I think sports should be categorized by biological sex and not gender

If we allow biological males into sports meant for females, let's not say if it is fair or not on its own: It is basically the same as letting a cisgender male to compete with women on a physical level. That is not fair regardless of if it is advantageous or not. We are trying to compare apples to apples, and not apples to oranges. Sports is about the body and how capable it is, and who is in the mind is not important at all(other than maybe they motivate themselves to work out). Putting a female mind in a male body who can be a 100M champion and they will run like men. Sports is all about the biological body.

I support transgender athletes into competitions as the gender they identify with, but only if, they are also biologically the sex they consider to match their gender. Putting a biological male in a female race is biologically the same as letting men into female events.

Change my mind if you will. I am just trying to make an argument. 

Before any of you say anything, I am not trying to be transphobic regardless if you consider it or not. I just don't understand. 

Something to consider - if puberty blockers were used there may be no advantage to a 'biological male' competing in female events. 

Another thing to consider, some biological females are capable of physically outperforming biological males.

Lastly, depending on the sport, physicality isn't necessarily a deciding factor...think sailing, chess, etc.

I'm sure there may be other considerations, but this is all that comes to mind on short notice.

Suffice to say, there is a lot of nuance left out in the typical discussion on transgender athletes - it is not quite as simple as generally represented.

I know. However, that doesn't mean it is fair. We should not allow androids into human sport events even if the robots don't have a substantial advantage/disadvantage. If anything, it should be in a challenge game where the main goal is to beat the bots instead of being fair human athletes.

The Olympics, or other series like it, is meant for people with XX chromosomes against other people with XX chromosomes and people with XY chromosomes against people with XY chromosomes. The sports are not classified in classes in which most of the women is placed in a lower class than most men. No, that is not how it is classified.

Chess is unisex. However, there is a massive gap between female and male chess players(I think the top 10 chess players now are all male), due to for many decades, women can't even play chess. I think that is probably the patriarchy's fault.

As for sailing, I simply don't know a lot about the sport, so I can't be sure what exactly it needs.

Trans person here. I've done an entire debate on if a trans female can compete in athletics against a cis female fairly (obviously they can after HRT, imo) (https://www.debateart.com/debates/3104-allowing-transgendered-athletes-mtf-to-compete-in-athletics-against-biological-females-is-unfair )  just in case anyone would want to see the scientific evidence for that position.

Your post isn't incorrect in the sense that someone who still has the physical capacity of a male shouldn't be allowed to compete against females. The issue I'd raise with this, however, is that this isn't happening, and/or if it were/is happening, I think we would be/are all in agreement that it's unfair. I feel as though (not with regards to myself personally) that it just further isolates trans people when we could instead be focusing on actually trying to give trans athletes the hormones they need to be able to compete, but can't get.

Also, chromosomes don't matter. If your position is that XX chromosomes should only compete against XX chromosomes and XY with XY, that's an entirely separate conversation that I'd still love to have if needed. A woman can be a woman regardless of chromosomes and can simultaneously have a similar physical ability to other females regardless of chromosomes.

Wait really? Then what determines if one is "male" or "female" biologically?

In weightlifting in particular, the pelvis and shoulder as well as raw hand size vs arm ratios make males superior at it than females of the same size and weight. This doesn't begin to explore resistance to pain because while testosterone is part of that, the brain of men themselves react less severely to pain thab females' do.

Well, here's the problem with chromosomes: Anywhere between 0.01% and 2% (depends who you ask) have chromosomes that are either not XX/XY, or are XX/XY, but occurs in an otherwise male/female person. Data is hard to come by, because it's difficult to assess the prevalence of these conditions when somewhere between a considerable portion and a majority will live their entire life without knowing about it/getting diagnosed. Yes, these constitute a fiftieth at most (if our data is correct), but they're far from a fringe case that doesn't deserve to influence our understanding.

There are two main reasons chromosomes don't matter. The first is that, just as how a woman being born without a uterus doesn't make her non-binary, one singular sex characteristic cannot be the defining factor. If we checked Usain Bolt's chromosomes and found out he has XX chromosomes, that doesn't suddenly make him a woman, nor does it mean he should be allowed to compete against women unless he undergoes HRT.

The second is that chromosomes, even though yes, they are usually XY for men and usually XX for women, effectively determine nothing. To quote Pediaa.com (https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-difference-between-xx-and-xy-chromosomes/ ):

It's irrelevant. There's no function to separating people based on their chromosomes when you also remember the previous things I outlined. Yes, chromosomes are unchangeable, but using it to try and make sweeping claims about sex and biology just leaves you with the same issue as when you do the same with every other sex characteristic: you unfairly, unreasonably exclude people in a way that doesn't make sense.

