Laurel Hubbard

[Silvio Dante]

New Zealand’s Laurel Hubbard has today been named as the first TG athlete to compete in the Olympics. She’s 43 years old and will be competing in Tokyo in the Weightlifting Events. Has competed as a male athlete before coming out as TG in 2013.

For TG athletes to compete as females, they must have testosterone below a certain level - and she meets this requirement.

I thought twice before posting this topic as I think it’s a very thorny issue. There is some protest about LHs involvement due to what are considered innate physical advantages (as I understand it she’s older than most competitors and the argument is that a 43 year old female competitor is atypical).

Clearly, she’s a world class athlete and I don’t think anyone should argue over her right to identify as a woman. The question becomes whether she should be allowed to compete in the Olympics and whether it’s “fair”. I can genuinely see both sides of that (ie it’s highly unlikely that she’d have qualified at 43 had she been born female so she seems  to have some genetic advantage - but don’t all athletes to some degree) but it troubles me that the “no” argument would make her less equal than a non TG woman. 

Ignoring the “but she’s not a woman” (she is) dog whistle argument, does anyone have any thoughts on this one?

[TonyTonyTony]

I think the test needs to be more sophisticated than just testosterone levels. As you say she will have other physical advantages. Fundamentally i think its unfair to XX Females who may feel its not a level playing field for them.

The answer ? No idea, but you could have Male, Female and TG events but that might be complicated. Thorny subject for sure

[TonyTonyTony]

2 minutes ago, RalphMilnesLeftFoot said:

Is about as complicated as this story gets. 

It totally isnt. 

Hubbard competed in Male weightlifting until 2013. Do you not think this gives an advantage?

Did you know World Rugby banned TG from the female game due to risk of injury to XX females? You may or may not agree with that, but to suggest this topic is not complicated is just whitewashing. 

[LondonBristolian]

I think the most important thing to me is that Laurel Hubbard meets the criteria to qualify, has qualified on her own merit and is competing under the rules and under her own achievement.

Any discussion about what the rules should or should not be should not be turned into a conversation about whether she has a right to compete . She clearly does. She hasn't made the rules and she has qualified under them. 

[TonyTonyTony]

4 minutes ago, RalphMilnesLeftFoot said:

 

So aside from it being a completely different sport and discipline your discourse is totally flawed there too. is there anything else you want to show yourself up on?? 

 

Wow - what a charmer. There are huge physical, moral and ethical issues across all sports with this issue. Not to mention legal issues. Your over simplification of it is no surprise, but to deny this topic isnt complex is just silly.

 

[OneTeamInBristol]

Absolutely ridiculous decision and would be surprised if she actually competes in the Olympics.

Sports people can choose to identify as whichever sex they wish but biologically born men cannot compete in women's competitions.

Makes a mockery of female sport and equality. 

[TonyTonyTony]

4 minutes ago, RalphMilnesLeftFoot said:

So perhaps leave your privilege, bigotry and outrage for something to actually get worked up over, or instead, ya know carry on trying to demonise trans people, specifically transwomen during Pride month

You are out of order. Im not outraged by the decision to include her. As @LondonBristolian said she passes the current tests.

When did i demonise anybody? Im just highlighting the complexities of the subject. 

[Silvio Dante]

15 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

I think the most important thing to me is that Laurel Hubbard meets the criteria to qualify, has qualified on her own merit and is competing under the rules and under her own achievement.

Any discussion about what the rules should or should not be should not be turned into a conversation about whether she has a right to compete . She clearly does. She hasn't made the rules and she has qualified under them. 

The second part is absolutely correct here for my money, and as I’ve said, there is no way LH should not be classed as a woman - she is, and didn’t make the rules. I think you’re on the money as where the discussion needs to go, which is, are the rules in the right place - LH can only compete in those constraints.

The debate probably is that if someone’s born gender gives them a physical advantage other others in the gender they identify as, should they then be able to compete, and under what conditions. 

