CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
She went through puberty having the body of a man. I understand that she's a woman. Mentally and emotionally she feels like she's a woman and I get that. Having said that, she will develop muscle tone similar to a man. This is unfair to all the other woman in the sport. We have male and female sports for the reason that women's muscle tone doesn't get to the point of a man's. Are female body builders bigger and stronger than me? Sure, but they are not bigger/stronger than male body builders. Basically, her strength potential is higher than other female competitors because her body is essentially built like man's, that's unfortunate for her and her situation.
Actually, transgender women who transition undergo hormone replacement therapy which would mitigate the probable strength imbalance between a cisgender man and cisgender woman. Besides, even if Fox did have a greater strength potential hulking up to maximum potential is not common practice for MMA fighters. It would also affect her weight class, a system devolved explicitly to prevent mismatched and unfair fights on the basis of weight and strength (and which would presumably be just as effective is the sport were mixed rather than segregated).
Sports are also sex segregated predominantly due to historical sexism which treated sports as the exclusive domain of men. When women began to push into competitive sports they were only permitted to do so in their own category, which has been chronically under-supported by the sports industry.
I'm not a biologist in any way, but how much would the hormones affect her? Technically her body already grew. I can see hormones affect things like her voice and body hair, but her muscle mass? I doubt that will be affected. Even if she is getting estrogen, the workouts she does, which I'm sure are as vigouros as any fighter, would make the changes on her muscle mass basically inexistent.Besides that, a male 135 lb body is usually stronger than a female of the same weight, taking into consideration that they have the same fitness level. Why? The way it's built. Look at the muscle tone of Rousey (shown in the vid) and compare it to that of a male fighter of her same weight and height.
Secondly, I agree on the historical backgrounds of sports that you mentioned. I have no idea why you brought that up, but I'd have to say that now, there is very little sexism. Maybe by fans? Not by the industry, however. Mostly because women's sports are beginning to gain momentum, are they paid as much? No, but that's because they don't provide the monetary value that men's sports do, unfortunately.
The only sport I watch is football(soccer). And the sports are segregated because the women wouldn't be able to compete with the strength, height, and speed of their male counterparts. Not being sexist or bigotted, but the USWNT have played against men's teams before. The women played the under-17 men's team and lost 8-2. That would never happen to the men's team. I say we support women's sports, I'm not against them in any way. And when it's fair, same sex (when you consider strength, height, speed) they are actually very competitive and fun to watch.
I'm not a biologist in any way, but how much would the hormones affect her? Technically her body already grew. I can see hormones affect things like her voice and body hair, but her muscle mass? I doubt that will be affected.
Actually, hormone replacement therapy (HRT) after puberty does not affect either voice or body hair; transgender women who want those changes must undergo voice training and laser hair removal. What does change, however, is the capacity to build and sustain higher muscle mass. This is because muscle mass capacity is not biologically fixed but constantly influenced by hormones (this is also why steroids are effective), so if the hormonal composition of any person is shifted their ability to build and sustain muscle mass also changes.
Furthermore, this reality has already been acknowledged by major athletic organizations which permit transgender athletes to compete as the gender they identify with (e.g. the Olympics).
Secondly, I agree on the historical backgrounds of sports that you mentioned. I have no idea why you brought that up.
You stated: "We have male and female sports for the reason that women's muscle tone doesn't get to the point of a man's." My point was that this is not the real (or at least primary) reason we have segregated sports. Permitting women athletics was a forced concession in most places, and keeping the sports segregated makes it easier to sustain disproportionate funding and support for women's athletics (all under the auspices of caring about the women). Nor has it ever been demonstrably proven that physiological benefits of women relative to men (e.g. better center of balance, better BMI for water athletics, etc.) cannot offset their physiological disadvantages, or that strategy and tactics cannot offset difference either.
...but I'd have to say that now, there is very little sexism. Maybe by fans? Not by the industry, however. Mostly because women's sports are beginning to gain momentum, are they paid as much? No, but that's because they don't provide the monetary value that men's sports do, unfortunately.
A major reason that women's sports do not gross the same monetary return is because they have always been chronically underfunded and treated as a concession rather than an asset. If men's sports had received the same treatment during its entire history it would not be nearly as profitable as it is. The financing that goes into any venture affects the profit; that is basic economics.
Pay differential is also not the only display of sexism. Many sports have outright prohibited women from participating, and in some countries may either not permit women to play professionally or actively discourage them from doing so. Further, major competitions are not financed at even minimal levels sometimes; take the women's World Cup for example - FIFA would not even finance adequate fields for them to play on which is a standard, basic cost. Women athletes still also face more questions about their looks, sexuality, and obligations to children than their male counterparts tend to. And so on, and so forth.
The only sport I watch is football(soccer). And the sports are segregated because the women wouldn't be able to compete with the strength, height, and speed of their male counterparts. Not being sexist or bigotted, but the USWNT have played against men's teams before. The women played the under-17 men's team and lost 8-2. That would never happen to the men's team.
You can hardly draw such a sweeping generalization from a single game between two teams. By that logic, one could dismiss the national men's Brazil team for their 7-1 loss to Germany (clearly Germanic build lends a superior advantage over Brazilian build). Furthermore, that was not a standard match for standing and the score would not have been a primary concern; such scrimmages can have different restrictions than standard matches and coaches/teams may be trying different player combos and tactics that they do not typically use in competitive matches for rank. If the primary objective was not winning (which it very likely was not) then the score is not representative of competitive ability towards that end.
