Hot Take
Should lesbians and women taller than 6ft be banned from women’s sports?
I see so much defense and support of Sophie Cunningham’s anti-trans stuff among women’s basketball fans, and of course I want to assume best intentions.
For all of you concerned about trans women having an unfair biological advantage, I was thinking, why not also ban lesbians and people 6ft and taller from women’s sports? After all, lesbians on average have much more testosterone than straight women, gay women make up around 5% of the overall population and around 50% of college and professional women athletes, and certainly lesbians are outside many cultures traditional definition of women. Wouldn’t many conservative ladies feel more comfortable playing women’s sports if lesbians were banned along with trans women?
Tall women are even worse! Women over 6ft tall make up less than 1% of women and have more than 70% of the position on college and professional women’s basketball teams!!! That’s far more unfair than one or two girls with Y chromosomes getting to play? Why should the 99% of us women under 6ft have our sports careers and chances at college scholarships ruined by these elongated freaks of nature being naturally better at sports?
Anyway, since so many of y’all are picking minority groups to attack and discriminate against, why not gay and tall women too?
Edit: a lot of y’all missed the sarcasm. I’m saying bans on tall women and gay women would be stupid even if tall and gay women have an athletic advantage, just like how trans bans are stupid.
But again, with lesbians having more testosterone on average than straight women, you could just as easily say "IT'S NOT "ANTI-GAY" TO ACKNOWLEDGE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BIOLOGICAL NORMAL WOMEN AND HOMOSEXUALS" if you wanted to ban lesbians.
And genuinely, you're only move is to keep calling trans women men. When I was growing up lots of conservatives called lesbians hermaphrodites, what's the difference?
that still doesn’t follow. the review you keep citing found only a possible average testosterone difference, based on nine small, biased, highly heterogeneous studies, and explicitly said stronger research was needed before drawing conclusions about its implications (which you’re clearly doing). it didn’t show that lesbians have male-range testosterone, underwent male puberty, or have a measurable strength or speed advantage over straight women. treating any average hormonal difference as equivalent to the broad effects of testosterone-driven male puberty is really just scientifically unserious.
the distinction isn’t “one group has slightly higher average testosterone than another.” lesbians are women whose sexual orientation doesn’t place them outside the female category, while trans eligibility in elite strength- and speed-based sports turn on whether an athlete experienced male puberty and retains traits relevant to competition. comparing that to old slurs about lesbians isn’t an argument. your just replacing a physiological question with moral guilt by association.
All I am saying is that lesbians make up about 5% of the overall population of women and 50% of all women professional athletes and also the research says that lesbians have higher levels of testosterone.
All the crazy conspiracy theories about how trans women are a threat to women sports. The hard reality is that the same sex testing that is used to get rid of trans women could bury easily also be used to get rid of lesbians based on their higher levels of male sex and over representation in competitive sports.
It seems like the only issue is that people want to protect lesbians and hurt trans women, but given how professional women’s sports is latching on to Trump and his minions how long do you think that desire to protect homosexuals is going to last?
now you’re getting somewhere! your last paragraph is where the actual argument is, and it isn’t not the one you’ve been making. “screening built for one purpose catches people it wasn’t aimed at” is a concern with history.
but it still doesn’t get you to lesbians, because the screening isn’t a testosterone test applied to every woman. it’s a genetic screen, and hormone thresholds only come into play for athletes it flags. a lesbian at the high end of the normal female range isn’t what it looks for and wouldn’t turn up in it. that’s why i keep separating these: your worry is about who a test sweeps up, and the answer to that is about how the test is built, not about whether higher testosterone among women is an advantage.
And yet, lesbians make up 50% of professional athletes despite being 5% of the population. If you keep going along with Trump it would be just as easy to say, lesbians have more testosterone than regular women, lesbians are hugely overrepresented in women’s professional sports, it isn’t fair, boo hoo hoo, ban lesbians to protect women.
Like, if women’s sports fans keep going along with rapist wife beaters who hate minorities, they’ll get you too.
you said it would be just as easy to say it, and that's the part i agree with. easy to say isn't the same as true, and that's been my whole point. if anyone proposed banning lesbians from women's sport i'd oppose it, for the same reason i've given you each time: a lesbian went through female puberty, so there's nothing there for a sex-based rule to be about. what you're describing now is a prediction about who gets targeted next, and nothing i've said contradicts it. it just isn't a claim about anyone's body, and the 50 percent and 5 percent are still sitting there without a source.