NB - I don’t think it’s Anti Trans to have an adult debate about this (know you didn’t say that but just tacking it on here), I also think that if she does win a medal, that debate is likely to get louder.

[OneTeamInBristol]

1 minute ago, RalphMilnesLeftFoot said:

How's it ridiculous. 

She's been a pro weightlifter for years following transition. 

No Olympics for you, despite qualifying seems a tad discriminatory 

Please do go on as to how a woman being a woman in sport makes a mockery of sport and equality. 

Interested to see where you go with that. 

She identifies as woman.

Biologically she isn't a woman.

If you fail to see the issues in those 2 statements then there really is no point in going any further with this conversation. 

By the way you've responded to me and others in this thread (@TonyTonyTony ) shows that you obviously have a serious issue with anyone bringing up very valid and correct points about the subject. Points which the majority of people using common sense (check social media for the international outrage at this decision) all agree on.

Facts are facts, deal with it.

[MarcusX]

40 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

I think the most important thing to me is that Laurel Hubbard meets the criteria to qualify, has qualified on her own merit and is competing under the rules and under her own achievement.

Any discussion about what the rules should or should not be should not be turned into a conversation about whether she has a right to compete . She clearly does. She hasn't made the rules and she has qualified under them. 

I think this is the most sensible response I've seen on the matter.

Any debate about this should be aimed at the rules, and not at the person who has followed the set rules.

Personally I think it's obvious that there is an advantage to be had spending so many years as a biological man. Current T levels at the time of testing mean very little as this can be manipulated and self-administered testosterone is usually cycled, it's not in a constant state of elevated levels.

One thing I will say though is I am sure that not many women in an 87kg + weightlifting category, that can snatch 140+ kg and C&J over 180kg are of "natural" testosterone levels. In fact one of the top russians has recently been "popped" for doping for a second time in her career.

[Red-Robbo]

2 minutes ago, RalphMilnesLeftFoot said:

Adult trans women do not have an advantage 

 

 

I'm going to have to disagree with you there, Ralph.

If you were born male and went through full puberty as a male, as Laurel did, then you will have higher muscle mass, heavier bones and a larger frame.

In some sports, you can argue that skill can compensate for this and competitors who were male at puberty have little advantage over those born female.

In sports - like weightlifting -where upper-body strength is key, I don't think you can make that argument.  Women - on average - have only about half the upper-body strength of males and about two-thirds the lower body strength.

TG athletes who've transitioned from birth males and received hormone treatment and potentially full genital sex changes will retain much of this advantage. It can't be significantly lost in later life with chemical treatment, any more than transitioning males can make themselves shorter: it is there in-built from childhood.

Laurel will be competing against women who are exceptionally strong and much above the average female in that respect, but due to her birth sex, she will have an unfair advantage. She started at a higher level if you like, and developed technique in her years as a male weightlifter.

No one wants to say transgender people shouldn't compete in sport, but I honestly think the only fair thing would be to have a separate sporting category for transgender people.  At least in sports where strength is so key. 

(This recent academic study demonstrates that the loss of muscle mass caused by testosterone suppressants in transgender elite athletes is very small and does not outweigh inbuilt sex birth advantages, moreover bone density and cardio sexual differences are unaffected by such treatment:  https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3 )

[TonyTonyTony]

34 minutes ago, RalphMilnesLeftFoot said:

Sorry you feel 'traumatised' by having your views challenged. Imagine it must be really tough for someone who is presumably, cis, male and presumably will never qualify for the Olympics to be challenged? 

.As for demonisation, your posts mention of 'huge issues'when there are none, unless your starting base is that' trans people are bad mmm kay'

Ditto no 'complexities' around the issue either. 

Traumatised? What are you on about?

Please also don't misquote me. You clearly see this subject as black and white, when i suspect the vast majority dont. Dont make me out to be a bad person just by a) highlighting the complexity and b) disagreeing with you.

