Transgender swimmer Lia Thomas out of Olympics after losing legal battle
Transgender swimmer Lia Thomas out of Olympics after losing legal battle
Transgender swimmer Lia Thomas has lost her legal case against World Aquatics and any hopes of making next month’s Paris Olympics
The US swimmer Lia Thomas, who rose to global prominence after becoming the first transgender athlete to win a NCAA college title in March 2022, has lost a legal case against World Aquatics at the court of arbitration for sport – and with it any hopes of making next month’s Paris Olympics.
The 25-year-old also remains barred from swimming in the female category after failing to overturn rules introduced by swimming’s governing body in the summer of 2022, which prohibit anyone who has undergone “any part of male puberty” from the female category.
Thomas had argued that those rules should be declared “invalid and unlawful” as they were contrary to the Olympic charter and the World Aquatics constitution.
However, in a 24-page decision, the court concluded that Thomas was “simply not entitled to engage with eligibility to compete in WA competitions” as someone who was no longer a member of US swimming.
The news was welcomed by World Aquatics, who hailed it as “a major step forward in our efforts to protect women’s sport”.
You're viewing a single thread.
For a while I've been thinking that all sports should get rid of gendered male/female competitions and replace them with
weightcategories that take into account physiological characteristics like muscle mass, testosterone levels, weight, height, etc. This would result in, say, three to four categories ranging from lightweight to heavyweight.Why wouldn't this work?
A 150 lb male will almost always out-perform a 150 lb female. The genetic differences are still vast even in the same weight category.
That's why they would need to take more into account than simply weight. Surely multiple physical and hormonal factors could also be measured and an aggregate total value be applied to each athlete.
Too many categories and you fragment your athletes too much for viable competition.
True.
But middle aged dad bods are back in our (relative to category) prime, baby!
It's not a genetic difference, for one, it's a hormonal one. Children pre-puberty are effectively identical in terms of physiological gender differences aside from environmental factors.
It's not a genetic difference, for one, it's a hormonal one.
What influences hormones?
Lots of things? There's no one single thing that affects hormones. Not every person with a specific anatomy has the same hormones.
Children pre-puberty are effectively identical aside from environmental factors
Except for the fucking ovaries and prostates.
Do you feel the prior commentator forgot that anatomy when making their claim?
Yes.
Seems like a silly thing to think
Fallon Fox. Look her up.
Yes, she eventually got beat by another professional female fighter, but not before she seriously injured multiple opponents, including skull fractures. Those types of injuries are not common in men's MMA, although they do occur, but they're extremely uncommon in female MMA.
Testosterone blockers don't reverse the effects the hormone had on a bodies development prior to medically transitioning. So differences such as bone density are locked in, even if their blood test shows a hormonal balance that aligns with their preferred gender at the time of competition.
teristics like muscle mass, testosterone levels, weight, height, etc. This would result in, say, three to four categories ranging from lightweight to heavyweight.
Same weight, but it's distributed that men have more muscle mass and less fat. Same muscle mass, but women carry more fat generally (it'd be like adding a 10 pound plate on their back). Same height but men are more muscular generally. Just doesn't work.
Genetics are predominantly on the favor of the male side unfortunately.
I have a lot of trouble accepting claims like this when Lea Thomas is beaten by cis women all the time.
It’s not a claim, it’s genetics, and what’s wrong with accepting that some people are better than others? It just gives her an unfair advantage from genetics(hormones in this case) helping her. It won’t make her a top athlete, who claimed that?
Would be different if the top male athlete did it, like say Phelps, there would not a be a women who could compete with them. That’s just friggen genetics.
Either genetics predominantly favor biological males, in which case a world-class swimmer like Lea Thomas should win virtually every meet, or it's more complicated than that.
There will always be outliers on both sides yes, but take the top 10% of male and female athletes and put them against each other, and the men would win 80% of the time. Because they are genetically predominately better at the stuff required for athletics. Wider hips aren’t really great for running for example…
Reality of often disappointing.
Lea Thomas is in the top 10% and does not win 80% of the time.
Does Crosby win 80% of the time? Mcdavid? Brady…?
Give your head a shake dude.
Dont try to argue in good faith with someone who doesn't
It's not my fault that your claim does not match reality, at least when it comes to swimming.
It’s not a claim… it’s the result of genetic study….
Wide hips aren’t great for running, not every woman has wide hips, but most do. So yeah some are going to be able to do it.
Now, almost every man doesn’t have wide hips, so they have inherent advantage right there.
She wasn’t the TOP male swimmer, I’m sure if we look at her fastest time as a male it would be slower than the top female. Her going over won’t suddenly make her faster, it just means the competition is easier….