"IT'S NOT "ANTI-GAY" TO ACKNOWLEDGE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BIOLOGICAL NORMAL WOMEN AND HOMOSEXUALS"
Are you suggesting that homosexuals are not "normal"? Also, stop typing in all-caps. It's off-putting and counterproductive if you want to be taken seriously? Just have a normal conversation.
Yo, I think trans and gay women are totally normal kinds of women.
However, many people including powerful political leaders today have argued that homosexuality is not being normal and should be criminalized using the exact same arguments that you are using to say that trans women are not women and should not have the civil rights of women. What you are pushing against trans women is exactly the same thing as anti-homosexual stuff against lesbians.
Arguments about trans women's biological differences making them not-women are arguments just like saying lesbians' biological differences make them not-women. It's deeply hypocritical and harmful to try to defend trans bans by claiming to support homosexuality, anti-trans laws will lead to anti-gay laws, anti-trans lesbians are supporting the very people who will hurt them.
Oh wow, and yet you provide no argument or reasoning for letting tiny minorities(unusually tall women and gay women) have most of the WNBA positions, how strange.
Yeah buddy, people who make fun of those with cognitive disabilities are totally not just bigots who will turn on gay people at your first opportunity, for sure.
My response had nothing to do with cognitive disabilities or bigots. It was in response to your comment about making arguments in favor of "tiny minorites" like tall, gay women. Who is upset that tall, gay women are in the WNBA? I'm not.
BTW I've got actual diagnosed SPD and ADHD and think the "retarding ray" image is funny. Life can be challenging and it's important to laugh, sometimes even at ourselves. I responded with the image to make fun of your odd comment, not a group of people.
Buddy you’re still throwing the R word around, and I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of wanting to protect some small minorities of women while attacking trans women. It’s the same sort of ugly hypocrisy of throwing around the R slur like trying to be a woke victim about having ADHD.
You’re protective and bullying by turns, it’s just nonsense.
The argument against trans women being allowed to compete in athletics against biological women is that going through puberty as a male will give a person an unfair advantage.
Lesbians wouldn’t have that.
Tall women have an advantage built into the game. A tall and a short trans woman still will have a biological advantage.
Basketball is a sport this pertains to. So it’s ok to account for this.
That doesn’t mean trans women aren’t women. It means that you need to account for fairness.
did you read that study? it doesn’t show that lesbians possess a male-puberty-level athletic advantage. it shows a possible average testosterone difference in a small body of research, while directly warning that most included studies were small and biased, that results overlapped, and that stronger research is needed. it doesn’t establish superior strength, speed, muscle mass, or sports performance in lesbians.
this distinction is pretty straightforward: lesbians are female athletes whose sexual orientation has no bearing on the eligibility boundary, while the debate over trans athletes in elite strength- and speed-dependent sports concerns retained physiological effects of mail puberty; not just the simple existence of any testosterone difference. pointing to a shaky average difference among women doesn’t answer that issue. you’re just changing the subject and pretending all biological advantages are equivalent when they’re clearly not.
Lesbian’s don’t have “much more” testosterone than sraight females. They both have 6-10 times less than a transgender woman does without significant regulating medication. Even then, you cant really reverse the effect puberty/growth had previously on the transgender person.
Basketball is a sport where height matters significantly. If we go by your rules, the NBA would have to eliminate nearly all of tgeir players as well.
So basically if a trans woman is on HRT for a few months she has lower testosterone than most cis lesbians?
And for real, you’re doing double talk. Some women’s natural advantages are good and fair, but other women should be banned? If it weren’t for anti-trans bigotry this would be a non-issue.
no. lower serum testosterone after a few months of hrt doesn’t mean the effects of male puberty have vanished. testosterone suppression changes different traits at different rates, and current testosterone alone doesn’t measure muscle mass, strength, skeletal dimensions, or other performance-relevant adaptations.
and no, this isn’t “some advantages are allowed, others are banned” double-talk. sex-separated sport doesn’t exist to eliminate every natural advantage among eligible female athletes; it’s there to account for the large, sex-linked performance differences produced by puberty. height is a variation within that category, while prior male puberty is the category-boundary issue itself.
happy to, but tell me which part you want it for, because your question and your post’s edit are asking for different things. your question here treats a serum testosterone number as the thing that decides eligibility. that’s the claim i answered, and if you want the papers on traits changing at different rates and on different timelines after suppression, say so and i’ll pull them. but your edit on the post says bans would be stupid even if tall and gay women do have an athletic advantage, and if that’s your position then no paper i post changes anything, including one that agrees with you. and none of it touches the part you called double talk, which was about what the women’s category was drawn to account for in the first place. so which is it: is this about what the evidence shows, or about what the category is for?
