Crossfit Sued by Transgender Athlete

She still was born and developed with a larger male skeleton and musculature. no hormone therapy will ever bring her to exactly female levels.

It's insane that the Olympics allow transgenders to compete in different classes than their birth gender. Political pandering.

The Olympic Committee only bases their decision on the evidence that muscle mass equalizes after several years of treatment. They do not base their decision on long term studies of strength levels, CNS capacity, and skeletal mass in transgenders. Their are differences pertinent to strength training between men and women beyond simply muscle mass. Yes, skeletal mass decreases over time with treatment. I've yet to see a long term study showing 100% equalization as it relates to strength training though,

I read the article about it, and it said that she's been on hormones for long enough that it doesn't give her an advantage. They also said the Olympics and collegiate levels allow for transgender athletes to compete in their current gender as long as they have completed transition.

That's the end of it right there.

I couldn't imagine CF thinking they have more knowledge than the NCAA or IOC.

I don't think CF is trying to say they have more knowledge than the .......

I think the NCAA and IOC saw Tennis lose that fight with Renne Richars, and did not want to follow suit

Even crazier, these women are STILL on hormone therapy. It is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve a level of testosterone that is 100% "normal" for a woman to have. Why? Because there is no normal. Every woman and man is different. It is a result of their genetic makeup and changes over time. While on therapy, this level can be controlled and optimized easily. She can be placed on the high end of 'normal'. There is no fairness in that. Hormone optimization is banned for everyone else, but not transgenders. Insane.

There are plenty of doctors who disagree with the IOC's decision as well. There is relatively little research into the effects of steroids (yes, transgenders are on steroids). Most doctors know less than the average person googling steroids. The few that are specialized in the area still don't have the resources and studies to fully understand the effects and long term differences between different hormone levels. Certainly not enough info yet to make policy decisions.

If they are going to allow transgenders to compete in this fashion, they should embrace the inevitable future and allow ALL hormonal supplementation for everyone. Plenty of these guys are taking stuff in the offseason anyways.

Even crazier, these women are STILL on hormone therapy. It is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve a level of testosterone that is 100% "normal" for a woman to have. Why? Because there is no normal. Every woman and man is different. It is a result of their genetic makeup and changes over time. While on therapy, this level can be controlled and optimized easily. She can be placed on the high end of 'normal'. There is no fairness in that. Hormone optimization is banned for everyone else, but not transgenders. Insane.

There are plenty of doctors who disagree with the IOC's decision as well. There is relatively little research into the effects of steroids (yes, transgenders are on steroids). Most doctors know less than the average person googling steroids. The few that are specialized in the area still don't have the resources and studies to fully understand the effects and long term differences between different hormone levels. Certainly not enough info yet to make policy decisions.

If they are going to allow transgenders to compete in this fashion, they should embrace the inevitable future and allow ALL hormonal supplementation for everyone. Plenty of these guys are taking stuff in the offseason anyways.

While I'm not shocked to see you, in all of your bigoted glory, spouting off a bunch of broscience to back you up on your crappy, ignorant views, I'm going to tell you that you're wrong because someone needs to.

Statement from Professor Eric Vilain, M.D., Ph.D., Director of the Center for Gender-Based Biology and Chief Medical Genetics in UCLA's Department of Pediatrics:

"Research suggests that androgen deprivation and cross sex hormone treatment in male-to-female transsexuals reduces muscle mass; accordingly, one year of hormone therapy is an appropriate transitional time before a male-to- female student athlete competes on a women's team."

Source: http://www.bilerico.com/2014/03/why_the_rationales_for_barring_trans_athletes_suck.php#hmc4RscXchli4D83.99

More reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormone_replacement_therapy_(male-to-female)
http://www.entirelyamelia.com/2013/12/23/transitioning-changed-runner/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/do-transgender-athletes-have-an-unfair-advantage_b_4918835.html

All of the reasons that you have given are responses based upon a visceral reaction. An ugly, biased visceral reaction. By your logic, Venus Williams (a cis woman) should be disqualified from competing within her gender bracket based upon her bone structure. So please, can you NOT?