Biological sex is a spectrum of sex characteristics that are associated with either end of the gradient, and chromosomes are one of the hundreds of factors involved in that spectrum (unimportant as they may be to daily life). Especially with the arguments from the debate I linked earlier, it doesn't seem to me to make sense to segregate sports based on chromosomes. The reason sports are divided between male and female is because of their difference in capability due to the nature of their sex characteristics, but trans females and trans men are completely able to adopt the relevant sex characteristics of their preferred gender and thus should be allowed to compete in my opinion.

I've never heard of raw hand size vs arm ratios, but let's look at the data of men vs women, shall we?

Forearm length: 25.4cm vs 23.5cm (8% advantage)

Hand length: 18.9cm vs 17.2cm (10% advantage)

Hand width: 8.4cm vs 7.4cm (14% advantage)

(11% advantage on average)

You're describing an 11% difference in men. The increased size in men is due to larger muscle and larger bones. Trans women after feminizing hormone therapy do not have an advantage in physical exercises, suggesting they'd more than likely have a similar size of muscle (especially when combined with redistribution of fat/muscle due to FHT/HRT), which if it even came close to halving the 11% advantage would make it so negligible it's hardly worth mentioning.

Further still, while skeletal size cannot be reduced, hormone replacement therapy reduces the amount of haemoglobin in the body and thus the amount of oxygen the body can transport while the amount of oxygen needed for that skeletal system remains constant. This either negates the advantage or makes it a disadvantage.

HRT changes the brain, and also I have no idea from what source or what way of measuring you got that claim, but that doesn't really say much without a figure behind it.

You are just misinformed at this point.

It's about ratio and angles (as well as raw ligament strength) not just the fact that indeed they have a length and width advantage.

You hadn't even mentioned angles, which frankly I'd find hard to quantify (though I know a little about the angle of bones/sockets). If I'm misinformed, I'd love to inform myself.

The ratios are basically identical if you run them through a calculator. Unless a ratio of 43:100 is somehow vastly different from a ratio of 44:100. I also fail to see how exactly trans women would have some significant advantage because of this.

As if by fate, Hubbard didn't win a medal this time due to some either cracking under pressure or aging (she blames aging).

I actually think that this outcome is superior for trans athletes as now they can justify their participation far more. In 2060 it wouldn't surprise me if we see trans athletes snare many medals from cis females. Time will well, that is for sure.

Had Hubbard performed as well as she had in the Pacific Games, we'd have seen more backlash come towards the unfairness. Age and perhaps nerves (can't be easy being on the Olympics as the first trans athlete) caused her to shake and drop the weight a couple times.

Do you think a trans-women who transitioned well after puberty have an advantage against cis-gendered competitors? 

I don't mean to brush you off in saying this, rather it's best way to answer the question, but the debate I linked earlier which I'll also link here has the best introductory arguments I could give as to why my answer is resoundingly yes. I have yet to see any reason that the advantage a trans woman might have on average would be significantly more compared to any given cis athlete than would be seen between two cis athletes that is also not mitigated by the disadvantages (ex: oxygen requirements vs haemoglobin in the body). There's many examples of trans female athletes losing to cis female athletes, sometimes losing significantly more than when they were men (like in the case of Fallon Fox).

Somewhat sums up the whole stupid contradiction.

Correction: When they were of the male sex.

Using the one time I misspoke as the only way to criticize the position I hold sums up the position of the counterfactual nicely.

Freudian slip methinks.

And "misspoke" is such a brilliant word.

Within the current context, so very appropriate.

Should we not allow intersex people to participate in sports? if i remember correctly they are 1.5% of the population which seems low but is actually millions. 

im very uneducated on the topic but i'm interested in learning more about seeing as most of my friends are transphobic, homophobic etc, it gets a little annoying

Yes, we should. However, with regards to trans people participating in professional sports, it's not necessary to bring up intersex people except in the case of people believing it is impossible to go from one biological sex to the other, as the proof for that is, in some part, reliant on the case of intersex people.

The figure you're mentioning is 2% and was calculated in a way that does not refer to chromosomes, which is what I was referring to when responding to Intelligence_06. Some experts would disagree, claiming that sex is determined by chromosomes, but that is far from an undisputed claim and is an unnecessary, blatant attempt to try and categorize that of which can't be put into neat little boxes, in my opinion. Even if it's a valid way of distinguishing things, it's meaningless as I mentioned prior.

The debate I linked is good for info about this, but it must be annoying dealing with homophobia regularly. :/

For some reason, Equestrian Dressage is unisex.

Like... horse riding?

I suppose that makes sense, though.

this is ridiculous liberalism has gone way to far... 

How?

 k.