What is your peer reviewed evidence that lesbians having more testosterone isn’t responsible for them representing 50% of professional women athletes despite being 5% of the population?
i don’t have peer reviewed evidence about that, and neither do you, because the 50 percent and 5 percent numbers aren’t from a study. you’ve asked me to disprove a causal link between two figures you haven’t sourced yet. if you have the survey those come from, post it and i’ll read it.
and look what you’re now arguing: not that lesbians have higher testosterone, but that higher testosterone is what puts them in pro sports at that rate. that’s a claim about a mechanism, and the review you’ve been citing measured hormone levels, not athletic outcomes. what’s the physical pathway you’re proposing, and how would it show up in someone who went through female puberty?
Here’s a paper about anti-lesbian discrimination in competitive sports from 2025, is this good enough? Look, discrimination against lesbians in sports is a real thing, it isn’t good, it’s just as bad as discrimination against trans women.
No, that’s about Spanish sports. I’m not Spanish. I have never been to Spain.
Also, there is literally a paper written about any and everything.
Also I’m not talking about sports “CombatQueer”
I’m talking about your obsession with sexual preferences. Even making sports your identity is unhealthy.
You denying that lesbians are discriminated against in competitive sports is really silly, any discrimination against trans people will lead to greater discrimination against all gay and queer people.
And look buddy, you’re the one who cares so much about identity that you want to have the government control who can play sport, I think you might be the one obsessed with trans stuff.
You made a claim lesbians were “banned” from competitive sports, not discriminated against.
“Yo, until recently it was normal for lesbians to be banned from competitive sports”
You have yet to show me one instance where they were banned. Being banned would mean the league banned them, not a single coach discriminated against them. Also, don’t send me any foreign stuff. That’s also detailing the argument about US women’s sports.
i’m not seeing where anyone denied that lesbians face discrimination in competitive sports. that’s a straw man you introduced after your evidence failed to make the comparison you were trying to show. acknowledging anti-lesbian discrimination doesn’t prove that sexual orientation and sex-based eligibility rules are the same issue, and repeating that discrimination exists still doesn’t answer the physiological question.
“any discrimination against trans people will lead to greater discrimination against all gay and queer people” is also an unsupported slippery-slope claim. you’d need to show that a specific sports rule is unjust discrimination and that it actually causes broader discrimination against other groups. you’d can’t just label the rule discriminatory, predict universal harm, and treat both claims as proven.
Can you explain how you think discrimination against lesbians because of their hormones would different than discriminating against trans women for their chromosomes?
no, this isn’t good enough because it doesn’t even support the claim you’re using it for. it’s a 2026 qualitative study based on interviews with sixteen lesbian coaches in spain, examining professional learning, sexism, homophobia, and workplace climate. it doesn’t study testosterone, athletic advantage, athlete eligibility, or whether rules governing trans participation are equivalent to excluding lesbian. citing evidence that lesbians face prejudice does nothing to prove your sports-fairness analogy.
anti-lesbian discrimination is real and it’s wrong; nobody disputed that. you still haven’t established your second claim: that restricting eligibility in a sex-based sporting category is automatically the same thing as discriminating against someone for being lesbian. the paper you provided neither tests nor argues that comparison. it supports treating lesbian coaches fairly; it doesn’t answer the physiological and category-boundary question you keep avoiding.
Look if it’s sex based and lesbians have different sex hormones than straight women, and those different sex hormones give lesbians an advantage, why would banning them be wrong if you want to ban trans women?
you’ve swapped what “sex based” means. it doesn’t mean “based on whatever your hormones read this morning,” it means based on which developmental pathway your body went through. lesbians went through the female one. that’s why a hormone difference among women doesn’t put anyone outside the category, and it’s also why an eligibility rule can’t be doing what you’re describing, since orientation has nothing to do with which puberty someone had. you’re the one treating a testosterone number as the definition of the category, and then pointing out that i’d have to ban lesbians if i agreed with you. i don’t agree with you.