Even crazier, these women are STILL on hormone therapy. It is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve a level of testosterone that is 100% "normal" for a woman to have. Why? Because there is no normal. Every woman and man is different. It is a result of their genetic makeup and changes over time. While on therapy, this level can be controlled and optimized easily. She can be placed on the high end of 'normal'. There is no fairness in that. Hormone optimization is banned for everyone else, but not transgenders. Insane.

There are plenty of doctors who disagree with the IOC's decision as well. There is relatively little research into the effects of steroids (yes, transgenders are on steroids). Most doctors know less than the average person googling steroids. The few that are specialized in the area still don't have the resources and studies to fully understand the effects and long term differences between different hormone levels. Certainly not enough info yet to make policy decisions.

If they are going to allow transgenders to compete in this fashion, they should embrace the inevitable future and allow ALL hormonal supplementation for everyone. Plenty of these guys are taking stuff in the offseason anyways.

While I'm not shocked to see you, in all of your bigoted glory, spouting off a bunch of broscience to back you up on your crappy, ignorant views, I'm going to tell you that you're wrong because someone needs to.

Statement from Professor Eric Vilain, M.D., Ph.D., Director of the Center for Gender-Based Biology and Chief Medical Genetics in UCLA's Department of Pediatrics:

"Research suggests that androgen deprivation and cross sex hormone treatment in male-to-female transsexuals reduces muscle mass; accordingly, one year of hormone therapy is an appropriate transitional time before a male-to- female student athlete competes on a women's team."

Source: http://www.bilerico.com/2014/03/why_the_rationales_for_barring_trans_athletes_suck.php#hmc4RscXchli4D83.99

More reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormone_replacement_therapy_(male-to-female)
http://www.entirelyamelia.com/2013/12/23/transitioning-changed-runner/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/do-transgender-athletes-have-an-unfair-advantage_b_4918835.html

All of the reasons that you have given are responses based upon a visceral reaction. An ugly, biased visceral reaction. By your logic, Venus Williams (a cis woman) should be disqualified from competing within her gender bracket based upon her bone structure. So please, can you NOT?

I already acknowledged exactly what you wrote. And please stop your personal bigoted attack. I have quite a bit of knowledge on this topic actually. Far more than you, so lose the condescension..

You've shown a study on muscle mass changes. That''s a given and I've already acknowledged it.

Now please produce a study showing 5, 10, 15, 20 year observations on strength levels, neural capacity, and skeletal structure and mass in transgenders vs their male/female counterparts. Until you have that, there should not be olympic policies allowing this.

---

"I don't know," said Dr. Robin Dea, a psychiatrist at Northern California Kaiser Permanente who has treated transsexuals for 25 years. "We don't have a study available of male-to-female transsexuals who have gone on hormones and maintained a world-class training regimen."

Exactly the point, critics say.

"The big part of the story is that there's no research whatsoever," Connolly said. "What little evidence they have is not on athletic performance. "

http://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Olympics-transgender-quandary-Debate-rages-on-2749169.php#page-2

---

http://mmajunkie.com/2013/03/ask-the-fight-doc-what-are-your-thoughts-on-transgender-mma-fighters/

The question needs to be asked and answered, like I said.

No, being at the high range of normal as opposed to the low range will confer quite a few advantages. This is well documented in many studies. I'm referring to any steroid used in the transition process. All the hormonal drugs are steroids and affect strength levels.

Not going to read a word, huh? M'kay, stay ignorant.

learning to read a thread's post history still isn't your strong suit, I see. That post is not in response to you.

Lose the attitude.

learning to read a thread's post history still isn't your strong suit, I see. That post is not in response to you.

Lose the attitude.

You responded twice before I had a chance to reply. I merely quoted your second post, which was, as always, rife with ignorance.

I'll use as much attitude as I deem necessary when dealing with transphobic dudebros. Worry about yourself. There's a lot to worry about there.

You have no idea what you're talking about regarding this topic, unfortunately. The link you showed me is among the most obvious things you could have posted. It doesn't even relate to my argument. Being a feminist does not make you knowledgeable about hormonal supplementation and it's effects on strength. There is not one thing I've said that is ignorant or incorrect.


