Talk:Transgender people in sports/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2015. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eogle1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2016. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Meza s1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amesss.b. Peer reviewers: Katieodin15.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2019, between 9 September 2019 and 2 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SCLogan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2019, between 21 August 2019 and 7 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Icedcoffee2001.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2019, between 9 September 2019 and 10 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tloren5.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2017. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2017. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2019, between 28 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jonahx11!. Peer reviewers: Anaber123.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jadenle.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Possible addition: I would like to add the view and regulations that the NCAA has on this topic. I will be discussing the rules the student athletes have to abide by when transgender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eogle1 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Edits to make: Adding rules/regulations section, adding links to: many actual athletes, history and/or history of rules, an explanation of 'transgender' vs 'transsexual' and 'transgender' vs 'intersex', more explanation of estrogen's importance, young athletes, rules (high/middle school, etc), possibly add visual, otherwise adding links to related pages including: Olympics,; adding sources. Clarify "exemptions". Hormone.org link is broken. Define: natal sex, intersex. Maybe say something briefly about separation of hormonal/physical attributes and gender identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Downsoc (talk • contribs) 22:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Update: still need to flesh out all sections, add more See Alsos

Fix legal stuff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Downsoc (talk • contribs) 17:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Article title

I'm not sure what is going on with the naming of this page, but Wikipedia policy is very clear in WP:TITLEFORMAT that sentence case should be used. The title should be reverted to Transgender people in sports. Trankuility (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Backwards?

This sentence in #Testing seems exactly backwards to me:

The intense scrutiny of transgender athletes has focused on trans men because it is generally assumed that transitioning from a man to a woman would not confer a competitive advantage.

Seems to me that should be, "trans woman" and "woman to a man". Mathglot (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Fixed by IP in this edit. Mathglot (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Editing to article

I would like to add in a section about the Iron Ladies, a Thailand volleyball team because the article needs more examples of transgender people in sports outside the US. I also would like to expand on the United States section of secondary education. Each state; has made their own choices on regulations regarding transgender people in sports in lots of information about policy in secondary education (high schools in the US) because there was not much detail about policies per state, and how trans athletes were being included. My intended contributions are on my sandbox page. Icedcoffee2001 (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Suggest adding section on records set by trans athletes

There have been several transgender women who have set records 21 Jan 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.252.33 (talk • contribs)

If there are sources about that, then sure. Got any? Crossroads ^-talk- 07:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

What are transmen's opinions on transwomen's participation in women's sports?

Can the article please include their opinions? I don't know where to find them but i assume editors here can. 2601:647:4D00:2C40:49F1:133B:1B13:9B16 (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

edits to trans athletes article

-edited summary to reflect that concerns about MtF athletes focus on height/weight and socialisation as well as testosterone levels

-removed biased sentence re: "percieved advantages" (in inverted commas) of trans athletes, and changed this to a straightforward, non-emotive description of the controversy at hand.

-Deleted whole section about broadly LGBT sports competitons because it was too far from the topic of the article, there are other articles about gay/lesbian sports which would be a much better fit for the material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foggymaize (talk • contribs) 06:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

- the template box at lead of article says it needs a less biased perspective but any attempt to provide this is immediately reversed. It is biased to remove a sentence that acknowledges biological sex and sex hormone controlled muscle and weight development. By reversing the edit User:Mathglot has maintained the bias in the article.SheWhoSees (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Please take it in multiple, smaller bites so that if there's some objection to a portion of it it can be handled more easily. If we are talking about the same section (hard to tell, from the big edit but I think so) then I would agree that that information would be more relevant elsewhere. Mathglot (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Coming back to this, is there any specific objections to the above points? AIRcorn (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please stand by, my plate is full but I'll get back to you. Mathglot (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC) Oh, I see, you have made multiple separate edits; I haven't had a chance to look yet, but that's the way to go; will respond when I can. Thanks for your input, Mathglot (talk) 07:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Only questionable thing for me is "testosterone levels among trans-identified males". It's unclear who this is referring to (trans men or trans women) and I'm concerned it's referring to trans women. If that's the case, the language needs to be fixed as they aren't "trans-identified males". EvergreenFir (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Changed. AIRcorn (talk) 07:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you EvergreenFir (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Many people who are not immersed in trans issues but want to read something like wikipedia do like to have phrases that continue to use language they understand. 'Trans identified male' is a phrase that ordinary people will understand when this may be the first article they read. SheWhoSees (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I study this and it's unclear to me. Trans woman is the standard language here. The previous language could easily have been read to mean trans men. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by 'here' User:EvergreenFir Do you mean that wikipedia does not use common language, so readers who are not already well informed, can still understand the article? Or do you mean pages on trans issues must use only particular words?SheWhoSees (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Sorry it took a while. To your early question, and going backwards from the top (most recent first; i.e., I won't even get to the edit you asked about earlier, this time, I'll have to split my response):