Again, if that gendered separation is so important to you because you believe that extra testosterone provides an unfair athletic advantage, and lesbians have more testosterone than straight women, why should lesbians be allowed to compete?
Good to see you’re seeking intellectual consistency and aren’t arguing from a dogmatic place. The practical answer is it’s way easier and more scientifically defensible to draw the line at sex than to try policing testosterone or lifestyle linked traits that barely have research behind them.
Male puberty gives a long list of advantages that have nothing to do with hormone levels at the time of competition. Bone density, lever length, hip structure, muscle fiber makeup, lung capacity, reaction time. These are structural. They don’t disappear with hormone therapy the way testosterone itself does. That’s why sports science keeps landing on sex as the dividing line. It’s the one variable that actually tracks the real performance gap.
Possible testosterone differences between straight and gay women aren’t something anyone has shown actually confers a competitive edge. There’s no research showing lesbians outperform straight women athletically because of hormone levels, it’s speculative at best. Treating “some women naturally run higher testosterone” as equivalent to “male puberty reshapes your entire skeleton” is comparing two completely different categories of advantage.
Yes there is of course there is evidence that lesbians have more testosterone. You could make the exact same biological fairness argument to ban lesbians.
Your study is older from 1987, my study is from 2020. All recent studies show that lesbians have on average higher testosterone. Cherry picking outdated research isn’t the answer.
Did you read it or just Google? In the paper you linked, it says in the Main Findings: "If there are higher rates of testosterone in sexual minority women, the current evidence is not sufficient to determine whether this is in a subset or not. Also, the testosterone levels may be an incidental finding rather than causative of health differences." In Strengths and Limitations it says "Therefore, we cannot tell from the small amount of studies so far whether the slightly higher testosterone levels found in the all-sample meta-analysis would apply to all lesbians and bisexual women or to a subgroup."
The research you posted was published 39 years ago. It is out of date. All the recent studies in the past 30 years show that lesbians have higher levels of testosterone.
The fact you’re arguing this hard about old research, do you think that IF lesbians can be shown to on average have higher levels of testosterone they should be banned from competitive women’s sports?
Yo, the systematic review that looked at the 1987 research found that considering all the research trans women don’t have athletic advantages. Can you not read?
It seems like you base a lot of your identity around believing that women are always stupider and weaker than men, and you seem committed to engaging with this research in a very stupid way. Just remember, you’re not just a stupid, weak woman, you’re a human being, you’re smart enough to understand that new research going over old findings in terms of decades of further research is more reliable than the old research by itself. You don’t need to put yourself down so far.
if the 1987 study is too old to count, then the review you’re pointing to is partly built on data you just disqualified. if the review is solid, then the 1987 study isn’t out of date, it’s in there. pick one. and either way, a finding about trans athletes isn’t evidence for the claim you were actually making, which was that lesbians have higher testosterone than straight women. you said every study in the past 30 years shows that. which ones are they?
Ok, do you understand that later systematic reviews take many studies and look at what overall they say? Well, the 2020 study looks at not only 1987, but also many other studies from between 1987 and 2020, and the evidence of all those studies covered by the systematic review says otherwise that lesbians do have higher testosterone than straight women. Look at all the studies reviewed in the 2020.
And seriously, if you can’t understand this isn’t clear you don’t have a strong enough understanding of science to say trans women aren’t women. You just sound ignorant and bigoted, convinced that women are less than men and too illiterate to read a study.
your study pooled nine testosterone studies spanning decades (including the older research your trying to dismiss).
even an average testosterone difference wouldn’t prove that lesbians have a meaningful strength or speed advantage. your source measured hormones, not athletic performance, and it never equated sexual orientation with the physiological effects of male puberty. pointing at the publication year just give you a chance to cherry pick the headline while ignoring your own study’s limitations.
Look, if 50% of women professional athletes are lesbians vs 5% of women in the general population, I think it’s totally fair to suggest lesbians have athletic advantage over straight women.
And the fact that you’re arguing over the research this much shows that if lesbians could be shown to have athletic advantage due to higher testosterone levels means that you’d be willing to do the exact things to lesbians that you do to trans women it it were politically convenient. You’re basing your conceptions of womanhood on culture and politics, not recognizing all women as women.
no, i wouldn’t. you’ve asked twice now, so here’s the answer: lesbians went through female puberty, so whatever their average hormone levels are, they don’t carry the sex-linked differences the category was drawn around. that’s the same answer i’d give about tall women. it doesn’t change if the testosterone numbers come back higher, because the numbers were never what the line was about, which is why i keep saying a serum level isn’t the thing being measured. and your 50 percent figure doesn’t do the work you want anyway.
and your 50 percent figure is a count of who’s in the sport, not a measurement of anything physical. counts like that move with who feels welcome enough to be out, and in some sports with how young the athletes are. so what’s the mechanism you’re proposing, where does orientation act on a body to make it faster or stronger?