Except her pre-transition fastest 1000 free was faster than the record for female 1000 free.
To add on to that. Her pre-transition time was ~24 seconds slower than the male record and post transition her 1000 free was about 32 seconds slower than the female record. So if anything she was preforming better in her categories before she transitioned.
I’m sure if we look at her fastest time as a male it would be slower than the top female.
First of all, she was never male any more than a gay person isn't heterosexual before telling people they're gay. She competed on a man's team before coming out of the closet and was rated sixth fastest "man" in the nation at the time. Now she's being beaten by CIS women. Sounds like whatever advantage she had when she was on that team doesn't exist anymore, which, again, suggests it's more complicated than just genetics.
Why people are so against the idea of "it's more complicated than that" and think anything biological has such a simple answer is just kind of sad because it shows such ignorance of basic science.
Edit: Thanks for proving it, downvoters. Let me guess- you also think a single gene is responsible for eye color.
Her ranks when swimming against men were 554th in the 200 freestyle, 65th in the 500 freestyle, and 32nd in the 1650 freestyle. Those ranks are now, when competing in the women's team, fifth in the 200 freestyle, first in the 500 freestyle, and eighth in the 1650 freestyle.
Her time for the 500 freestyle, where she is ranked #1 against women, is over 15 seconds slower than her personal bests before medically transitioning, and even THEN she was only 65th in the event against men. The same event where she was 65th is now 15 seconds slower and ranked #1. That's the gulf between the two events.
I just pasted this-
Thomas began swimming on the men's team at the University of Pennsylvania in 2017. During her freshman year, Thomas recorded a time of eight minutes and 57.55 seconds in the 1,000-yard freestyle that ranked as the sixth-fastest national men's time, and also recorded 500-yard freestyle and 1,650-yard freestyle times that ranked within the national top 100.[5] On the men's swim team in 2018–2019, Thomas finished second in the men's 500, 1,000, and 1,650-yard freestyle at the Ivy League championships as a sophomore in 2019.[5][4][12] During the 2018–2019 season, Thomas recorded the top UPenn men's team times in the 500 free, 1000 free, and 1650 free, but was the sixth best among UPenn men's team members in the 200 free.[13]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lia_Thomas
But, you are correct. She ranked those numbers eventually. Do you know when she ranked that low? After she started taking hormones.
Which proves my point that it's more complicated than just genetics.
That's not a very thoughtful argument. This is about comparing the top percentages of athletes. Lea Thomas is not 100% the best woman swimmer in the world, since she does lose sometimes to the best women. But when she competed against men she lost every single time. It's about the top 0.1% of women swimmers not being able to compete with the top 10% of male swimmers. Lea Thomas wasn't even close to the top 10% of men but instantly became the top 1% for women. No, all men aren't instantly the best female athletes. But in a lot of sports the absolute best women's athletes can't compete with even average teenage boys.
But when she competed against men she lost every single time.
That's not true.
Thomas began swimming on the men's team at the University of Pennsylvania in 2017. During her freshman year, Thomas recorded a time of eight minutes and 57.55 seconds in the 1,000-yard freestyle that ranked as the sixth-fastest national men's time, and also recorded 500-yard freestyle and 1,650-yard freestyle times that ranked within the national top 100.[5] On the men's swim team in 2018–2019, Thomas finished second in the men's 500, 1,000, and 1,650-yard freestyle at the Ivy League championships as a sophomore in 2019.[5][4][12] During the 2018–2019 season, Thomas recorded the top UPenn men's team times in the 500 free, 1000 free, and 1650 free, but was the sixth best among UPenn men's team members in the 200 free.[13]
In general, sure, but not all men are more muscular and stronger than all women.
Furthermore, even if, say 90% (or even 100%) of the heavyweight category were men, it would still be fairer for everyone.
No but taking the top 10% from each male and female athletes and putting them against each other, the men would still be on top 80% of the time.
Citation needed.
There is a thousand, but I find this Pretty interesting myself
The conclusion has absolutely nothing to do with what you previously wrote ...
Conclusions
Women and men shooters performed separately but equally in the 2021 Tokyo Olympics in “static” rifle shooting modalities. Men were superior in “dynamic” (i.e., moving target) shooting events. In the newly formed “mixed” team events (one male and one female shooters competing alongside) these performance patterns were maintained and the mixed gender competitive environment did not impede women’s performance beyond. Supported by earlier research [29,30] we endorse the proposition that in future Games, “gender unified” events should be held for the “static” rifle shooting modalities.
Did you read it all? Or just skip to the conclusion?
The introduction had great links with their why they are doing this study.
I read it. The conclusion tells what the study learned, and it has absolutely sfa to do with the original statement.