• 15:01 12/21 (clarify better): agreed.
• 15:05, 12/21 (not just excluding from all sports): That seems reasonable, and probably true, but as the lead needs to summarize the body, and the body is not clear about this, can you put this information clearly in the body of the article, first, and source it? Once there, the lead can reflect that content. Can you point to where the body already does say this? If not, I would revert it.
• 14:54, 12/21 (Grammar change): yes.
• 09:57, 12/19 (Why link to doping?) agreed.
• 09:56, 12/19 (Mentioned in article now) agreed.
• 09:55, 12/19 ( Reorganise slightly. Make Olympics a subheading...) Generally like this. It sort of begs for another subhead higher up, to balance the Olympics one; "Intro" seems kind of meaningless, as there seem to be several topics there. But there's actually a bigger problem here, although I realize it isn't connected with this (or any) change of yours, namely the section heading 'History of transgender athletes in competition'. If you look at what's in that section, it looks more like the History of challenges to transgender atheletes in women's competition'. (The same could be said for the article title.) Is there any such thing as transmen trying to compete in men's events? I suspect not, but the article doesn't say. Are there transgender athletes who have competed and not been challenged, either won, lost, or whatever, in the way that any other athlete does, without going through all this? We don't know that, either. So I see room for more reorg, and some section renames, or new sections, here.
• 09:50, 12/19 Thanks for fixing the editors and other detail in that ref.

More later, thanks for all your work on this! Mathglot (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@SheWhoSees:, Regarding your terminology question: I agree with EvergreenFir that the term is very problematic in that sentence and must be changed. I have learned the term "trans identified male" fairly recently, and I don't believe its use is standardized, yet. I strongly reject the comment that ordinary people will understand what this means; I suspect they will either draw a blank or be completely confused by it on the one hand, or else they will understand precisely the opposite of what it means (in the sense that I see developing). By this reckoning, the term "trans identified male" identifies a minuscule percentage of all trans people, and is defined as an individual assigned male at birth who affirms a gender identity of "transgender" (who may decline to identify as trans woman although they superficially resemble a trans woman), and affirms a sex of "male." The trans identified male presents as a woman (dress, deportment, look), uses feminine identifiers (given name, pronouns), and denies being motivated by entertainment or professional reasons (not a drag queen, impersonator, or hustler). They may express essentialist views of gender, and may be viewed as a transphobic trans person (or as a cisgender transvestic fetishist) by some trans women. I'd love to know where you saw this phrase, and what your understanding of it is.

This is clearly not what is meant in the sentence about testosterone levels, although I wouldn't hazard a guess about what is meant by it, which is a good enough reason right there to change it to something unambiguous. Mathglot (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Will get back to this. I have ot consider how to answer your position on interpreted meanings User:MAthglot I can see that since two of you agree, I am outnumbered.SheWhoSees (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Mathglot is correct. And to answer your questions, neither. By "here" I was referring to the text that was previously on this article. It was unclear what "trans identified male" meant. It appeared to be a clumsy way of saying "trans woman", a term whose definition is rather set (we have an article about it after all). Or perhaps it was meant as a slight to trans women by calling them "males". Either way, it was ambiguous and rightfully corrected. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

SWS, I wouldn't worry so much about a 2::1 "outnumbering," as consensus (which is what we are after, here, right?) doesn't come from sheer numbers (which is why they call it a NOTVOTE) but from the reasoning behind it. Plus, who knows, the next ten opinions may all agree with yours. (I don't think so, but you never know. ) I'm interested in what you think, regardless of numbers. Do you recall where you saw it, and how you interpreted the meaning?

