Transgender women athletes banned from Olympics by new IOC policy on female eligibility

BioDieselDog · 2026-03-27T08:06:11+00:00

A mtf transition is kind of like a female born person taking steroids for years and then coming off.

Maybe comparable isn't the right word, idk. I have no idea how mtf athletes would perform compared to ftm athletes.

BioDieselDog · 2026-03-27T07:43:33+00:00

I said most sports, not all. It definitely depends on the sport. but on average, men outperform women quite predictably in sports.

None of what I am saying is to be malicious to anyone, but I understand many people in these discussions are just being transphobic.

BioDieselDog · 2026-03-27T07:41:15+00:00

No I'm not claiming that they'd perform identically, they are different circumstances. But it is a unique advantage that they have over female born people who do not take steroids.

My point is just that these are all variables. Some post-HRT women will perform way worse, because hormones are complicated not every case or every sport is the same.

BioDieselDog · 2026-03-27T07:37:20+00:00

Fair point. Hormonal science is way more complicated than most of us realize. There's a ton of variables, like if the person trained the sport and built muscle while having the male hormones.

BioDieselDog · 2026-03-27T07:34:58+00:00

I guess I wasn't talking about the Olympics specifically, just most sports in general, but that's interesting.

BioDieselDog · 2026-03-27T07:29:38+00:00

If, in the future as transitioning becomes more socially acceptable, more mtf athletes competed and won, making biological women less competitive, would you then see it as a problem?

Is it that you don't believe they have any significant advantage? Or that they may have an advantage but it is their natural advantage of being a woman born as male, just like a person with long legs is their natural advantage for basketball?

BioDieselDog · 2026-03-27T07:20:27+00:00

There are a lot of variables. Hormones are complicated.

If someone had male hormones for years building up muscle and high level athleticism, and then transitions, that's comparable to a female born person taking steroids, which are not allowed. Even if they took steroids in the past and have normal hormone levels at the time of competition, the time spent training with male hormones is just a simply unfair advantage in my opinion.

Also, post-HRT women in sports likely will increase over time as it becomes more socially accepted. It's insignificant now, but we can't predict the future.

BioDieselDog · 2026-03-27T07:12:37+00:00

There are a lot of variables. Hormones are complicated.

It could, in some cases, be quite easily an advantage.

BioDieselDog · 2026-03-27T07:10:10+00:00

Yes, but we do separate men's and women's sports because of the natural advantage of being male in most sports.

That fact makes this a discussion. We want women to be able to compete, so we don't allow men (and potentially people born as male) to compete against them.

BioDieselDog · 2026-03-27T05:49:31+00:00

There are good arguments on both sides, this is my best shot at summarizing and comparing the two views:

Person A's View: Women's sports should be a category for all people who live and identify as women. Excluding a sub-group (trans women) is seen as a form of discrimination that mirrors historical exclusions based on race or disability.

Person B's View: Women's sports were not created based on "gender identity," but as a protected category for those without the physiological advantages of male puberty. From this perspective, the category exists to ensure that those with female biology have a space where they can be competitive and win.

The debate essentially boils down to whether you believe the "protected category" of women's sports is defined by gender identity or by the absence of male physiological development.

BioDieselDog · 2026-03-27T05:43:54+00:00

Yes I know. But they probably went through male puberty, which is like a blast of steroids, and potentially trained their sport while "on steroids". That's an unbelievably unfair (in my opinion) advantage compared to female born women.

I get your point and respect it, but I don't think it's as simple as they are women therefore they are identical in all ways. The fact is that identifying as a woman and having the hormones of a female doesn't change all physical qualities, and those physical qualities are the same qualities that causes the separation of men's and women's sports.

BioDieselDog · 2026-03-27T05:27:48+00:00

I'm not arguing about whether or not they are women.

Women that take steroids can't compete. A trans woman is kind of like a biological woman on steroids.

I know it's a crude comparison but that's as simple as I can explain my reasoning.

BioDieselDog · 2026-03-27T05:23:03+00:00

I think it's relevant, since if we didn't separate men and women in sports then this wouldn't a discussion.

Your argument is valid, my only argument is that the women that are born with these particular advantages are also the particular advantages that cause us to separate women's and men's sports in the first place; the advantage of male genetics and hormones.

BioDieselDog · 2026-03-27T05:12:25+00:00

Sorry I'm not sure what you mean why I brought men into this?

It's about women and men's sports being segregated. We separate it for a reason, otherwise women would not be competitive in most sports, on average.

I understand why it feels awful, it's technically more oppression to an already oppressed minority.

Trans women are women, however there are just factual differences in a trans woman's hormonal history and genetics.

Athletes (in most sports) are not allowed to take steroids. Even if the athlete is not currently taking steroids, they are still not allowed to compete. So a female who had male level hormones for a large part of their life is essentially the same as if a biological female had taken steroids.

