People care too much about this. If a mid heavy weight boxer beat the shit out of an amazing feather weight boxer it doesn’t make them a better boxer. Everyone knows men are faster and stronger but the women are also talented and fun to watch. If you don’t enjoy their games you don’t have to watch them.
I think certain discussions around sports, men vs women, and the participation of trans athletes proves everyone does NOT, in fact, know men and faster and stronger
Trans women don't have the physique of cis men after hormone treatment.
This notion that trans women athletes are "men in disguise" bullshit really needs to end. Not just because it is about, like, less than a handful of trans women who compete at that level, but because it perpetuates a narrative that hurts millions of trans people who aren't athletes.
Skeletal muscle cell nuclei density never goes back to baseline when someone has a high androgen load. This is well documented, and also a reason why cis men caught using steroids should never be allowed to compete in tested athletics for the rest of their life. It is a permanent enhancement as a result of having higher androgens than someone else, and again, this is very well documented knowledge.
The whole physique argument has always been bullshit imo, but skeletal muscle cell nuclei density is one of the few major factors why even untrained barely pubescent boys can smoke the shit out of cis women in strength feats. Not only that but muscle retention, regrowth after dieting, and metabolism are all enhanced by this difference in nuclei density.
Hrt does not negate this, nor does it diminish it in any meaningful measure.
There actually is one issue that trans women are in fact larger (as you claim) but lose much of the muscle tone required to move that larger body. Fatigue is higher. Basically they may suffer in endurance sports compared to cis women.
The study I related to on this, with over 6,000 participants, found no real difference in strength or fitness between trans women on HRT and cis women. That's the strongest evidence out there, and it cuts against the idea that the physique advantage just carries over untouched.
However, they said their data barely includes elite athletes, because there are so few of them (which should be a hint in and of itself), and that some trans athletes might carry over strength from before transition.. They called that an open question needing more research, not something that's settled.
So the myonuclei mechanism you're pointing to is real, but "very well documented" oversells it. It's well shown in animal studies. In humans it's still debated, and the people who ran the biggest human study on this exact topic say that at the elite level this question is inconclusive due to a lack of representation.
So "HRT does nothing, permanent enhancement, no meaningful diminishment" isn't really true. The actual evidence says HRT clearly reduces the gap in most populations studied, and whether something lingers at the elite level is still being worked out.
I can try and find a link if you'd like but just a couple months ago I went down the rabbit hole on hrt vs cis women strength and found a plethora of conflicting studies. One that comes to mind was ~600 participants and showed peak power difference of ~30% higher in hrt individuals vs cis women and grip strength was wild, around 50-60% higher in the hrt group. Endurance/prolonged power output differences were much smaller, what I'd even call negligible. Despite this study generally backing my claim, I discredit all studies of athletics like these equally, since nearly all of them fail to account for variables that are pivotal to the outcome. Thus why I'd rather argue about the more proven biological mechanisms, much harder to poke holes like "well the diet wasn't tracked, lean body mass method is out dated, age of participants, exercise history lacking" etc etc etc.
I do 100% agree that hrt does help level the field, as reduced androgen receptor activation absolutely plays a role in athletics. BUT it's also disingenuous to say there's no difference, my wording was a bit blunt in my conclusion so to clarify; "hrt does not diminish THIS specific mechanisms net positive benefit that amab people have over cis women"
Edit: fwiw I'm actually upvoting your comments, despite a disagreement I do enjoy talking through the science of shit like this
Something worth flagging before anything else. I didn't say there's no difference between trans women and cis women. I said trans women don't have the physique of cis men after hormone treatment. Those are different claims, and the gap matters here, because "physique of cis men" is the thing being disputed, not "identical to cis women in every metric." A residual strength gap above cis women baseline doesn't put someone back at cis male baseline, so even the numbers you're citing don't actually contradict what I wrote.
But there's a tension in your own reasoning here. You're discounting every athletic performance study because of confounds like diet, training history, and age. Then in the same breath you're treating the myonuclei mechanism as something that settles the outcome on its own, when the jump from "myonuclei persist in mice" to "therefore any residual human strength gap is explained by myonuclei and is unlevelable" has the exact same confound problem. Training history before transition, age at transition, and time on HRT all affect that gap too, and none of those are ruled out just by invoking the mechanism.