Oh FYI, the UCLA doctor you quoted actually AGREES with me. After his remark on muscle mass changes, he went on to raise the same questions I raised. Read pg 2. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/18/sports/olympics/the-line-between-male-and-female-athletes-how-to-decide.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

" Is it a perfect parameter? Of course not. There are problems with it. The main one is that the levels of testosterone are relevant to sports performance only if the body (and the muscles in particular) is fully responsive to it. A small number of individuals have some degree of resistance to it, and what really matters is not just the raw level of testosterone but a combination of its amount and a measure of its functionality, which is not always easy to test for.

Another issue is that, unlike in our thought experiment, testosterone is not the unique explanation for sex differences in athletic performance. Others could be direct, sex-specific, genetic effects on motivation to win, aggressiveness or shape of the bones and joints. These are more complex to reliably measure than testosterone, and it is still unclear what relative proportion of sex differences these other factors will influence. But sports authorities should pursue a more complex algorithm of parameters. "

-DR. Eric Villain, UCLA

What type of steroids are you referring to when you say transgender people are on steroids? If I was told they were on steroids, I would assume it was referring to estrogen, progesterone, or testosterone (in a ftm), being as those are all steroids. Also, testicles are the primary secrete of testosterone (but, obviously not the only one), and they are removed during the transition surgery, therefore, immediately reducing testosterone. There are many cells and hormones that play a role in muscular hypertrophy (GH, Satellite cells, cortisol, IGF...), but in men, testosterone accounts for quite a bit of it. Though there is no two women who will have identical hormone levels, there is an "ideal" range, and being at the high end of that range will not serve as an advantage, as it's still within "normal".

No, being at the high range of normal as opposed to the low range will confer quite a few advantages. This is well documented in many studies. I'm referring to any steroid used in the transition process. All the hormonal drugs are steroids and affect strength levels.

I'm interested in seeing some of those studies that state being within the normal range can enhance performance. I can see being over the normal range having an advantage, but not being within the normal range. The steroid drugs you are referring to are the same steroid hormones found in the body, being used in a replacement manner, not an enhancement manner. When they give a man changing to a woman those steroids, they are simply supplementing what is normally found in the female body. I'm full of steroids. Sometimes they make me *****y for a few days at a time, but they've never given me man muscles or strength.

They mimic a desired level of that hormone. The level can be picked and chosen at will. It can be allowed by certain athletic commitiees if it is still within that normal range. But, that is still a range...and in men and tesosterone, it's a large range.

There is no such thing as pure replacement unless you have accurate baseline numbers from beforehand. something transgenders can never have...so it's becomes estimation and in sports, ...estimation becomes enhancement.

Except that you've still failed to provide a single source that concludes there is any "enhancement". You make a lot of strong determinations without a single source to back you. If "the research just isn't there" and "it's a tough call" are the basis of your argument against transgender athletes competing in their gender-assigned brackets, you need to sit the f**k down.

No actually. Policy follows evidence. You have NO evidence that there is no enhancement or difference. So really, you need to shut up and wait for your studies to prove you right before telling athletes how they should compete.

There is no study or scientific evidence on either side. Which is exactly why my stance of waiting is reasonable.

No actually. Policy follows evidence. You have NO evidence that there is no enhancement or difference. So really, you need to shut up and wait for your studies to prove you right before telling athletes how they should compete.

Here's the difference between what I propose and what you propose:

1. Transgender athletes are not being shown, historically (see the first article I linked) to have an advantage over their cis-gendered counterparts.
2. Allowing transgendered athletes to compete will not cause any harm to cis-gendered athletes or the transgendered athletes themselves.
3. Not allowing transgendered athletes to compete (without providing adequate reason not to) only serves to promote transphobia.

Now, I get that transphobia doesn't affect you personally, so you don't frankly give a f**k what happens to transgendered individuals, but it's a very real, horrific thing that leads to countless hate crimes yearly.

So, for the sake of being a decent human being, stop.

1) your data set is weak. I'll wait for a real study
2) You have no evidence that it will not confer an advantage.
3) No, it serves to support proper policy administration.

This is about weightlifting performance, not transphobia. Your hyperbole is ridiculous. Not everything fits your world of phobias, ism's, and social inequalities.

There is nothing 'transphobic' about waiting for scientific proof before administering athletic regulation. I'm sure the world of transgenders is kept up at night wondering if they can too can compete in Olympic weightlifting event,...