EvergreenFir's conjecture of "trans identified male" being either an innocent mistake by someone naive about the topic, or an insult makes sense to me. In the latter case, I wonder if it could be a purposeful misgendering by someone knowledgeable about the topic at the expense of someone who did not self-identify that way, with the intent either to insult them, or perhaps with the primary intent to express or trumpet their own group identity to other clan members by "performing essentialness," at the cost of a callous disregard of someone else's feelings. Mathglot (talk) 08:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• I would consider the additions I made to the history section as a start and nowhere near broad coverage yet. It may need rearranging as I (or anyone else) adds information. I would think that the Olympics is a big enough part of this to justify a sub heading in either case. Most of the sources and controversy seems to surround transwomen competing in womens sports so the article will probably be dominated by that aspect, but we should try and include mentions of the reverse. I would also guess the trans athletes that don't get challenged generally don't make the news so it can be harder to find info on them. At the end of the day we can only include what has already been recorded. AIRcorn (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Mathglot how will consensus work when two of you are agreeing and reversing my edits amongst many conjectures from you both?SheWhoSees (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

"Purported" in the intro

I have reinstated the long-standing use of the word "purported" in this edit to the intro. This has been in the article at least since last year (I haven't checked back any further) so I think we need a good reason to remove or change it. I do understand that "purported" reads a little odd but I think that just removing it is far, far worse. I'll explain why.

• "the purported aim of ensuring fair competition" is what we actually have here. People are doing a thing and they are purporting this as their aim.
• "the aim of ensuring fair competition" may or may not be a factual statement. Who can say whether they are honestly representing their own aims? Is their aim "ensuring fair competition" or is that a dishonest excuse given for discrimination?

Not that my personal opinion matters here, but I'd be willing to bet that sometimes it is sincere and sometimes it is not.

So, what should we do? We need to be neutral. We need to find a way to state that this is what is claimed to be the reason for these restrictions but do it in a way that does not pronounce either way (either directly or by inference) on either the sincerity or the correctness of this approach.

Using "purported" is factually correct but the problem is that it does tend to read as a raised eyebrow. Replacing it with "claimed" seems to be no better. I don't really know how to fix this for optimal neutrality. All I know for sure is that "purported" is definitely better than nothing, hence I have reinstated it pending discussion. Does anybody have any ideas for improvements? --DanielRigal (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you're creating an issue out of nothing. The description of the aim behind restrictions is not an example of Wikipedia parroting what the people behind them say, but instead summarizing the sources' discussions of the topic. The Daily Maverick source, for example, discusses that the issue is surrounding an attempt to "ensure performance equality".

Either way, the use of "purported" is explicitly against MOS:ALLEGED, as I previously pointed out, and there's no reason that material against the Manual of Style should remain on a temporary basis while editors capitulate to find an alternative you're comfortable with. --Equivamp - talk 21:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that "purported" is not the best approach. So how can we reword it? How would we word it if we were talking about rules to segregate sport on racial grounds? We certainly would not say "with the aim of ensuring fair competition" in such a scenario even if that was what the segregationists claimed. I'm not sure exactly what is best but maybe something along the lines of:

"Access regulations requiring that trans athletes compete against athletes of the same assigned sex at birth and requiring sex verification testing have been used. Proponents of such regulations regard them as necessary to ensure fair competition while opponents regard them as discriminatory."