Your style of posting is very confrontational tbh. Nothing i said should have offended. I can only assume you are overly sensitive

[BS2 Red]

51 minutes ago, OneTeamInBristol said:

Absolutely ridiculous decision and would be surprised if she actually competes in the Olympics.

Sports people can choose to identify as whichever sex they wish but biologically born men cannot compete in women's competitions.

Makes a mockery of female sport and equality. 

Olympic rules allow it and so you're wrong that they "can't compete in women's competition".

The Caster Semenya case and the disgusting treatment she faced shows that these issues are far more complex than a knee jerk "biologically born men cannot compete in women's competitions".

[Silvio Dante]

1 minute ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

I'm going to have to disagree with you there, Ralph.

If you were born male and went through full puberty as a male, as Laurel did, then you will have higher muscle mass, heavier bones and a larger frame.

In some sports, you can argue that skill can compensate for this and competitors who were male at puberty have little advantage over those born female.

In sports - like weightlifting -where upper-body strength is key, I don't think you can make that argument.  Women - on average - have only about half the upper-body strength of males and about two-thirds the lower body strength.

TG athletes who've transitioned from birth males and received hormone treatment and potentially full genital sex changes will retain much of this advantage. It can't be significantly lost in later life with chemical treatment, any more than transitioning males can make themselves shorter: it is there in-built from childhood.

Laurel will be competing against women who are exceptionally strong and much above the average female in that respect, but due to her birth sex, she will have an unfair advantage. She started at a higher level if you like, and developed technique in her years as a male weightlifter.

No one wants to say transgender people shouldn't compete in sport, but I honestly think the only fair thing would be to have a separate sporting category for transgender people.  At least in sports where strength is so key. 

(This recent academic study demonstrates that the loss of muscle mass caused by testosterone suppressants in transgender elite athletes is very small and does not outweigh inbuilt sex birth advantages, moreover bone density and cardio sexual differences are unaffected by such treatment:  https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3 )

The point I’d make here is that it’s always difficult to be first over the top. Ralph says there is no advantage, and points to some studies (which I have no doubt exist) and you’ve provided other studies (which I’d intuitively err towards being correct).

Ultimately, most people’s minds will be made up - rightly or wrongly, and probably disproportionately- by LHs performance at the games. As noted, she’s 43 - way above “expected” optimum performance age. If she wins gold, then the accusation will be that she only won because she was trans. If she performs poorly, it may well smooth the way for Trans athletes in future games as people’s preconceptions won’t have been met. In a lot of ways, she’s in a no win situation and the best thing for the community and the cause is probably for her not to do well.

 

[MarcusX]

36 minutes ago, RalphMilnesLeftFoot said:

Perhaps, dont insult the trans person in the thread then. 

The points aren't 'valid' 

Shit like this will just encourage more rights to be eroded, more people to think it's okay to discriminate and cause more physical and mental anguish for and trans person who wants to do sport. 

Frankly, it's effing ridiculous that people are so keen to have these 'valid' debates when it doesn't affect them in the slightest but may affect the rights and feeedoms of others. 

Unsurprisingly after spending a large portion of today being told amongst things that I cant repeat here, I'm a freak, and a myriad of other things because of 'discussions' like this 

Then I'm going to be slightly pissy. 

You dont discuss colour or religion in the same way, yet here we are pissing about demonising a good thing because humanity is wretched and wont recognise the past repeating. 

You tend to post in a very aggressive on matters that obviously mean a lot to you. Perhaps sometimes it's worth taking a breath before posting and post with your head not your heart? The Danny Simpson thread comes to mind and I think there was another you ended up in several arguments about mostly because of your manner rather than your actual content or opinion

[Red-Robbo]

Just now, Silvio Dante said:

The point I’d make here is that it’s always difficult to be first over the top. Ralph says there is no advantage, and points to some studies (which I have no doubt exist) and you’ve provided other studies (which I’d intuitively err towards being correct).