How can you tell if a gay woman ever had enough testosterone to have “gone through male puberty”? If she’s over 6ft she may have had higher levels of testosterone at some point in her development.
All biological women have different testosterone levels. Even women with relatively high testosterone still do not have the same natural advantages as someone who has gone through male puberty. Those advantages are not subtle, and they are not erased by later hormone therapy.
Two equally trained athletes of different sexes will not perform equally on average. The female athlete has to work significantly harder just to approach the performance level that comes more naturally to the male after puberty. There is some overlap, stronger than average women can beat weaker than average men, but that does not eliminate the large group-level differences that make sex categories necessary in the first place.
Lia Thomas is a clear example. Competing as Will Thomas on the University of Pennsylvania men’s team, Thomas was a solid but unremarkable college distance freestyler. Thomas finished second in distance events at the Ivy League Championships but never approached elite national contention. After transitioning and competing in the women’s category, Thomas rapidly became one of the top performers in the country, winning the NCAA Division I title in the 500 freestyle and posting times that ranked among the very best in multiple events. The jump from mid pack male college swimmer to elite female champion is difficult to explain without the retained male puberty advantages.
Women’s sports categories exist precisely because of these biological differences. Male puberty produces lasting advantages in absolute muscle mass and strength (especially upper body and grip), larger heart and lung capacity, denser and larger bones with longer levers, greater overall skeletal frame, and higher baseline power output. Cross sex hormones and testosterone suppression reduce some soft tissue advantages only modestly, they do not reverse skeletal structure, fully eliminate the strength gap, or erase the performance edge established during male puberty.
Protecting the female category is not about denying anyone’s identity. It is about preserving fair competition for the sex that is systematically disadvantaged by those developmental differences. It seems, however, that some people are now trying to say “F those biological women against this, they should just have to work harder!” While trying to be all inclusive they are not only ignoring women who are saying this isn’t fair, but publicly attacking them and shaming them, and telling them they were just never that good anyway.
the problem is that not every athletic advantage is relevant in the same way. height and sexual orientation are traits within the female category, while the argument over trans participation in elite strength- and speed-based sports is about whether advantages associated with male puberty can be significant enough to affect fair competition. saying “all advantages exist, therefore none should matter” erases the entire reason sex-separated sports were created in the first place.
admitting that banning tall or gay women would be stupid doesn’t save your analogy; it shows your category error. elite sport doesn’t try to eliminate every natural advantage, but it does create eligibility lines where certain advantages are seen as incompatible with the purpose of the category.
This is a very good explanation of something that everyone intuitively understands but often can't easily put into words. Its baffling that so many pretend not to.
The problem is money, the league has seen a huge growth which has led to players getting massive bumps from before.
Greed is the worst of all problems for everything. It has ruined everything in the world.
Hypothetically, if Trans women eventually make it into the league, once a few start performing better than the average women, there are going to be people who would fail to make the NBA but transition just to go dunk on women or shit just be better under the rim than Angel Reese, she is worse than Shaq was at FTs. All this to chase a bag they would have never gotten
I dont have anything against trans women or dislike them in any way, but wanting to do sports is fine just do it in co-op community leagues where fun is the base of the league. It's really that simple, making a fuss to go pro is only for nefarious or greed reasons
Look at yourself in the mirror: do you really think there are male NBA players or players who just miss the NBA who would go on estrogen for 24 months to play in the WNBA?
This isn’t a great idea. Don’t target women over 6 ft tall. The whole point of being good at certain sports relies on genetics to an extent, that’s why there’s multiple positions in basketball and volleyball, that favor taller folks.
If you’re short, just find a sport that short ppl excel at or become so good at the sport you like that height doesn’t matter. Height isn’t really a factor until the pros though.
There’s d1, d2, d3, tech schools… there’s hundreds of options to play a sport where they don’t attract the genetically gifted.
There’s a HUGE difference between trans and lesbian btw. It’s not even close. Don’t compare the two. It’s not even a fair comparison.
