News:

Look, I haven't mentioned Zeus, Buddah, or some religion.

Main Menu

Do transgender athletes have an unfair advantage?

Started by Bad Penny II, October 25, 2017, 11:01:52 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Dave

Good stuff, Silver.

Wonder if any studies have been done on soccer in schools? Even the local xtian faith first/primary school allows boys and girls to play soccer together, but maybe this is too early, they leave for the next the school at age 11-12. However I wonder how this affects them both physically and behaviourally on changing schools compared to the patterns, say 20 years ago,  when the same school banned competitive sports under the old head teacher.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Davin

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 26, 2017, 04:59:56 PM
I think there are post-pubertal gender differences when it comes to strength and speed, caused in part by biological differences due to different hormonal makeups. Testosterone for instance is present in both genders, but to varying degrees and in men it's probably the main hormone responsible for increased muscle and bone mass. More muscle means more contractible fibers, and more fibers means more strength and speed. It's well known that the number of fibers one recruits when performing a movement is related to the force exerted by the muscle. There are also two types of muscle fibers -- fast and slow -- but I won't go into that.

That's on average, of course you have people on both ends of the spectrum in both males and females, some produce more testosterone while others much less, some are naturally more athletic while others less, but if you could take two cohorts -- one of pubertal girls and another of pubertal boys and made them train the same number of hours per day, using the same equipment, you would see a difference between them as time went by (they would probably have to be adjusted for age group because on average girls peak before boys do).

This type of experiment has probably already been done in nonhuman animals, where it's much easier to control their environments and wait until they reach young adulthood to test for differences, besides ethical considerations. It isn't ideal to train with intensity while still growing.
I'm not sure if this is a response to what I posted or not. It looks like it might be because it narrowly addresses the same topics in about the same order as my post but I'm not sure because it doesn't contradict or support anything in my post.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Davin on October 26, 2017, 05:56:45 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 26, 2017, 04:59:56 PM
I think there are post-pubertal gender differences when it comes to strength and speed, caused in part by biological differences due to different hormonal makeups. Testosterone for instance is present in both genders, but to varying degrees and in men it's probably the main hormone responsible for increased muscle and bone mass. More muscle means more contractible fibers, and more fibers means more strength and speed. It's well known that the number of fibers one recruits when performing a movement is related to the force exerted by the muscle. There are also two types of muscle fibers -- fast and slow -- but I won't go into that.

That's on average, of course you have people on both ends of the spectrum in both males and females, some produce more testosterone while others much less, some are naturally more athletic while others less, but if you could take two cohorts -- one of pubertal girls and another of pubertal boys and made them train the same number of hours per day, using the same equipment, you would see a difference between them as time went by (they would probably have to be adjusted for age group because on average girls peak before boys do).

This type of experiment has probably already been done in nonhuman animals, where it's much easier to control their environments and wait until they reach young adulthood to test for differences, besides ethical considerations. It isn't ideal to train with intensity while still growing.
I'm not sure if this is a response to what I posted or not. It looks like it might be because it narrowly addresses the same topics in about the same order as my post but I'm not sure because it doesn't contradict or support anything in my post.

It wasn't a response to any reply in particular, just throwing my opinion out there.

(I generally quote posts I'm replying to  :) )
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Icarus

I have extensive experience in coaching female athletes. I do not have any arguments that females are physically equal to males of equivalent age or physique. The fact is that most females are less capable than males with feats of strength. That is where the limits end.

The other facts are that females are more than equal in skills and talents that encompass not only athletics but other areas of exceptional competence.  This I can damned well guarantee. Females are every bit as competitive and often more so than their counterparts.  I have had some girl athletes, much admired by me, that had competitive guts that easily equaled or even exceeded the best of their male counterparts. They have played their ferocious  best while hurt or even seriously injured.

Females endure some things that we males can never know....like the ordeal of childbirth for example.  Their muscle mass may not be the same but their valiant spirit is not in question.

'Scuse me, I am on a rant, but I am not wrong about this. Way too much evidence that might seek to refute my ravings.

Dave

Did not see thst as a rant, Icarus, though felt dlightly vonfused by the last sentence!

My opinion is that the best person for a job is the best person for that job - regardless of gender, size, race, belief . . . I do wonder, however, how nany women with very high ambitions are motivated by an obsession to prove women at least the equal of men? Of course, high ambition in men can be the result of an obsessive need to prove themselves better than other men but the traditional (back to proto-man probably) attitude about women adds an extra dimension.

Sexual dimorphism may be reducing in humans, I seem to see more female 6 footers these days and there is no way I would take on some of the female security people I have seen! Improved diets and more open opportunities may help, but I understand that the more extreme female body builders actually damage their reproductive systems, so they will probably not "breed through". Society is now such that men can happily carry out the roles previously those of women, the "house husband" etc. Same sex relationships become more common with role swapping.

Is there still an evolutionary need for big, aggressive males with smaller, domestic females any longer? Time, (like 100ky if we do not kill ourselves off) will tell.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Davin

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 26, 2017, 06:07:00 PM
It wasn't a response to any reply in particular, just throwing my opinion out there.

(I generally quote posts I'm replying to  :) )
Cool, was a good read either way.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.