Ultimately, most people’s minds will be made up - rightly or wrongly, and probably disproportionately- by LHs performance at the games. As noted, she’s 43 - way above “expected” optimum performance age. If she wins gold, then the accusation will be that she only won because she was trans. If she performs poorly, it may well smooth the way for Trans athletes in future games as people’s preconceptions won’t have been met. In a lot of ways, she’s in a no win situation and the best thing for the community and the cause is probably for her not to do well.

 

 

Indeed. And I'd agree with Ralph's overall point, which is that she isn't breaking the rules, she's competed within them fairly and - on current criteria - fully deserves her place. 

However I have some sympathy with women competing in this sport (and others) who argue the IOC's criteria are wrong.

The study I quoted, carried out by the University of Manchester and Sweden's Karolinska Institute , concludes testosterone suppression does not level the playing field:

"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."

Plus:

"The research conducted so far has studied untrained transgender women...it is still uncertain how transgender women athletes, perhaps undergoing advanced training regimens to counteract the muscle loss during the therapy, would respond."

It's a thorny subject indeed, but I think the most recent studies show more research is needed before the IOC can say its guidelines are fair. 

[richwwtk]

5 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

Indeed. And I'd agree with Ralph's overall point, which is that she isn't breaking the rules, she's competed within them fairly and - on current criteria - fully deserves her place. 

However I have some sympathy with women competing in this sport (and others) who argue the IOC's criteria are wrong.

The study I quoted, carried out by the University of Manchester and Sweden's Karolinska Institute , concludes testosterone suppression does not level the playing field:

"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."

Plus:

"The research conducted so far has studied untrained transgender women...it is still uncertain how transgender women athletes, perhaps undergoing advanced training regimens to counteract the muscle loss during the therapy, would respond."

It's a thorny subject indeed, but I think the most recent studies show more research is needed before the IOC can say its guidelines are fair. 

My view would be that everybody competing in Women's Weightlifting has probably started with some kind of natural physical advantage, otherwise they just wouldn't reach the standards required for elite sport.

If her natural advantage is that she happens to be trans, meaning she grew up in the wrong body, then it is no different to anybody elses natural advantage.

Nobody is going to fake being trans and go through everything she would have done just in order to succeed at a sport. She is merely making the most of what life has dealt her and should be allowed to compete.

[Red-Robbo]

Just now, richwwtk said:

My view would be that everybody competing in Women's Weightlifting has probably started with some kind of natural physical advantage, otherwise they just wouldn't reach the standards required for elite sport.

If her natural advantage is that she happens to be trans, meaning she grew up in the wrong body, then it is no different to anybody elses natural advantage.

Nobody is going to fake being trans and go through everything she would have done just in order to succeed at a sport. She is merely making the most of what life has dealt her and should be allowed to compete.

 

It's a bit more of a natural advantage to have double the upper body strength due to biological physiology than just being very, very good at sport, like the rest of the women.

The musculature, osteo and cardio advantages give male-at-birth TG weightlifters a 34-37% advantage, according to the study I quoted.

Unless a fair system is implemented, we could eventually see a situation where no records in strength sports are held by competitors who were born female.  

[Cowshed]

16 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

It's a bit more of a natural advantage to have double the upper body strength due to biological physiology than just being very, very good at sport, like the rest of the women.

The musculature, osteo and cardio advantages give male-at-birth TG weightlifters a 34-37% advantage, according to the study I quoted.

Unless a fair system is implemented, we could eventually see a situation where no records in strength sports are held by competitors who were born female.  

And testosterone reduction will not even out that massive advantage.

[TonyTonyTony]

26 minutes ago, richwwtk said:

My view would be that everybody competing in Women's Weightlifting has probably started with some kind of natural physical advantage, otherwise they just wouldn't reach the standards required for elite sport.

If her natural advantage is that she happens to be trans, meaning she grew up in the wrong body, then it is no different to anybody elses natural advantage.

Nobody is going to fake being trans and go through everything she would have done just in order to succeed at a sport. She is merely making the most of what life has dealt her and should be allowed to compete.

