s. In most developed countries there actually had to be federal laws that enforced spending and creation of women’s sports at the high school and college level. And even with those laws that on paper require equal access to sports regardless of sex there is still a pretty serious disparity in funding and access for women’s and girl’s sports. The worst part is that when various school boards are challenged and are order to fix the disparity in funding and access they don’t increase women’s sports, but decrease men’s. Which has lead people to stop taking action as no one wants these to be less access to sports for high school boys.

[@ToveriJuri]

I don't think you have a cause to say that with such a strong emphasis on it. Ultimately, it's all part of the same problem one just causation of the other. If we didn't get weight classes and gender segregation in sports the results would be so predictable that the physically weaker individuals wouldn't have any point in competing. Sure, some might try at first, but then would as we all know get destroyed and then just stop because there's no point. In combat sports it's even particularly important. Super Heavy Weight classes in some sports don't just give opportunities to different people, they give you a different kind of show. Heavy Weights and Welterweight fights are quite different and engaging in different ways. Boxing talent rotates and different weight classes can have change in their pool of talent. Sometimes the Heavy Weight Division can be a snoozefest due to lack of talent, but that depends on the level of athletes, which goes up and down over the years.

[@ToveriJuri]

@@gamingwhilebroken2355 No one wants less access to sports for boys, but if that's the only way to have balance then that's how it has to be. Girls have just as much right to do it in a modern society. And well as a sports consumer and fan of individual sports, I get just as excited for women's sports as I do for men's. Sure, Women's performances aren't as impressive show of pure physical human peak, but when the playing field is leveled, and the people are just as competitive then a dominant female athlete in her category is just as exciting as dominant male one in his, it's still a show of pure talent dedication and athleticism and physical peak among their own peers.

[@econdoc3000]

My first reaction before watching: holy shit, Sabine has balls talking about this subject... Figuratively speaking of course

[@wktodd]

She always strikes me as the sort of woman who has a collection of balls ;-)

[@pluto9000]

I didn't know Sabine was.

[@ff-qf1th]

Well, you never know! ;)

[@Tubluer]

Um, thumbs up. I think? :)

[@econdoc3000]

@@ff-qf1th True that 😁

[@magdalenakokes]

This video was an absolute blast. I love how dry your joke delivery is, you made me laugh so hard and presented a logical and well-supported argument at the same time. Keep on producing such amazing content!

[@Muhahahahaz]

Me too! She doesn’t change her demeanor or tone at all, then suddenly I realize she just told a joke! Great delivery 😂

[@timehaley]

Well thought out, but the fact still remains that as far as I know up to this point, there hasn't been a single trans man win a single male sporting event of any type, (if anybody knows of one please reply) while trans women are breaking women's records left and right at all levels and all events.

[@orbeetles]

Patricio Manuel comes to mind

[@timehaley]

@@orbeetles Exactly what title or gold medal did he win against another man? He's had 4 fights against men. The first 3 were against specially picked fighters to let him win, the most recent one didn't go that way. I know all about Patricio Manuel. He's the first and only one anybody brings up so I did some research on him. As a female she was a champion, as a male he's just an oddity and will never win a title.

[@happyfullfridge]

can you please show me where this left and right winning everywhere is?

[@orbeetles]

@timehaley which trans women are doing all this record breaking

[@timehaley]

@@orbeetles Using the web Here are some of the trans women who have won national or international competitions or championships: Tiffany Abreu: The volleyball player was a big part of the team that won the 2022 Brazilian Cup. Molly Cameron: Cameron won the female category of the three-day Cascade Gravel Grinder in 20231. JayCee Cooper: Cooper won the women’s 2019 national championship for bench press in the super heavyweight division. Michelle Dumaresq: She won the 2003 Canadian National Championships in downhill mountain biking. Laurel Hubbard: The Olympic weightlifter won two Oceania Championships and two Commonwealth Championships, amongst many gold medals she won during her competition years, adding a World Masters Games title in 2017, when she won a silver in the World Championships. Veronica Ivy: Ivy is a two-time masters world champion, notably winning the 2018 UCI World Masters Track Cycling Championships in her age category. It’s important to note that no out trans woman has won an Olympic medal in the women’s category. However, Canadian soccer player Quinn, who identifies as nonbinary, has earned gold medals. Please note that this is not an exhaustive list and there may be other trans women who have achieved similar feats in various sports

[@Nouzbouz]

Sabine. Thank you for your sincere research. I appreciate that you on the one hand show empiric data and on the other hand take the ethical aspects into account. Perfect mix.