Does that offer a way forward? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that's a good approach. (I think "There are concerns" in the body also needs revision to clarify: from whom?) -sche (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. "Concerns" is turning into a potentially weaselly word that can mean pretty much anything, from well founded concerns, to sincere but misplaced concerns to intentionally dishonest "concern trolling". Saying who is expressing the concerns and what they actually are gives the reader a chance to decide where they fall on this credibility spectrum without us needing to pronounce.

I'm going to swap in my proposed text in the intro now, as we all agree that what we have at the moment is not good. That's not intended to be the final word on the intro. Suggestions for further improvement are welcome. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Recent study on changes in strength during hormone therapy

I read this article today in relation to this topic:

https://ec.bioscientifica.com/view/journals/ec/8/7/EC-19-0196.xml

It showed that transitioning definitely affects strength the way you think it would:

"In transwomen, grip strength decreased with −1.8 kg (95% CI −2.6; −1.0), while in transmen, grip strength increased with +6.1 kg (95% CI +5.5; +6.7)."

And describes the overall effects compared to the baseline:

"After 12 months, the median grip strength of transwomen still falls into the 95th percentile for age-matched females. The median grip strength of transmen after 12 months falls into the 25th percentile of age-matched males (18). Thus, transwomen are still stronger than average females and transmen are still weaker than average males."

This article only covered 3 years of HRT, and the steepest losses in strength for transwomen were at the end of the study, so it's likely the differences would be more pronounced over a greater period of time, as they state in the article.

I'm not adding it to this article as I'm not sure what the quality of the journal is, as I'm not in the field (impact factor is 2.4 or so), and it only has one citation in the year it's been published. But I'll leave it here for more knowledgeable editors to deal with. It definitely doesn't settle any debates. Brirush (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of notable trans men

Looking at the list of trans men included at the bottom of the article, it appears that a number of them only competed as women (in the women's categories while IDing as women), went on to transition and then retired from athletics. Would the inclusion of these trans men, like Andreas Krieger and others, be appropriate for this article at all? Shouldn't this list be reserved for those like Chris Mosier who competed as their post-transition gender? AntiChirality (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think the list should be reserved for only those athletes? Surely the list would be remiss if it were to lack examples like Mack Beggs, whose notability revolves entirely around the fact that he was required to compete in the girls' league?

Also, re this edit, while Mark Weston should have been removed for not AFAICT identifying as trans, just like Schinegger in the edit before it, he would not in any way be appropriate for the trans woman section, as trans women are necessarily assigned male at birth. --Equivamp - talk 01:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Missing points of detail

It appears that much is missing from this article. I have tried to add some, but it was removed as the other user said they were differences in sex/gender? Which is odd, seeing as that is the entire point of this article.

1) Differentiation between trans athletes who started treatment before puberty and after puberty.

        -This is important because most pertinent differences will have occurred during puberty, such as muscle myonuceli density (which are presumed to be permanent for the most part). Though there are also differences between males and females that may affect athleticism pre-puberty, such as muscle fiber size and composition, some bone structures, etc. 

https://bsd.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13293-016-0119-1

2) The differences between various sports. Long-distance running are sports that have very little difference between males and females. Males will generally have a more inherent advantage in power sports due to larger muscle fibers, height, limb ratios/mechanical advantage, bone density, muscle myonuclei density, etc. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4285578/

      -Some of these differences are evident even with transwomen who have taken treatment since pre-puberty. 

3) Hosts of differences that affect athleticism between males and females, such as the fact that females have more connective tissue relative to men, which can limit their strength, meaning transwomen would have an inherently better composition for sports.

    -Males have different limb ratios and lengths which give them mechanical advantages. 
    -Males have more efficient respiratory systems physiologically, which would not be greatly affected by treatments.  
    -

4) Testosterone is not the only androgen relating to athleticism, and some think it is not even the most important one. https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/22586/1/miller_andrea_1990Dec_masters.pdf.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weagesdf (talk • contribs)

You can add sources as long as those sources talk about transgender people. Otherwise, if they're not mentioned at all, it's not allowed as WP:SYNTH. Please also read WP:MEDRS - we should be using review articles and other secondary sources for medical content. Otherwise material can be removed or disputed due to being weakly sourced. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

References

De-emphasize the "controversy"

The article should start with an overview of the topic. Then there could be a "controversy" section further down. That the article starts with the controversy is not how Wikipedia articles are generally written.