That's an interesting take on it. 

[Harry]

Is she allowed to compete? Yes. No rules are being breached. 
Should the rules be changed. Yes. 
 

I doubt she wins the gold medal, or even medals at all, so I don’t think that’s the main issue. 
I think about it more in terms of the opportunity that’s been denied to someone else. 
I don’t know how many New Zealand weight lifters qualify for the Olympics, but let’s say for argument sake it’s 3. 
If I had a daughter who’d strived all her life, sacrificed so much to her sport, and she was denied a place at the Olympics because she finished 4th in the qualifiers, and the 3rd spot had gone to someone who had previously competed as a man, regardless of her trans-rights, I’d be pretty effing fuming! 
Where’s the rights of the women who’ve been denied a lifetime opportunity by someone who was born with a unique advantage. 
 

I should state quite clearly (and particularly for Ralph’s benefit), that I have absolutely nothing against trans people. I genuinely live my life on the basis of people can be whoever they want to be and it ain’t none of my business.  But when that choice impacts on the achievements of others, I think rules need to be sharpened to prevent this kind of thing. How is it fair to women that someone who used to be a man is allowed to compete against them and deny them their hard fought opportunity. 
I feel that women’s rights organisations really ought to be the most loudly outspoken on this matter. 

[TonyTonyTony]

28 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

Unless a fair system is implemented

Therein lies the rub. Who do you want to be fair to? A repressed minority of TG who rightly want to be included, or the majority of women who are disadvantaged? 

[LondonBristolian]

34 minutes ago, BS2 Red said:

Olympic rules allow it and so you're wrong that they "can't compete in women's competition".

The Caster Semenya case and the disgusting treatment she faced shows that these issues are far more complex than a knee jerk "biologically born men cannot compete in women's competitions".

The Caster Semenya case is, as you say, utterly appalling and shows the problem with the current rules. Especially as it looks like rules were brought in very specifically to stop her competing.

I agree with those who say it is not a straightforward subject but I think where it comes down to for me is as follows:

1) The Olympics claims to be about more than sport but also about friendship, respect and building a better world. Clearly a situation where some people excluded from competing in any category at all is not inclusive of those values.

2) I don't think it right or fair to force transgender or intersex women to compete in male events.

3) I don't think specific transgender or intersex categories would be within the Olympic values either.

Ultimately where that leaves me is that the best thing to do is to allow transgender or intersex women to compete as women. I understand why some find it an imperfect solution as people may have an advantage but athletes have physical advantages for a number of reasons - being taller, of a more naturally muscular build or being of a physique that lends itself to particular sports - so you could argue it is an extension of an existing situation and I certainly don't think having extra testosterone gives an advantage in every sport.

I do understand why there is a debate, and I don't want to pretend there are easy solutions, but I just don't think excluding some people from competing at all can ever be the right answer. 

[LondonBristolian]

6 minutes ago, TonyTonyTony said:

Therein lies the rub. Who do you want to be fair to? A repressed minority of TG who rightly want to be included, or the majority of women who are disadvantaged? 

Technical point but the majority of women aren't disadvantaged. The vast majority of women aren't going to be Olympic athletes, whatever the rules are. 

[TonyTonyTony]

2 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

Technical point but the majority of women aren't disadvantaged. The vast majority of women aren't going to be Olympic athletes, whatever the rules are. 

To clarify i should have said "The majority of XX females competing at the Olympics"

[richwwtk]

13 minutes ago, Harry said:

Is she allowed to compete? Yes. No rules are being breached. 
Should the rules be changed. Yes. 
 

I doubt she wins the gold medal, or even medals at all, so I don’t think that’s the main issue. 
I think about it more in terms of the opportunity that’s been denied to someone else. 
I don’t know how many New Zealand weight lifters qualify for the Olympics, but let’s say for argument sake it’s 3. 
If I had a daughter who’d strived all her life, sacrificed so much to her sport, and she was denied a place at the Olympics because she finished 4th in the qualifiers, and the 3rd spot had gone to someone who had previously competed as a man, regardless of her trans-rights, I’d be pretty effing fuming! 
Where’s the rights of the women who’ve been denied a lifetime opportunity by someone who was born with a unique advantage. 
 