[@YEC999]

No total infiltration with propaganda language like "CIS"...it is called "normal"

[@Ezyasnos]

Thank you so much calling the Olympics a freak show. You made my day :)

[@berniv7375]

The same was said about a physics conference.🙂

[@sebbonxxsebbon6824]

Exceptionally intelligent people is not the normal and you can't raise IQ in anyway but dangerous drugs. You can lower IQ with poor nutrition, etc.

[@georgeanthony4834]

do you mean the special Olympics??

[@Patrik6920]

@@berniv7375 ..and so has Astrophysics...

[@CorgiDaddy2]

@@georgeanthony4834 WTF is wrong with you?

[@DeadtomGCthe2nd]

That ending really had me laughing. Video summary: Here's a detailed breakdown of all the nuanced factors affecting this issue. Conclusion: Screw the whole thing, competitive sports are dumb anyway.

[@gordianknot5625]

Couldn't agree more. What a waste of time watching sports.

[@canaldoxerxes]

This sounds like the opinion of a nerd who can't walk a flight of stairs without feeling winded.

[@tarmaque]

@@canaldoxerxes Discrimination!

[@WWLinkMasterX]

It creates a kind of meta-problem though. If the experts/informed people don't care about sports, why should people who _do_ care trust or pay mind to the experts?

[@canaldoxerxes]

@@WWLinkMasterX let's not forget that Sabine isn't an expert in sports. She's an expert in physics. This is just kinda her personal opinion - and a very simplistic one at that: "nothing matters so no one should care about anything". I mean... this does sound like the nerd who got a turbo-wedgie during P.E., and now is salty about sports.

[@lilyrubyify]

There IS fairness in sports competitions I think. It's just that in this case fairness isn't to make sure that the game is fair... It's to make sure that product is entertaining. Ultimately sports are entertainment, and entertainment is about making money. "Should this be allowed?" kinda isn't as important as "Will people watch this?" when it comes to this discussion.

[@andrew-song]

But wouldn’t you say that in the quest for sports to garner profits, it engenders the usage of unfair practices and selectivity bias, effectively elimination almost any notion of fairness? While I agree with you that the game has always been “in it for the money,” I don’t think fairness in competitive sports can truly be quantified simply because of this fact.

[@miscellaneous8605]

Most athletes do not see themselves as entertainers.

[@zazaquarantineboys900]

Nah you’re reaching at this point looool entertainment is only ever generated in sports when it follows a set of rules, no one likes seeing cis woman get beat up by trans woman and that is a fact! Imagine if a few select men had a legal reason to spend all their youths openly taking steroids , who tf would think it’s fair to compete against them? This problem is not about genetics advantage, but about a biological one

[@syasyaishavingfun]

Olympic sports are not making money at all, nobody paying money to watch most of these sports. That's why a lot of olympic athletes still need to get another job lol.

[@Joker-yu6lu]

You're not allowed to be on roids or hormones to compete. Unless you got testes you need to take hormones to sustain your muscle mass, which, is against the rules.