Some of the issues are also weirdly chosen: the concern that TG contenstants may injure non-TG opponents is wicked, and the issue of gay men in sport doesn't seem particularly relevant to this topic.

All in all, the article feels more like a rant than a proper Wikipedia article. Heleneht (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

If it wasn't controversial we wouldn't have an article, and it should be front and centre in this article. I also note that the issue of gay men in sport is not discussed here, and your point about injury of TG opponents is a little obscure. Wicked? Have you seen the size of some TG women rugby players? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 12:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Where are gay men mentioned in the article exactly? Also, the issue of trans women injuring cis women is a concern discussed in multiple studies featured in the article, so it makes sense to include in the lede. X-Editor (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles are written in accordance with the sources on the topic, which focus on the controversy. Falsely reflecting an emphasis on something else is undue weight. Equivamp - talk 01:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey y'all maybe we should make this a protected page

So... the trans ppl in sports page had a section that was full of misleading information. I changed its name to health to simplify it bc it had like 3 topics to it. I deeply despise misinformation delivered as fact, so I just wasted 5 hours of my life fixing it up to be more informative and centrist.

---

Here are some embarrassing issues I noticed that Im advocating for correcting--------

1) anyone can edit > this isnt that bad, but when discussing a deeply polarizing issue, that can lead to people posting unhelpful info to further their agenda

2) There was a lot of transphobia in the old health tab > this is the crux of my annoyance, as a scientist, I quickly found a lot of issues with things quoted.

>Emma N. Hilton's paper about transgender women in sports isn't necessarily bad, but she came to many conclusions with too little evidence, and was quoted as an expert. Doing minimal research, I discovered not only was her paper the first time she dipper her toe in the fields of endocrinology and sports science, but she also believes that transgender people are trying to make kids trans (which is weird) and obsessively tweeted (and celebrated) Laurel Hubbard's loss at the olympics. Her use as a source then shouldn't be acceptable due to the factor that she isn't reliable. >Dr. Vilian was also quoted to promote skepticism about transgender participation with their id'ed gender, but the info he provided was important to understanding why this is a tough topic, so I had to clarify his beliefs. THIS BEHAVIOR IS NOT GOOD AND WE SHOULD NOT ENCOURAGE MISLEADING DATA

>When it came to the army research and the rugby research, it was also important TO CULTIVATE A LESS BIASED SECTION to clarify how many people were in the studies, this helps the reader come to their own conclusions.

3) Carrying on with that theme, the health section very much lead the reader to a specific conclusion: TRANS WOMEN COMPETING AGAINST CIS WOMEN IS CHEATING, which isn't the scientific consensus-

> this is embarrassing to me bc i come to wiki for my own prelim looksies into topics, like i don't mean to input my opinion too much, but why the hell is there a section detailing how much better trans women are at sports than cis women when u can literally fit the whole list of notable trans athletes on a macbook screen without reformatting it. I understand testosterone/estrogen really affects the human body, but testosterone doesn't make u godzilla or smthing that puts cis women at immediate danger and we have to save them now. Trans women have participated in sports, openly, since the 70's at least, and only a since one has made it into the olympics. She came in last.

>This is all to say that I think it's fair to recognize the upperhand some trans women have been dealt when it comes to athletics, but the nuance was lost to the classic fear mongering of them being men in dresses with long hair. >Appealing to most people's high school level understanding of biology deeply offends me, the section didn't address the fact that this isn't a black and white issue. >What about intersex trans people, transgender children, and the transgender people that went on hormone blockers before puberty, then went through their desired puberty and have the anatomical/muscular proportions of cisgender people of that gender? >Nothing. >Honestly, what about the trans women that are physically weaker than cis men, even before hormones? nothing