I should state quite clearly (and particularly for Ralph’s benefit), that I have absolutely nothing against trans people. I genuinely live my life on the basis of people can be whoever they want to be and it ain’t none of my business.  But when that choice impacts on the achievements of others, I think rules need to be sharpened to prevent this kind of thing. How is it fair to women that someone who used to be a man is allowed to compete against them and deny them their hard fought opportunity. 
I feel that women’s rights organisations really ought to be the most loudly outspoken on this matter. 

I don't believe it's a choice. Have you chosen to continue being male, or is it just what you are?

[Red-Robbo]

31 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

And testosterone reduction will not even out that massive advantage.

 That's what the science suggests.

[Silvio Dante]

28 minutes ago, Harry said:

I don’t know how many New Zealand weight lifters qualify for the Olympics, but let’s say for argument sake it’s 3. 
If I had a daughter who’d strived all her life, sacrificed so much to her sport, and she was denied a place at the Olympics because she finished 4th in the qualifiers, and the 3rd spot had gone to someone who had previously competed as a man, regardless of her trans-rights, I’d be pretty effing fuming! 
 

Selective quote to answer this question. The top 8 athletes worldwide get a place, then each continent nominates someone - typically the best next ranked from their continent not in top 8. As I understand it, LH has taken the Oceania spot 

[BS2 Red]

26 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

I understand why some find it an imperfect solution as people may have an advantage but athletes have physical advantages for a number of reasons - being taller, of a more naturally muscular build or being of a physique that lends itself to particular sports - so you could argue it is an extension of an existing situation and I certainly don't think having extra testosterone gives an advantage in every sport.

I don't know enough to know if extra testosterone has a big impact. I'm clueless on the scientific side of things here and so am only going on a general "what's fairest" idea.

All athletes have advantages over others. Usain Bolt was built differently from other sprinters which let him run faster. Michael Phelps is basically Aquaman which let him swim faster. Mike Tyson could punch harder than 99.9999% of people. Those physical differences are what makes an elite athlete. 

It's just not fair to tell a whole section of society that they are not allowed to compete at the Olympics. Saying that trans people are not allowed is against the entire idea of the Olympic spirit. 

But, it could (potentially) be unfair if the XY women are stronger/faster. It could be that XY women do have an unfair competitive advantage due to the circumstances of their birth.

There's no easy answer here.

But, I don't see that transwomen at the moment are dominating any sports. The hormone suppressants and/or surgery are likely to level the playing field somewhat.

I think when we are taking about such a small number of people and while they are not dominating, this is a bit of a non-story. If in a few years transwomen are the champions of every single female sport, then it's time to look at things. As it stands, they should be free to compete in line with Olympic rules.

 

[Red-Robbo]

23 minutes ago, TonyTonyTony said:

Therein lies the rub. Who do you want to be fair to? A repressed minority of TG who rightly want to be included, or the majority of women who are disadvantaged? 

It has to be fair to women, who will make up the vast majority of competitors.  At present, only a few cases like this cause questions at elite level.  But there will be more. We have to be led by the science. ( Laurel's case is a bit different to Caster Semenya who I understand was born Intersex. An extremely rare occurrence)

17 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

 

3) I don't think specific transgender or intersex categories would be within the Olympic values either.

 

 

I can't see why not. Transgender athletes and knowledge of testosterone levels may not have featured in the ancient Olympics or when Baron De Coubertin revived them in 1896, but things move on.

A TG category/categories would allow TG athletes to compete on a level playing field with others in a way that neither they, nor cis-Females, could say is "unfair". As has been said, the current arrangement tarnishes the achievements of TG athletes in controversy. 

It would mean the Olympics reflected modern gender distinctions, rather than those of the past.