[@aimerw]

Interesting points. However I disagree with the slippery slope argument - just because a slope *is* slippery does not mean we *will* slip. However, I get the point that perhaps that would be the best case for fairness, if we were willing to do so. Then the follow-up point is, are we willing to do so? The answer is probably no - its just not entertaining, and can also be difficult to be accurate about. So, the result I come to is, we can proceed down the slope as far and only as far as meets the following values: entertainment, fairness, accuracy of identification. Sex, i.e. male and female categories, I would argue do meet these - the first two quite easily, and the last is not terribly difficult if we stick to biology. People do want to watch the different male and female categories (half the population is one or the other - thats fairly compelling), it is noticeably fairer (the difference is significant), and it not too difficult to be correct about biologically (the biology is binary, albeit with some complicating factors that can be detected). Meanwhile heart size, for example, doesn't really meet any of them - people don't care as much about things they cannot see at a glance (its not emotive), it is not readily apparent how much difference the actual range of size on offer makes, and its difficult to establish to any degree of accuracy without some fairly invasive and dangerous proceedures. So, maybe we could *realistically* have categories based on sex (most sports do this), race (somewhat fails the third criteria due to being on such a spectrum and complexity), weight (boxing does this), height (for applicable sports like basketball), etc. I think these are likely to fit the three-point test mentioned above to a strong enough degree. Meanwhile, liver function, metabolism, blood count, etc., dont likely meet it - no one is entertained by different categories of blood count. TL;DR - some categories make sense, some dont, we don't need to do all or nothing.

[@arglebargle17]

There was a short story in Omni magazine about a future Olympics. The cold war was still very much a thing the author assumed would be active in the future. There were wrestlers with scales, swimmers with blowholes and fins, 10 foot basketball players, and on it went. The head of the Soviet side kept lodging complaints of genetic engineering with the Olympics committee as did his American counterpart. Naturally, both sides were denying the dead obvious. In the end, all the complaints were upheld and all the medals went to athletes from places like Togo or Nauru that lacked the technology for genetic engineering.

[@hotelmario510]

That sounds really cool. If you find the title I'd love to read it.

[@hotelmario510]

I believe I found it: "The Mickey Mouse Olympics" by Tom Sullivan.

[@aimyah88]

This was very informative and encourages good faith discussion. I just wasn’t clear on one part. Doesn’t the question of fairness logic completely reason away the need for separate women’s leagues? I get that long legs, big feet, whatever biological features are all advantages that would be very tedious to dispute. Following this logic, why not have every sport just be like an open? In this way, men are the “freaks of nature” and women will likely not have much representation because they simply are not capable of achieving such feats because they truthfully speaking are just “weaker” in this way. (Please take all of this neutrally without assuming I meant any slight to either trans/ciswomen) Yet we have women’s leagues anyway. Predictable outcomes could be a way of explaining why we make the exception for dividing sex. Women competing with men’s “freakish” biological advantages is what causes this predictable outcome, no? These are the same features that give trans women an edge, so doesn’t that still leave that point kind of moot? I’m definitely not trying to criticize, I don’t have a good answer. It feels unfair to both groups of people with no clear resolution. Thanks for making this video.

[@levybenathome]

That's a really good point. It opens up some really difficult questions. Beyond just men and women, if it's not fair for separate women's leagues, what about weight classes in boxing? Being bigger or smaller is in large part genetic, right? And going the other way, should we have draw length classes in archery? A longer arm is a natural advantage, and as far as I know it's entirely genetic luck, I never heard of any exercise regime to make your arms longer.

[@stephenwatson2964]

She talks a bit about this from 11:40 on. It's hard to figure out the best way to divide a population to ensure fairness - I like the idea of talking about "meaningful competition" instead of fair competition. I think the main takeaway I learned from this video is that trans people are still under-represented in sports, so it's probably worth waiting around for a while and seeing if it ever becomes a problem for cis women to meaningfully compete.

[@notlisztening9821]

@@stephenwatson2964 I mean... exactly in the case of Lia Thomas, it already is questionable, whether it's even possible "for cis women to meaningfully compete". From what I have understood, she already makes it impossible for a cis-female to reach first place.

[@alyssahallister]

@@notlisztening9821 Considering that Lia placed first in only one event, with second place being less than two seconds behind her and Katie Ledecky having a best time in that event over nine seconds better than Lia's, I don't see how you can argue that it's 'impossible' for a cis woman to reach first place while competing with Lia. Indeed, in the 100 freestyle, Lia placed dead last, and in the 200 freestyle placed only 5th, behind four cis women. Is that really indicative of 'not possible to meaningfully compete'? I would say not.