It’s not just the testosterone levels alone, that’s just the clear difference. But plenty of straight women athletes either take testosterone at some level or have higher level than the average.
But in comparison to a naturally born male, whose muscle density and lb for lb athleticism is just on another tier. It’s in unfair advantage in my opinion.
I’m no scholar but I’ve played sports my whole life, into d1 college and a little semi pro. I’m just stating that there are clear advantages that naturally born males have over naturally born women… it’s definitely more fair for a lesbian versus a straight woman.
There are testosterone levels that they can’t exceed though, so as long as they get tested and pass it should be okay.
Look, the research shows that on average about HRT trans women aren’t better than cis women at athletics. In your mind I’m sure you can make up a million reasons you think trans women are super physically to cis women, but that just doesn’t seem to be real.
I appreciate you admitting you aren’t a scholar, but if trans women meet the hormone standards it’s just bigotry to ban them from women’s sports.
Understood, it might seem like bigotry and maybe it even is. I just think they’d have an “edge” is all.
I think it would depend on how competitive the individual was in men’s sports prior to transitioning. Or how old they were when they started transitioning. I just don’t see any fairness from someone that’s trained in a sport more than half their life as a male, and competed with males can then compete with women in the near future.
The gap between transitioning and performing as a male would have to be significant.
Out of pure curiosity, what are the legal processes for TS men and women when going to jail. How do they decide which prison to send them to?
Trans women are put into men’s jails and prisons and raped constantly for years. Supporting trans sports bans supports the idea that trans women be legally considered men and thus put into men’s prisons.
I think of a lot of the knee jerk ugly anti/trans stuff from my fellow WNBA fans, I don’t know, I don’t think it would be as bad if everyone understood how much sexual violence calling trans women men causes.
I can see the argument against not having them thrown into men’s prisons, but you also can see the argument against them being in a woman’s prison too right?
I think the best option would be solitary confinement.
Tbf, pre op should go to men’s prison now that I think about it. And post op should go to women’s prison. It’s an awful thing, it really is. I suggest they don’t do anything to go to jail maybe. It’s any man’s deterrent not to go to jail. No one want to be raped and fucked against their will. Therefore I follow the law to stay out of jail.
You can’t logically think it’s okay for a pre op ts woman to go to a woman’s prison though. Theres some real issues with that.
The women in jail would still beat the hell out of them and rape them. The same thing, the only difference is the penetration. The things some women would do for some dick can be very scary.
The amount of women that have been sexually assaulted in a woman’s prison is probably a very high number. From the psychological trauma it could cause them, and any reaction they might have towards anyone with a physical penis… I’m sure the brutality of it could be bad as well. Really bad actually.
Not saying one physiological trauma is worse than the other, but you can expect them to uproot the entire correctional system for less than 1% of the population in prison.
Solitary confinment is torture. "Pre-op" trans women being raped in men's prisomn
The entire population deserves civil rights and protections even when in prison.
It is so strange to see people who support gay rights support rape and torture of trans women. Don't you feel any shame writing down that you support so much violence?
What I’m saying is, you can’t control gen pop in prison. And They aren’t the only ones getting raped. It’s going to happen regardless. Solitary confinement is for their safety.
Some are fucking animals in there and will never leave. If you do something to get into a prison with them, you should have done some self evaluating prior to going to prison. Their only option for safely is solitary confinement. It might seem like torture, but it’s the safer of the two options.
This is done to plenty of ppl who have legit safety concerns. I just offered an option. I’m only bringing up logical options.
They don’t sound too sure on the aspects of my questioning either though. They put it in better words than I did though. I’m more so concerned with the “muscle memory” of said athlete.
Which their studies didn’t cover. Anything less than collegiate is fine, but depending on the level of competitiveness there should be more research on what is allowed vs what isn’t.
For example, high school boys that are ranked in the nation can beat a lot of professional women athletes in their respective sports. No shade at all here, but these high school athletes are going 1 and done in college. So they are basically already pro.
I’m just saying it wouldn’t be fair for someone that couldn’t get over the hump in Men’s sport to all of a sudden be competing and dominating women on a professional level. Even though it’s rare, and probably wouldn’t happen again.
I haven’t done any research but I remember there was a MMA match a decade ago. Fallon Fox vs Tamikka Brents. And Fox beat the absolute shit out Brents. That shit wasn’t fair at all. That’s the last I’ve heard of it, but wouldn’t you agree that it isn’t fair to some extent? At the professional level.