>Engaging with the discourse requires people to address all the nuance, and sadly this page hasn't and it's hurt however many people who visited this page looking for info's understanding of the debate

4) This is why I clarified the debate beforehand

5) Seriously, I think we should make it private for integrity reasons >like no joke, pls — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhvanstory (talk • contribs)

Since this article appears to be your second ever edit to Wikipedia, perhaps you misunderstand what being "centrist" (more properly, WP:NPOV) means on Wikipedia. It isn't about what we personally feel to be balanced, but about representing the most WP:Reliable sources with WP:Due weight. As this topic is a medical topic, WP:MEDRS applies. This means we represent medical aspects of the topic based on how recent academic review articles do so. The news media is absolutely not a WP:MEDRS. And since this topic is politicized, much like climate change and others, they can be especially dubious. Your personal opinions and WP:Original research about Hilton are quite irrelvant. She is only one of the two authors, and the article was peer-reviewed and published in one of the top journals in its field. Certainly many of those who don't like what that article found have their own personal political views and even advocacy, and most of them haven't published any scientific articles. This review article, co-authored by transgender runner Joanna Harper that same year, found much the same results. Reliability on Wikipedia has nothing to do with editors' opinions of writers' opinions.

I have removed the sound bite from Vilain and preserved your bit about the rugby decision for now. The rest of your comment appears to be entirely your opinions. If you find WP:MEDRS sources on these things, then please share. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The article has recently been given extended protection. This limits it to experienced editors. This seems like a smart move but it clearly isn't going to solve all of our problems. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Big rewrite?

I have reverted an attempt at a big rewrite of the article. The page format was severely mangled and I don't think that the attempt to introduce a table with columns and icons for "Birth Sex and Transition" and "Sex Category of Competition" was at all helpful. I have not reviewed every single thing about the rewrite so I am not in a position to say that it was all bad. Do we think there is anything to be recovered from this? --DanielRigal (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The editor reinstated their rewrite and has fixed the formatting issues. I still do not see the columns as helpful. They also used POV dogwhistle phases like "biological male" so I have reverted again and invited them to discuss it here. Here is their version (diff). --DanielRigal (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't like the tables fwiw, and wouldn't want them returned to the article as they'd become bigger and more unmanageable. I also dont like the way the rewrite invented a new sport called "Boston Marathon" either. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2021

Paragraph that states “ A 2021 literature review concluded that for trans women, even with testosterone suppression, "the data show that strength, lean body mass, muscle size and bone density are only trivially affected. The reductions observed in muscle mass, size, and strength are very small compared to the baseline differences between males and females in these variables, and thus, there are major performance and safety implications in sports where these attributes are competitively significant."[33]” fails to highlight that this was an opinion piece by three authors who were subsequently required to publish a correction as they had filed to declare significant conflict of interest having gained employment from gender critical/anti-trans talks and the literature review failed to be conducted in a systematic way and there is considerable bias in the research included into the review. For example, failing to include studies that demonstrate no significant advantage of trans women vs cis women eg this study https://academic.oup.com/jes/article/5/Supplement_1/A792/6241278 85.255.232.35 (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Not done: Though I think you're right that the sentence should changed, it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format when making a proposal with the {{Edit extended-protected}} template.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 20:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

It is not an opinion piece but a review article. It meets WP:MEDRS completely and was published in a top journal in its field. Its reliability, in the Wikipedia sense, derives from where it was published and its peer review, and as a WP:SECONDARY source for the research done on the topic. The personal opinions of authors are irrelevant, same as with other papers. The cited material is based on the current version hosted on PubMed. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 December 2021

Chloe Anderson competed openly in collegiate women's volleyball in 2014 and was featured in the Olympic Identify series as the only female transgender athlete competing openly in the NCAA in 2016. She made it to State playoffs for beach volleyball for the Spring 2015 season in the California Community College Athletic Association and earned multiple titles for first team all conference in the Orange Empire Conference. She was also worked with the ACLU on the Hecox case in Idaho 2600:8802:1815:D00:58FB:AB97:27D1:5503 (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)