[@MAKChaosLander]

she made the dumbest video I ever seen about this topic, should have continued talking about physics. She missed entirely the point when simple forget the fact that a big feet or big legs isn't all that benefit compared as born male. This is obviously when you compare the overall performance of trans athletes and the consistent record breaking they are making in the women sports. The conclusion is pointless and don't solve anything. That's why scholars nowadays are so mocked, she is a f scientists who should think logically but instead she goes bonker diving in her thoughts.

[@obsoletevalues6209]

In my opinion, we are not going to solve the issue by committing the fallacy of equivocation on the word "fair." It is indeed a fact that there are a ton of physiological variations from athlete to athlete, and no one expects all athletes to be clones. Limiting variations within athletes of the same biological gender can be overcome with technique, effort, discipline, diet, training, dedication, focus, and intensity. That's why upsets happen all the time in sports, and what makes watching sports enjoyable. That is "fair" the way we have defined it through the end of the 20th century--not just in sports, but in every aspect of life. Now we have trans athletes like Lia Thomas, who make the mental/emotional/psychological transition to female, and Lia wins all kinds of meets with biological females and sets all kinds of records. If we are going to formulate a view based on numbers, let's include those numbers. It's not "fair" in the same sense that it was before. 14:35 "And as long as athletes can make a lot of money from having a genetic advantage, someone's going to breed children who'll bring in that money. This is why I suspect a century from now professional athletics will not exist anymore. It creates too many incentive for unethical behavior." Clearly based on your opinion, not on science. First, athletic competition certainly involves a lot of money, but it's not all about the money. Artists, architects, physicians, psychiatrists, engineers, scientists, etc. make money, but they are also in it for the fulfillment, meaning, and purpose it provides. Second, every single pursuit in life has plenty of incentives for unethical behavior. Incentives for unethical behavior has not brought an end to politics, religions, art, commerce, etc. for thousands of years. I"m truly sorry that something had jaded your view of professional sports.

[@yessum15]

How do you feel about the inclusion of transitioned athletes subject to various handicapping methods designed to even the playing field? For example, I'm fairly certain that a ~13lb post cut weight disadvantages would entirely negate any potential advantage for 2+ year transitioned athletes in MMA. Similarly, in Power Lifting applying something like a modified Wilkes Coefficient could allow us to maximize inclusion while also maintaining an eye towards fairness.

[@jeronimo196]

@@yessum15 Great idea - let males compete with females, and tip the scales exactly enough for the males to always come second or worse. We'll need some data to devise the scales, but what are the next 5 - 10 years of women sports in the grand scheme of things... I especially like your ~13lbs disadvantage for MMA. Why not 12, or 14 lbs? Some may say we'd need some experimentation to determine the exactly right number. Which could lead to women (the female and the male variety!) getting beaten unfairly in the process - but what kind of a woman wouldn't be happy to take a few punches in the name of inclusion. Then only the group sports will remain "unbalanced" - but who cares about football, anyway.

[@yessum15]