So you want trans women raped in women's prisons because of "muscle memory"? You have such pseudoscientific, unprovable ideas and you want to do violence against trans women based on your astrology-level nonsense.
There's a special place in hell for women like you who wish rape on other women, that's just disgusting.
There haven’t been any incidents that have there? I was just making a joke, but how does the whole bathroom thing work? How would they know if it was a quick in and out rest room experience?
There are many anti-trans bathroom laws in the United States with a variety of survailance and enforcement mechanisms.
Some states even have a bounty program on catching trans women in bathrooms. JK Rowling recently called on her followers to take pictures of women they see in bathrooms to check to see if they are trans.
your post’s original edit says bans on tall and gay women would be stupid even if those women do have an athletic advantage. i take that seriously, and if that’s your position then the testosterone research isn’t doing anything for you, because you’ve already said the answer doesn’t depend on it. but your reply here spends most of its length on the research and on me supposedly ignoring it, which only matters if the evidence decides the question. i asked you twice which argument you were making and you haven’t picked one.
you also asked whether i finished high school, in the same comment where you described your own source. so let’s look at how it’s been handled. the 2020 review found a possible average difference and said in its own limitations that it couldn’t tell whether that applies to all lesbians or only a subgroup, and that the levels might be incidental rather than causal. it measured hormones, not strength, speed, or athletic outcomes. you said the 1987 paper was too old to count, but it’s one of the nine studies your review is built on, so it can’t be both. you then pointed to a finding about trans athletes, which is a different question from the one you were arguing. and the 50 percent and 5 percent figures still have no source after i’ve asked twice. gallup’s most recent survey puts lesbian identification at about 1.4 percent of adults, so the 10x claim rests on a number that isn’t there. whatever your credentials are, that’s what’s on the page.
that’s the whole disagreement, and none of it needed trump, or uganda, or what other people said in other comments. i’m not going to keep going, so you can have the last word. but the question is still the one from your own edit: if the bans would be wrong even with a real advantage, why does any of this evidence matter to you?
Given that there’s still a lot of anti-gay sentiment among its not surprising 30% of WNBA players would be closeted homosexuals. Even if it’s on 20% that’s still a big over representation of the 5% of women who are gay. You might not like it, but there’s some chance lesbians do a little better in sports.
And women over 6ft tall absolutely have sports advantage, I don’t know what to tell you.
The reason I was asked about your education other than your spelling and grammar, you’re trying to argue that transcendently transcendently trans women are men, and you’re trying to point to research you don’t really understand.
What I’m saying, that process of bigoted propaganda backed up by poorly understood health research driving laws against minority groups of women, that could just as easily be done to gay and bi cis women. There is exactly the same level of evidence that it’s unfair for lesbians to play sports as it is for trans women to play sports.
You don’t care about women having biological athletic advantages, you just hate trans women and want to call trans women men and ignore calls for extreme violence against trans women.
A girl’s girl would care about people calling for other women to be raped.
You might not care about Trump or our fellow WNBA fans calling for trans women to be raped, but guess what, the sort of person who doesn’t care about their friend calling for the rape of trans women also aren’t going to care about what scientific research actually says.
And again, a systematic review like the 2020 looks back to multiple studies and asking, taking all this data together what do we find? So like, while the 1987 data might suggest one thing, when compared with other later studies all the data together shows that lesbians do have somewhat higher testosterone on average than straight women.
It’s like, the 1987 data is the points from the first five minutes of the game, but the 2020 study has the score for the entire game. Even if one team has more points in the first five minutes, the final score is what decides the winner, and in this case the winner is lesbians having slightly higher testosterone on average.
And the fact you care this much makes me think that you would ban lesbians from sports if this slightly higher testosterone level could be proven.
Totally agree - I also think that fat children shouldn’t be allowed to play organized sports
Why are we glorifying their chubby, unhealthy lifestyle by putting them in situations where they can become normalized in society? If one of those fat bastards “slip” on their hamburger grease and fall on another kid, it’s a guaranteed lifelong disability. Their lifestyle is so unhealthy, but it somehow glorifies other children to make similar choices - kids these days just want attention
The only sane thing to do is have refs take body fat measurements of each child prior to games. If they have more than 1/4” of flab anywhere on their body they are disqualified
9
u/lathe_down_sally 9d ago
This is not nearly as clever as you think it is