Talk:Transgender people in sports

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eogle1 (article contribs). This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Meza s1 (article contribs).

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

Testosterone and athletic ability

I have again removed an argument that was logically incorrect (it was a straw man). Logically fallacious statements are incorrect, no matter who they are stated by, citation or no citation. Thus I feel that such arguments have no place in a section that is meant to be about the objective effect of testosterone and athletic ability. Furthermore, the following paragraph made the same point that the quote was trying to make, but was objective about it and did not make a straw-man argument in the process. Feel free to undo the revision, but if you do, please link me somewhere that says a statement being incorrect is not grounds for removal. Notsononymous (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2017 (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)

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)