@@jeronimo196 *_"Tip the scales enough for males to always come in second place"_* Not necessarily. But this seems more like an emotional outburst on your part rather than a sincere retelling of what I said. The goal would be to tip the scales enough to compensate for an unfair advantage to either competitor in order to establish an approximately level playing field. This is always the goal. *_"We'll ruin the next 5 years of women's sports collecting data"_* Unlikely. This sounds like hyperbole. Truth is, there are so few athletes for whom this rare condition applies that virtually any decision we take will have a negligible effect on women's sports overall. That said, this is really nothing new. Rules are constantly being tweaked by various athletic federations and venues giving certain athletes better or worse advantages at any given time. So long as we approach the adjustments conservatively, and examine the data we already have, we can minimize the disruption. *_"~13lbs disadvantage. Why not 12 or 14?"_* I guess you don't understand what the tilde (~) symbol means, huh? Just look it up and perhaps you'll understand why this comment is a bit silly. *_"What kind of woman wouldn't be happy to take punches in the name of inclusion?"_* So I think this statement makes it clear you don't understand how MMA works at all. No one is actually required to take a fight with anyone. Your manager pitches you fights which you either reject or accept. Now, given that among the tens of thousands of MMA fighters that have ever competed, there have only ever been 2 that fall into the category we're discussing, it is basically impossible that any woman would ever be in a position to have to "take punches for the sake of inclusion." Women get to select their fights and given that the vast majority of participants are female, the only women who would ever fight a transitioned competitor are the ones who would go out of their way to track one down and single her out. We know this because this is literally what is happening right now with the single transitioned competitor currently active. So yeah, this sounds like panicky hyperbole. Tbh, given the current level of data from both transitioned fighters and fighters known to use illegal substances I think we probably already have enough information to make a pretty good guess. A ~13lb handicap, maintaining proper T levels, with the currently required minimum time post transition, guarantees no advantage to the transitioned fighter. The only question left to ask is whether a _smaller_ handicap is more appropriate. However, there is no chance that a larger one would be required. So as you can see, no female fighter would be incurring any additional risk using this system. *_"Then only group sports would remain unbalanced"_* You've failed to provide any support for this claim. Why would group sports be immune to handicapping? In any case, it's important to note that maximizing inclusion doesn't necessarily mean that every sport is going to work out. The idea is just that you try your best to do it with as many sports as you actually can. That's what the word "maximizing" means. It seems odd to have to explain this. *Conclusion:* As you can see most of what you said seems like a knee-jerk emotional response rather than a well thought out criticism. You also seem pretty unfamiliar with and disinterested in the actual subject matter. My recommendation would be to probably just let this conversation pass you, rather than get yourself angry about something you aren't really interested in.

[@jeronimo196]

@@yessum15 Perhaps if I start using less sarcasm, I'll seem more dispassionate, and therefore smarter... "The goal would be to tip the scales enough to compensate for an unfair advantage to either competitor in order to establish an approximately level playing field. This is always the goal." What would be the suggested methodology, to decide what constitutes "enough"? "Rules are constantly being tweaked by various athletic federations and venues giving certain athletes better or worse advantages at any given time." What happens, when the trans-woman version of Usain Bolt appears and beats all previous records - do we tweak the rules again? How do we know we haven't tweaked the rules so much, that even trans-Bolt cannot win? Over-fitting the data until trans-athletes can only place second (or worse) seems an obvious danger to me. "Truth is, there are so few athletes for whom this rare condition applies that virtually any decision we take will have a negligible effect on women's sports overall." n

[@yessum15]

