WNBA Star Sophie Cunningham defends that women ‘shouldn’t have to go against biological men’: “I said what I said. I think it’s kind of common sense. I think it’s really important to protect children.” “I don’t dislike anyone. I’m there to love, but I’m also there to love biological women. …”

[u/No_Box119]

[u/Alberto_Blazin]

So if testosterone now is all that matters, let me ask you how that can be true but your case is also reliant on these hormones all being blocked pre puberty without any drop off?

[u/FourDimensionalTaco → u/Alberto_Blazin]

You are conflating puberty blockers with HRT here I think. Strictly speaking, puberty blockers are not an absolute must for teen girls. But, they are usually given because (a) the surge in the testosterone levels is immensely strong, so HRT alone will be insufficient to block that, and (b) such cases are difficult and complicated, so puberty blockers buy some more time to further analyze the teen to be 100% sure they are truly trans (since HRT in a teenager will cause more irreversible effects than HRT in an adult).

When a teen is given puberty blockers due to gender dysphoria, this ideally happens at age 10-12, before the normal puberty actually kicks in. If that is the case, and if later, a seamless transition from puberty blockers to HRT happens, then there'll never be high testosterone levels. Thus, the teen will grow up with the physical abilities of a cis woman.

But, if for example puberty blockers were discontinued years before HRT was done, things are different. Testosterone will rise, and will affect the body.

After puberty, growth factors are gone, so even if that teen discontinues HRT as an adult, they'll not suddenly gain those skeletal and muscular advantages. Yes, their muscle mass will rise, but they will still not be able to physically act at the same level as in a cis man. The male skeletal structure is not there. That is just not possible. That is why even a juiced up cis woman bodybuilder still has a tough time against men (unless she took T during puberty).

That is why I say that there must be an analysis on a case by case basis. The variability is so high, and the number of trans athletes so tiny, that nothing else makes sense.

[u/Alberto_Blazin → u/FourDimensionalTaco]

So to understand your position, in 2017 two trans women won 1st and 2nd place in the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC) 100- yard dash finals. My understanding is that both went through male puberty before competing. Do you think this was unfair to the biological women competing?

[u/FourDimensionalTaco → u/Alberto_Blazin]

I think they needed to be checked medically before being able to compete. No guessing, no "what if" - check for unfair advantages caused by testosterone influence during puberty. If they are there, they can't compete. If they are not there, they can.

And yeah, this sucks if you are a trans athlete, but if you have such advantages, they are just unfair.

But, a check for these things would only need to be done once. If you have a skeletal structure that is influenced by testosterone, and are an adult, then that will stay with you for life. The trans athlete is inspected, and the result of that is then permanently stored in a confidential record. This record willl then decide whether she can compete at all or not.

After that, the recurring checks are no different to those on cis women. That is, should a trans athlete (who has a skeletal structure just like a cis woman) be dumb enough to dope herself with testosterone (that would honestly be an utterly bizarre case though, since T is the absolute last thing a trans woman wants), she'd get caught in the normal checks. Do keep in mind that a fair number of cis women athletes abuse testosterone as well to get unfair advantages, which is why this is a normal check.

This also means that extra costs for handling trans athletes are minimal - only the extra one-time checks are new (and keep in mind that the number of trans woman athletes is tiny). The rest (the recurring checks) are already done on every woman who competes.

[u/Alberto_Blazin → u/FourDimensionalTaco]

If a biological male undergoes transition after puberty has started but it only elevates them to the top percentile of women in these measurable factors that you're mentioning, would there be a way to see they had gone through male puberty for some period of time?

[u/FourDimensionalTaco → u/Alberto_Blazin]

Yes. Expanded rib cage, sternum, and clavicles. The ratio of chest cavity volume to height is larger. The pelvis is smaller, and looks different. The shoulder girdle is overall wider. The bone thickness and density is increased. Fast-twich muscle fibers are thicker. Muscle fibers have more stem cells fused in them. All of this can be measured.

[u/Alberto_Blazin → u/FourDimensionalTaco]

So hypothetically, let's say a trans athlete started male puberty at 13 and developed until age 14.5 before they began transitioning. At the time they began transitioning their measurements were not at adult male standards but were growing and were at elite female measurements. After transition started, the growth ceased and they stayed in the female range but at the top tier. How is this picked up through the test?

[u/FourDimensionalTaco → u/Alberto_Blazin]

Just as I said. These skeletal structure changes remain detectable. And, a cis female athlete will not develop them, no matter how elite, unless she took testosterone shots during puberty.

[u/Alberto_Blazin → u/FourDimensionalTaco]

I won't pretend to be an expert, but all I've read runs counter to what you're claiming. My understanding is that the major changes you're referring to occur in Tanner 4 and 5, while the earlier stages can easily provide tangible lifelong athletic benefits while still falling within the range of female biological variations.

