This is dellusional.
They aren't the same and shouldn't be accepted as the same. You're starting with the conclusion then trying to back fit it to an explanation and it's simply not valid.
They are not the same, but they are dramatically similar. The tangent this thread went on with some people talking about breeding or whatever in pretty creepy ways shows that there is a perception at least among some people that black people have a massive genetic advantage in sports. That perception of bullshit, studies looking into it don't back that up at all, and using it to justify banning black people (or introducing regulations that effectively ban them) is wrong.
It's equally very clear from this thread that there is a perception among some people that trans women have a massive genetic advantage in sports. Studies on trans people in sports show that after a sufficient amount of time on HRT, that perception is bullshit. The most you could say in terms of a difference is slightly higher bone density than the average cis woman, and being slightly taller than the average cis woman, but this is offset by having lower T levels than the average cis woman and the fact that especially at the highest levels of competition, cis woman athletes are not average cis women. So, based on those studies, while it makes sense to require HRT treatment for a certain length of time, and require certain T levels. It does not make sense to ban trans people outright or introduce regulations that effectively ban trans people.
Ah, this makes more sense. You didn't read the article, got triggered, and are pushing your activism. Good for you.
Your extremism results in an equal and opposite force justifying themselves with your extremism. Once you people calm down, rational decisions will come easier.
I did read the article, it prevents people from competing unless they started transitioning before the age of 12, though they don't actually say why stage of transitioning they are talking about. Is it social transitioning? Use of hormone blockers? HRT? Surgery? That part is left undefined. This, in effect, would ban the majority of trans people from competing. While the medical community is starting to realize that it's better to start transition earlier rather than later in the developmental process, there are a lot of hurdles from states making it illegal for kids to transition, to parents who won't allow their kids to be who they are, to all of the social pressures, etc. The ruling effectively bans trans people from competing.
Also, we already have a compromise. It's not perfect, but it's workable and it balances the need for inclusivity with the worry of potentially unfair performance differences pretty well. The compromise, which the majority of sports organizations have landed on, is a few years on HRT, and a testosterone level that is substantially lower than the T level of the average cis woman athlete. This standard doesn't arbitrarily ban people, it actually is better for controlling for performance because testosterone level contributes so heavily to performance, and it's much more in keeping with what studies on trans athletes have said makes sense. My view is to keep that rule, maybe tweak around the edges in terms of T levels as we get more and better data. That's not extremist, it's literally going with the status quo.
You guys seem to be starting with the assumption that HRT doesn't do that much, and trans women aren't actually women. That's the extremist point of view.
/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-dmn.s3.amazonaws.com/public/4GYOVG2VHA5IB5ADDUPQOHAUCA.jpg)