@@jeronimo196 Sorry, busy with important stuff. Here's your response: *_"What would the suggested methodology be?"_* I've already explained it. Please re-read the previous comments. *_"What happens when the T version of Usain Bolt comes along?"_* We already know the mean, mode, and range of margins of victory for women who win gold, as well as the theoretical upper limit. If a transitioned athletes deviates from this range significantly this would be a legitimate reason to change the handicap. Because the truth is, the odds that a transitioned athlete demonstrating a level of dominance outside of this range is doing so not because of an advantage related to the transition process but rather because of Usain Bolt like natural talent are astronomical. You are taking two incredibly low probabilities and multiplying them to produce an even less likely scenario. Then using that essentially non-existent scenario to justify scrapping an idea that would work the rest of the time. Yes, I suppose if the first transitioned athlete also happened to be a werewolf the system would also fail. *_"We could only have somewhat adequate data until the number is large enough to have a negligible effect on women's sports"_* You misunderstood this point. My point was to say transitioned athletes are such a rare phenomenon that overall this question is pretty unimportant. So anyone who begins with the claim that any strategy "will ruin all of women's sports" is being silly. Given that your responses with riddled with this energy and with statements like this, the first and most important thing to remember is: settle down. *_"To quote Randy Dewey..."_* Yeah Ramsey Dewey says a lot of weird things. I've turned down fights. Guys I've trained with have turned down fights. UFC fighters have turned down fights. WBC boxers have turned down fights. Amateurs who went on to compete in Golden Gloves have turned down fights. This happens pretty frequently. I doubt that the stigma associated with being a transitioned fighter is going to make it _harder_ to turn a person down. *_"I understand enough to know the rule book should use an equal sign"_* Did you think you were reading a rule book right now? And let's be honest, 1lb isn't going to be the difference. You're already allowed 0.5lb deviation anyway. The important part is what range you settle on. *_"I'd be worried about the transitioned athlete incurring additional risk"_* Different kind of risk. It's pretty common for fighters to fight oversized opponents. This is a well known phenomenon and the nature of the risk is well understood. So even in a situation where we were trading one risk for another yet the total size of the risk remained the same, we would _still_ be better off. Because we are trading a less understood and more difficult to counter risk, for a well understood one with long established mitigation strategies. However, realistically people who have enough experience in the sport would be quite good at making this determination within a range likely to reduce total risk, which while not perfect, is significantly better. Also, let's be honest: No you're not. *_"Maximizing means optimizing for a certain parameter. If you're optimizing for this, you're not optimizing for that."_* Indeed. That's why maximum strength Benadryl has killed so many. When will the madness end?! Lol Come on, stop being silly. Obviously maximizing within the parameters establish by a ranked priority list is a thing. *_"Group sports are vastly more complex"_* Yes, but fortunately group sports also have a vastly wider acceptable margin of error. Unlike something like the 100 meter dash, a game like football or basketball often experiments with making dramatic rule changes that will have a great deal of unknown effects with far less than conclusive research. Because there are so many unknown variables the fans are pretty used to this sort of thing. No one actually knew what would happen when we banned dunks, changing the charging rules, changing the rules of the drafting system, etc. There was literally almost no data to support these dramatic changes that all had a much larger impact than any rule about transitioned athletes ever could. And yet they were all implemented on the basis of enhancing fairness, with a wide variety of actual results. So yeah there's actually significantly more room for experimentation here. *_"Ad hominem"_* I don't think you know how to properly use that phrase. In any case we can agree to disagree on this point. *_"I'll decide when my fun/annoyance reaches the point of bailing out"_* Translation: "I'm actually not very confident in the validity of my point and feel discomfort being challenged, therefore I reserve the right to frame my imminent retreat as snobbery." Cool man, whatever works for you. Just glad I could inject some reason into your thinly veiled prejudice. *Conclusion:* It appears that your entire objection boils down to: "It cannot be done perfectly, therefore it is entirely unacceptable. My experience has been that is typically the disingenuous sentiment expressed by people who want society to continue to act in accordance with their personal bigotry but do not care to be openly associated with such a regressive attitude. It is the "[blank] people will never achieve full equality so we should segregate them" position of the disingenuous moderate. It seems pretty clear that many sports can accommodate this ridiculously small number of outlier individuals and risk mitigation strategies are plentiful. We should bring together the experts and proceed carefully along trying them with a clear priority list of maximizing safety, fairness, and inclusion. With full knowledge that frankly, we've taken far greater risks before.

[@kidzbop38isstraightfire92]

No, it's not fair. It's not even close. We're stupid to pretend this is even a question.

[@kalevala29]

why not question it. she brings up some interesting analysis. but I don't think a woman, cis or trans, would ever sprint faster than the fastest biological male. as for the fastest female sprinters, it's unclear. are there any trans sprinters?

[@kidzbop38isstraightfire92]

@@kalevala29 yes there are trans sprinters (MTF) and they destroy female sprinters in their races. It's not even close to being competition.

[@kalevala29]

@@kidzbop38isstraightfire92 I know no woman has broken Flo-Jo's record time, in 30 years? then again, wasn't there charges of her doping?