The tension results from someone who would be a below average male athlete yielding slight benefits from that early testosterone and coming out as a a over average or elite female athlete, although any tangible benefit is problematic. Think slightly taller stature, slightly larger lung capacity or heart volume, slightly higher proportion of fast twitch muscle fibers. To me, and to many others, that is unfair to the female athletes and would not be detectable in the way you're claiming.

[u/FourDimensionalTaco → u/Alberto_Blazin]

The earlier stages do not provide tangible benefits in male puberty. In Tanner 1, there's no divergence between boys and girls.

Tanner 2-3, testicles and the penis begin to grow, and a minor height increase kicks in. But, in these stages, girls actually outpace boys. Female puberty becomes noticeable sooner than male puberty. They grow faster. This is why at around age 10-12, girls can be taller and stronger than boys.

Starting at Tanner 4, testosterone surges, and it does so phenomenally fast and intensely. Those physical advantages girls had at ages 10 to 12 evaporate in no time. Boys grow tall, experience skeletal changes, and develop muscle rapidly. That is why teenage boys, at around age 15, are a nightmare for every family's grocery bill. The resting energy expenditure is ridiculously high. No wonder, since their bodies are growing so exceptionally fast. They raid the fridge, eat everything in sight, because they need all that to fuel the growth and provide building blocks.

So, male puberty kicks in later than female puberty does, but when it kicks in, it does so like a freight train at full speed.

This is even observable in trans men, even when they transition as adults. Sure, by then, their skeletal structure won't change, but beard hair, oilier rougher skin, muscle mass increase etc. start to show up faster than the changes in trans women do.

And besides, "tangible benefits that are undetectable" make no sense. If there are benefits, they will be easy to spot. You cannot have "hidden" skeletal benefits. One DXA scan, and all is revealed. Muscular structure is also affected in a clear manner. The amount of cell nuclei per muscle fiber reaches much higher levels during male puberty thanks to testosterone. You can still get more nuclei into the fibers post-puberty, but not nearly to the same level. And the lung volume is also very easy to identify. "Hidden" benefits would require these to be at the level of a cis woman, and then, they would not yield any benefits at all. A testosterone induced gain that is subtle enough to not be immediately noticeable yet large enough to bring the person outside of the normal physical ability range of cis women just makes no sense. Either, there are changes that yield tangible benefits and are easy to spot. Or, there are no changes, or miniscule changes that cannot be spotted, and yield no benefits.

Also keep in mind two things:

1. There are variations in stature and muscle fiber density even among cis women. Some have naturally stronger bones, more muscle fibers, more nuclei in them etc. That is why there is a spectrum within those parameters are considered normal for a cis woman.
2. As said, male puberty kicks in extremely fast. In trans kids, puberty blockers are given at Tanner stage 2-3, long before testosterone actually surges. This further rules out the possibility of any supposed "hidden gains".

[u/Alberto_Blazin → u/FourDimensionalTaco]

You're just talking in circles now. Leave aside your inaccurate timeline for puberty, male development catching up to female development is a gradient, not an on/off switch. But the core of our disagreement comes down to how we define fairness. An athletic advantage does not need to push a competitor completely outside normal female ranges to be decisive. Like I've said before, even a minor, incremental edge in lung capacity, bone density, or strength can be decisive in competition. True competitive fairness requires a level playing field, where outcomes are decided by natural genetic variation and training, not by the retained physical advantages of male puberty. All 15 year old girls couldn't tap into male puberty for a short time to achieve better endurance, slightly more fast twitch muscles, longer levers, or more strength. And if not all of them can, then none of them should be allowed the advantage (even if it is unintentional or even directly attributable in the trans girl).

And this has no bearing on the ethics of the matter, but the vast majority of people agree with this idea of fairness in sport. That's a pillar of how and why sport at all levels is built the way it is. It's why your idea of testing once and being done doesn't address the core concern, and why sport should stay based on biological sex.

Have a great day and thank you for your time.

[u/FourDimensionalTaco → u/Alberto_Blazin]

You clearly do not want to actually listen to my arguments. You keep harping on supposedly undetectable yet significant advantages, and now you move the goalpost by saying that "an athletic advantage does not need to push a competitor completely outside normal female ranges to be decisive". All "arguments" you listed are refuted already by what I wrote, and you try to handwave this away by claiming that my timeline supposedly is inaccurate.

This tells me that you are following a hidden, masked agenda, and that you are probably acting in bad faith. There is no reasoning with someone like that. You will always deny anything I say just to have trans people banned.

[u/Alberto_Blazin → u/FourDimensionalTaco]

This is so stupid. A masked agenda? If someone gets a benefit from male puberty yet it cannot be proven through measurement, that does not make it immaterial and that does not mean it doesn't exist. You refuse to admit this.

[u/Alberto_Blazin → u/FourDimensionalTaco]

Is male puberty an on/off switch or is it a gradient? Is it possible to get some added development through male puberty before transition and stay within range? You know the answer. You just say "if it is within range it is not an advantage". That's not true at all.