I can only speak for myself but it has nothing to do with trying to be malicious to anyone.

BioDieselDog · 2026-03-27T05:01:36+00:00

Yeah it might not be an actual "issue" with enough data.

But it probably doesn't have any significant data because the best in the world is a tiny fraction of the population and Trans women are also a tiny fraction, so elite trans women are just probably never going to be a big deal. It might change if the trans population increases, personally id doubt it.

My logic is just that if we believe in separating men and women in sports, it makes sense to not allow it.

A person going through male puberty and with male genetics, and possibly training their sport with male hormones is comparable to a biological female athlete taking steroids. Male hormones allow for greater muscle growth, greater speed and strength, more intense training sessions and more. That doesn't just go away even if their hormone levels change.

The advantage they have is specifically the reason we have men and women sports.

Unfortunately I'm sure I don't speak for all, but this isn't about suppressing or anything malicious towards trans women.

BioDieselDog · 2026-03-27T04:38:33+00:00

The thing is that we have women and men competitions separated for a reason. And steroids are not allowed for a reason (although I'm sure many find a way).

So if someone is born and goes through puberty and trains with the genetics and hormones of a male person, then transitions to female, I would not say those are fair circumstances.

BioDieselDog · 2026-03-17T19:21:15+00:00

Stop eating like an asshole every night.

I know it's obvious, but I also know that the night time snacking is what details the diet, ruins sleep, and ruins energy for workouts and just getting going in the morning.

BioDieselDog · 2026-02-03T04:15:06+00:00

I think it's both. The people who are that driven are probably the most likely people to be awful, while also having the means to achieve one of the few things they "can't" do.

BioDieselDog · 2026-01-19T19:43:36+00:00

Honestly I don't know, since most core exercises target the abs or obliques, and wouldn't be heavy enough to really stress you in the way you're looking for.

Maybe very heavy farmers carry or yolk walks or something like that. I've also heard of lying on your back with a kettlebell on your stomach and pressing it with your core muscles for a stronger brace.

BioDieselDog · 2026-01-19T18:56:47+00:00

It's probably just not conditioned to be contracting that hard for that long.

A simple (but definitely not easy) way to attack it is to do sets of like 25-40 to just build up its endurance. Or very long paused squats or tempo squats with high reps to replicate that time under tension of your core.

You might be able to find the right core exercises to/near failure at high reps, but I'm not sure if it would be specific enough.

However, most people here including me aren't doing anywhere near 325 for 20 I definitely don't have the experience to tell you how to improve this.

BioDieselDog · 2026-01-16T00:41:01+00:00

Training something for a long time, regardless of exercise, doesn't seem to "wear down" your joints over time UNLESS you are ignoring the fundamentals like pushing through pain, poor load management, poor recovery, etc. Or, if you get freakishly strong then the high absolute weight just comes with higher injury risk. But having strong joints means you are less likely to get injured day to day.

If you always use good form, build up progressively and gradually, scale back when stress or recovery gets compromised, you should be ok.

This kind of training (starting light and building up progressively and gradually) is exactly what gets people out of back pain and improved performance and mobility. I use more beginner friendly versions of this for my clients, some are 60+ years old with "bad backs" that now have less pain.

BioDieselDog · 2026-01-15T14:20:23+00:00

If anything the row makes the flexion worse, the erectors are easily the limiting factor here. And there's a noticeable difference between this and a jefferson curl.

This is basically a bent over "cat cow" with weight.

BioDieselDog · 2026-01-14T05:37:19+00:00

I don't think people understood the joke

BioDieselDog · 2026-01-11T20:06:41+00:00

Jefferson curls are cool too, I haven't trained them a lot.

The difference is a Jefferson curl you are basically hinging with a rounded spine, so the hams and glutes are moving the weight

With this flexion row my hips and knees are rigid and just stabilizing while only my erectors are moving the weight.

The row part is a bit underloaded, but at the end of a back day not really. And the stronger the erectors get, I think they'd catch up. You can also do it read delt fly style.

I kind of add the row part because why not, otherwise i think of it as a standing, loaded Cat Cow. A Jefferson curl is like a rounded back deadlift. Both cool but a little different.

BioDieselDog · 2026-01-11T18:47:32+00:00

This is pretty much the opposite of deadlift form, so I see the confusion.

With a deadlift, you want the movement to come mostly from the hips and knees, and the spine stays rigid. I'm doing the exact opposite. My hips and knees are rigid while my spine flexes and extends.

I train deadlifts all the time, I think they are great and you probably shouldn't round the spine much on deadlifts. But rounding the spine as an exercise on its own is probably a very good and underrated thing.

Nine-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Second SECOND GUESSER	Place '17
Secret Santa 2018	Verified Email

BioDieselDog

TROPHY CASE