[@kidzbop38isstraightfire92]

@@kalevala29 give it time... As soon as a true upper-tier Male sprinter identifies as female, it's over.

[@ThePlayerOfGames]

​@@kidzbop38isstraightfire92so it's not happened then and you know you're presenting lies 🤔

[@cz19856]

I think that changing your body somewhat (not naturally I mean, but with drugs etc.) to make it much better in a competition should not be allowed. We can agree on that, this is why doping is not allowed. Isn't changing your sex with hormones and so on also a form of changing your body that clearly gives you an artificial advantage? Doesn't matter that the change is not just to be better at sport, like doping, but it gives you the same unfair advantage. In this case, the 'cheating' comes because you are allowed to participate in a lower-level competition.

[@barryon8706]

That would apply to trans-men, who (I think) get testosterone, and I think very few trans-men are doing sports in men's leagues, and I think they wouldn't be very good at it. Trans-women (I think) get drugs that diminish performance (but still have a performance boost from past testosterone levels).

[@mjt1517]

It’s not the changes. It’s what remains the same. Bone density, size, reflex speed, brawn. There is a reason why these people smoke their competitors.

[@Alex-qq1gm]

Drugs are natural.

[@chandra_creator]

@@barryon8706 trans women get estrogen and progesterone as part of hormone replacement therapy. also trans men don't exist (/s) so where would one even get the data

[@barryon8706]

@@chandra_creator Do estrogen and progesterone increase athletic performance, though?

[@mattp422]

Your point about entertainment value in sports is an important one, and I hadn’t seen it mentioned before in discussions regarding the topic at hand. I would argue that many female athletic competitions with the status quo (i.e., involving cis-females only) have plenty of entertainment value (and get as much coverage and "air-time" as their male equivalents). Some examples: gymnastics, swimming, track, downhill skiing, and, especially, in the U.S., soccer. As is, they are anything but boring. Where athletic competitions could become "boring" is when the same competitor wins time and again to the point where it is an a priori foregone conclusion. And, when, in female sports, such an outcome is due to measurable phenotypical advantages of a trans-female athlete (the conclusions in the studies and meta-analyses you cited), then we have the "perfect storm" for creating a boring competition: predictable outcome due to uniquely and grossly obvious advantage. Further, in sports that are already "co-ed" (target shooting and equestrian events, for example), fans do not find them boring because they lack any predictable outcome based on sex. Ultimately, however, this may end up being a tempest in a teapot because of the very small number of circumstances where it will be an issue in real life.

[@tapiir]

Was it boring when Usain Bolt won basically every race he attended for like 8 years straight?

[@mattp422]

@@tapiir For races where I really believed he was going to win, yeah, the race, itself, as a competition was fairly boring and, after he crossed the finish line first, the experience was underwhelming. Now, I did like to watch Usain Bolt compete, but for a different, potentially exciting, and unpredictable outcome: would he set another world record. That is something I’d pay good money to see! Remember the 1973 (?) Belmont Stakes. Everybody "knew" Secretariat was going to win. But winning by 31 lengths? Uncanny. The most exciting horse race I ever saw!

[@tapiir]

@@mattp422 I believe the Belmont Stakes were a bit before my time but I'll take your word for it!

[@mattp422]

@@tapiir You can find it on You Tube. It is unbelievable!

[@juliel2488]

It's so few trans women in sports that will never be an issue, like she said too, it's not only sex that determines it, it's many other genetic varibles like height, body desnity etc. and enviroment like where you grew up, if you rich, if you got a good trainer etc. And it really varies on what type of sport it is too. I also see people who think we should ban trans people from sports AND take away puberty blockers when puberty blockers and hormone therapy early solves the problem because then they are just the same as cis women then like the video said. It also helps if you are accepted as a girl and get to be on a girl team. And the unfortunate truth is that usually boy's sports team take it to the extreme and do it moslty for competition, so they get better training. Which also is another partically social thing that makes them get better edge. So truly best soution in mind is to be trans supportive and let trans people be accepted in society and have puberty blockers (it's been used for a long time on other things so it's not a new thing but of course it can be studied more but like girls get birth control and stuff which is more side effects so like it's not controversial) have case by case rules based on sports and also maybe still have the same 2 year rule. At least that's what the science leads me to think, and she had a point that it's actually dangerous stuff they rather should focus on.