Maybe try and stay on topic instead of throwing shit around hoping some will stick.
Please read the entire thing. You would see how it was on topic if you did, that’s how I know you haven’t.
Sometime in the early 2000’s Uri Gneezy and Aldo Rustichini conducted a very intriguing field study in an elementary school in Israel [1]. The participants were prepuberty140 children, 75 boys and 65 girls, all in the fourth grade between 9–10 years of age. The researchers studied the performance of the children in a race alone over a short distance of 40 meters (~131 feet) with the teacher measuring their speed. Girls and boys ran on average at the same speed. Then the majority of the children ran a second time with the teacher matching the children in pairs, starting with the two fastest children in the race going down the list independent of gender. Each pair ran on the same track, with the two children running alongside this time. Now, the boys improved while the girls ran slower. In eight mixed-pair races of 11 observations (73%) in which boys were slower than the girls initially, they beat the competition in the head-on second stage. In the remaining 18 mixed-pair races, where the girls had a worse time in the first round, only three girls won the competition (17%). To combat experimental threats, the researchers wisely kept a separate group of children as controls who ran alone in round two as well. This group, yet again showed no gender differences in speed and thus dispelled alternative explanations such as girls getting tired faster than boys. Based on the results, Gneezy and Rustichini concluded “Overall, we find support for the claim that competition increases the performance of males relative to females…This indicates that some strong, robust, and general factors are involved.” They then raised further: “The puzzle that remains concerns the more subtle effects of competition in homogeneous and heterogeneous groups.” (p. 380).
That's about as straightforward and easy to understand as it can possibly be. Many times Women's Olympic Finalists wouldn't qualify for the boys high school varsity team!
And again, although that is interesting it still doesn't show the numbers that were quoted ...
No but taking the top 10% from each male and female athletes and putting them against each other, the men would still be on top 80% of the time.
I'm not impugning anyone in any way with this comment but the very best biologically female athletes in the world, literal World Record setting Olympians, in many cases aren't fast enough to compete with High School boys.
This is an even worse outcome than "Top 10% female athletes..." because this is the top 1% of female athletes, the crème de la crème, compared to the top *under age male *athletes.
There's a lot of events, such as 100m to 800m sprints, where the female Olympians not only lose they can't even qualify for the race!
In other events, swimming in particular, the biologically female Olympic Champions set World Record times...that were beaten by High School Boys.
You can follow the links to the raw data and do the math yourself if you want a precision answer but there's no real question that the Top 10% of biologically female athletes, the Olympians, would lose to the Top 10% of biologically male athletes 80% of the time or more.
I'm going to quote what you wrote to me on another post: "If you don’t understand, far be it from to educate you.
Go read a book."
The person showed you a citation that shows in track and field the top 0.1% (not 10%) of women would get 6 medals vs the top highschool boys (who are outside the top 10% of men) getting 81 medals. That's young boys beating the absolute best women 93% of the time. In swimming it was worse: 1 medal vs 47 or 98%. In soccer, the US Women's National Team, arguably the best of the best women's team in the world, would regularly lose to highschool boys teams. I'm sure there are some sports where the gulf is smaller, but it's going to be rare.
But like I said, that's fine. The point is that we would then be categorizing people not according to their gender but by factors that directly affect their athletic performance.
Another benefit would also be that it would allow a wider range of people to participate at the national and international level, seeing as it would not remove all but those women and men who possess the optimal physical traits required for that particular sport.
That’s starting to sound a little like an eugenics competition….
I would say the opposite, in fact.
Eugenics is the belief and practices that aim to "improve" the genetic quality of a human population to meet an idealized optimal standard. Under my proposed system, you could argue it would allow for a greater diversity of individuals that would be able to compete, and therefore would lower the necessity of having the optimal physical traits required in order to take part in each sport.
Back to the discussion. It would basically be this if we took the 10% of each and put it into 4 categories.
Group A 85%men 15% women
Group B 70%men 30% women
Group C 55%men 45%women
Group D 5%men 95%women
It just doesn’t work. You would be hand picking less qualified men to compete with the women just to fill it up.
On what basis doesn't it work, though? I'm still not sure I understand what the problem is with your example.
You would be hand picking less qualified men to compete with the women just to fill it up.
Another way of looking at it is that we would in fact be widening the criteria of who would be considered "qualified".
In only one group would the women win a significant portion of the events? You basically created an Olympics with a bottom 25% female category, and 3 male categories. The women can already compete with the men if they want to, but they want medals too, not just to be there…. The best women would be overshadowed by the best men, you would only be showing off the worst of the top female athletes.
Expanding? When you need a d list male to compete with a b list female? Come on.
Ah yeah, I see what you mean. Fair point.