You also have no way of knowing what would happen to a men's team that lacked equitable resources (e.g. coaching budget, personal trainers, etc.) relative to a women's team because that scenario does not exist. It is a failure in reasoning to assume that competitive advantage is due to any one variable without controlling for other variables, and because men's athletics are virtually never underfunded relative to women's athletics and since the segregation by sex is so pervasive as to create a lack of adequate sample size we simply lack the data to make an informed deduction.
Well since I did say I wasn't a biologist or an expert, I wasn't sure about the affects of HRT on the body. I did a few hours of research and usually what turned up on MTF Transgender people is that the loss of muscle mass was gradual. I'm not certain about Fox's situation, but because she does have a vigorous work out routin. I'm sure the loss of muscle mass is not significant, at least when compared to other female fighters.
I didn't say we should stop Fox from fighting. That is not my place and I actually disagree with that. The question was if she had an unfair advantage or not. And I believe she does, however slight. In fighting strength and muscle mass in proportion to weight are significant.
You're right that the original/primary reason for segregated sports was that women athletes/athletics were not as supported as men's. I'm not arguing against that. I'm saying that now, I believe that men's "better" physical attributes (strength, height, speed) are probably the reason they are separated now. And a reason they will probably remain seperated. Tactics and strategy does help somewhat, but as shown by the loss of arguably the best Women's soccer team, physical disadvantage can be detrimental. At least in soccer. No, we can't judge it off of one game. But that is not the only time it's happened. When an under-17 team plays a professional men's team, the under-17 loses. A huge part of that is skill level and some physical attributes. These are things the boys lack because they havn't developed them through playing and they haven't had the training the professional sports players have. It's arguable that the USWNT was at a much better level tactically than the U-17 boys, but they lost. And I'd argue that it was because of the speed, strength, and height advantage the boys had that would only increase with age.
Yes, some countries are sexist, I don't disagree. But woman's sports are on the rise. Unfortunately, some things don't change over night. Woman's soccer, for example, is at a much better place than it was even 5 years ago. I'd say that's a huge win.
And money does play a huge role. Even looking at men's soccer teams you see that. There's plenty of leagues that have very little funding and thus are not very competitive. As I said earlier though, this woman's world cup has been the best financially supported and the one that has gotten the most media coverage. I consider that a win. Not everything was perfect, but give it time.
Finally everyone has to deal with looking good on camera, with their sexuality, and with dealing with their kids. Why do men sport stars go out with expensive hair-dos if they're gunna get messed up during the match? Why do they get paid thousands to do nude or semi nude modeling jobs? I don't know much about sport stars personal lives, but I know they have free time. And a lot of it. I'm sure those fathers devote that time to their families.
Anyways we got way off topic. Basically, Fox has an unfair advantage as slight as it may be, but do I believe she should be removed from the sport? Nope.
Changes to muscle mass are always gradual, but if one's hormonal composition is changing the physiology will follow even with regular workouts. The reason I brought up other organizations permitting transgender athletes' competition is because those organizations have determined that their physiological benefits are negligible. Even if this were not the case, the "advantage" could easily be resolved by switching to BMI instead of weight which would be more accurate for pairing cisgender fighters as well. I am glad we can both agree, though, that Fox should still be allowed to participate.
The rest is tangential, so feel free to respond or not as you see fit. And thanks for a civil debate.
I cannot find information on any other USWNT vs U-17 Boys matches, nor can I find detailed information about the 8-2 match. Comparison to the USMNT v. U-17 Boys matches (also hard to locate) is invalid because the USMNT would not have needed to adjust their strategy to play a different physiology nor would they have been testing tactics that would be played against a different physiology. Further, my point regarding financing was not that funding hasn't improved for women's athletics but that it remains grossly underfunded relative to men's athletics; this further invalidates comparisons between the USWNT And USMNT because the former did not have access to comparable coaching and training resources which would affect match success. I am not saying there is no physiological advantage, but rather that conclusions regarding its significance are premature assumptions; the data simply do not exist.
My point regarding sexualization was not that male athletes do not experience it, but that it is generally worse for women. Male athletes are not as likely to have their appearance questioned by the media, to have their career choice questioned by the media for not being a stay at home parent, or asked which beauty products they use instead of how they felt about the game.
Yes they are gradual, and that is why I say there's a fair disadvantage. Over time she might drop to the muscle mass of other women and I can see how hormones can make that happen. But until then, I'm really liking that BMI idea you had.
Thank you for being as civil and respectful as I was. Always make the best debates in my opinion. Never any need for name calling and such.
They do it often. However, they receive very little or no media coverage because they are just friendlies/preparation matches. And because of the physiological differences the ladies always have a hard time. Men's under-17, Under-19, under-21, and under 23 teams on occasion play friendlies against the older men's teams. The younger teams usually have trouble. A quick Google search not just for US teams, but look up globally if you really want to see the global stats. There's very little coverage of men vs woman in professional sports, true. But small singular events show up. Like when one of the Williams sisters (tennis) challenged a male opponent and she happened to lose against him. The guy was even that highly rated in the male version of the sport. Again, his speed, height and strength played a role. I argue that physiological advantage is very significant in sports, which deal with having top notch physical attributes.
Men athletes have their appearance questioned all the time. Back to soccer again. New crazy hair dos are mocked. Players are scrutinized for getting "fat." Many other things of the like happen all the time. Women athletes are celebrated by the media, even if they are not stay at home moms. That's just an assumption. It rarely happens today, at least not in the more progressive countries. I'm not sure about beauty products, I have rarely seen it. I'm sure, however, that the ladies, just like the men, are sponsored by certain brands that they have to talk about at some point.
Anyways, thanks for the talk, barely started on this site. I love debating, so I have bright hopes for my future participation here. Mostly thanks to you showing me that not everyone is a nonsensical troll. Thanks again and see you around.