[@diogenes3300]

Sabine, I feel you are taking the easy way out of this. I feel that instead of actually examining whether including trans competitors with cis competitors is ‘fair,’ you have simply said ‘no, it’s never totally fair,’ and escaped the hard part of actually having a position. I understand there isn’t any ‘easy’ answer, but categories exist in sports in order to promote fairness despite the impossibility of it. Was your video simply a clever way of not picking a side by pointing at other problems that exist within sports already?

[@UltimateTobi]

Yeah, I think she dropped the ball on that one.

[@andredelacerdasantos4439]

I personally enjoyed the scientific information she provided, but disliked the way she handled the whole affair. It's a hard subject for sure and I admire her audacity of tackling it Sabine style. 6/10

[@michaelprozonic]

She did take a position….. sports aren’t fair so it doesn’t matter

[@diogenes3300]

@@michaelprozonic The trans-athlete debate is about maintaining fairness. Is it ever going to be perfect? No. But this answer is the equivalent of an intellectual shrug.

[@Miycu]

​@@diogenes3300 Her position seemed pretty clear, put more crudely: the "debate" is a stupid one, sports were never fair. the only debate worth having is on how to make sports interesting as that's the real purpose of the categories.

[@thealrightygina5725]

Where exactly do they allow people to have surgical and hormonal transition before puberty? Here in the US as far as I know you're not allowed to do any of that before age 16 even with parental consent, and most people, especially XX people, will be well on their way through puberty before then.

[@virno69420]

Depends on state, but many states permit prescription of hormonal gender affirming care under 18.

[@devalapar7878]

Fairness in this sense means if someone with right conditions can achieve the same with enough training. A heavy weight boxer will always win against light weight boxer.

[@UltimateTobi]

Exactly. I think she dropped the ball on this one.

[@omp199]

So she was right at 11:08. "Is that fair? No." As far as I am aware, there is no competitive sport in which any person can win with enough training. I certainly could never win a 100-metre sprint, for example, against elite athletes, no matter how much training I had.

[@moletrap2640]

Kudos to you for taking on such a “third rail” topic, and doing it so well. I absolutely love your analysis of current professional sports and the prediction for its future. I have always felt the same way, professional sports is basically a six-sigma freak show. Some people find it entertaining, some people find it kind of pointless.

[@dianes6245]

Pointless, yes. But entertaining? Yes that too.

[@DavidHRyall]

All professional pursuits are pointless, as is life itself. That doesn't mean one can't find meaning on a personal and group level doing pointless things

[@mauricio4619]

@@DavidHRyall I don't think they mean like it is for nothing, it's that some people don't care for it. Like, I don't care to watch sports but it's mostly because I end up wanting to play the sport rather than cheer on gladiators.

[@spiritualpolitics8205]

Taking on a third rail topic to mouth the pieties of 99% of our elites is not really so third rail. It's akin to publicly opining one's on board with defund the police.

[@mycollegeshirt]

​ @Shnizza pie sports aren't just a whose the born the strongest competition. The level's of ridiculous dedication and love for the craft is what's incredible. You watch them to learn and figure them out to try and perfect it, to push yourself. Just like you do anything you want to excel at. You learn from the masters.

[@ernestamoore4385]

If testosterone is not an issue, why are there females with the intersex condition of Martínez-Patiño overrepresented in sports? They must have an advantage in some way.

[@enkarg4372]

Thanks for explaining the issue with hard science. I really, really appreciate it. What I would add is that, after listening to intersex people talking about themselves, I've noticed they use "diverse/different sexual development" instead of "disorder" to avoid pathologization, as many intersex people don't present any health disorders per se. That said, I love how sound the reasoning was. Thank you so much for this video ❤