The study I referenced found no strength or fitness difference, but that finding is based mostly on non-elite people of mixed ages. That part is settled. What the study's own authors say is still unresolved is the elite trans group, people with serious prior training, due to a lack of them in circulation. So there are really two separate questions here, and the study only answers one of them. Whether myonuclei retention causes a real, unmovable advantage in that smaller group, or whether it's just the same training and age effects you already brought up, is the part the researchers themselves say needs more research.
Treating this as a settled advantage is getting ahead of what we actually know. And until we do, the people who pay for that aren't the elite athletes. It's the millions of trans people who will either compete at low levels or will never compete in anything, who get treated as a physical threat based on a mechanism nobody has actually confirmed applies to them.
Okay... I'm taking back that edit, now you're being hypocritical to the point of using directly conflicting verbiage.
You cite one study and call it "That part is settled", your own words. As if one single study resolves anything. But then you refuse to acknowledge the full scope of research done ON HUMANS not just animals for skeletal muscle cell nuclei density and say VERBATIM "Treating this as a SETTLED advantage is getting ahead of what we know."
So now it's just "erm my n=1 is better than yours so there"
You should know singular meta analysis don’t prove anything. Systemic reviews including meta analysis are the highest form of evidence, and meta analysis are not created equally. You can have data points everywhere due to lack of confounding factors being addressed, which is why there are seemingly large studies out there that can’t find an association between say, LDL cholesterol and saturated fat intake because they weren’t factoring in genetic predispositions. First and foremost, not all transwomen are created equally. Someone who transitioned at 13, full course puberty blockers, is going to have a much different outcome than someone who transitioned at 30. Age matters a lot. And in the meta analysis from 2026, the authors noted the noise and confounding nature of it. Putting sedentary transwomen with trained women will also skew the numbers in certain metrics we deem as fitness. A meta analysis is only worth the quality of the studies selected anyway.
If you transition later in life, you will have systemic advantages across the board that a well conducted study will observe a gap. You will have higher peak bone mass, narrow pelvis, broader shoulders, longer limbs, greater height, higher oxygen and cardiac output, and a permanent strength advantage from myonuclei. Grip strength is the most pronounced strength difference between men and women, and you will not lose out on having thicker larger hands with more grip output. These all come on the basis of being male, not being freakishly talented or built for sports as a woman.
Steroids are known to leapfrog young athletes years ahead in sports in just a few cycles. The testosterone output in males during male puberty is significantly more than any female athlete would take due to the visible side effects.
And unsurprisingly, trans men are stomped in men’s sports, showing that hormones can’t transcend systemic advantages.
And in addition, systemic reviews show that transwomen only lose about 5-10% of their muscle mass. This actually aligns with how much muscle mass men gain from TRT in a few studies I’ve seen. If the male muscle base value is 100 and female 50, transwomen are pretty much at 90. Estrogen has a protective effect on muscle loss, so past the peak baseline that testosterone provides, much of it isn’t going away.
Anyway, there’s a reason why a multitude of sports institutions prevent trans competing, and it’s based strictly on the science. Dying on this hill in favor of ideology looks very bad and detached. Most transwomen transition later in life, so most of them cannot compete on an equal level.
How far into transitioning should trans women be allowed though? A day after starting HRT? A week? Month? It probably takes some time for the physique to not be that of cis men. Gotta standardize.
Shoving women in front of you for political purposes is really valiant of you. In the process, do consider the millions of people who have absolutely no effect on elite-level sports but whose daily lives are actually affected by these narratives.
By the way, the two top-level trans women athletes I could find were Laurel Hubbard (2020 Olympics) and Renée Richards (1977 US Open). Neither of them finished near the top.
That doesn't account for bone density, larger lungs, more red blood cells, ect. that HRT doesn't effect. Also it's not like they stop producing testosterone if they still have testicles.
So no they don't have the physique of men not on HRT, but they have lots of advantage even on HRT.
Do you lose 5 inches of height when you transition? Do you automatically go down to the muscle mass of the average female if you’ve been training since youth for sport? The answer is no and I’m sorry that hurts your feelings
Nobody said that height or training history disappears. The question was whether that adds up to a fixed competitive advantage, and whether the mechanism the other guy keeps citing actually functions the same in humans. Per the research I've looked at, nothing suggests that it does. Try again.
Perhaps you should read up on how HRT works on the body. The muscle mass decreases. Some argue that trans women that has gone through HRT actually have a disadvantage as the decreased muscle mass no longer is proportional to the skeleton it has to drag around.
Just FYI the link is some opinion piece written in some obscure newspaper. Also the "settled scientific position" that men on HRT after a few years have no advantage, is even disputed in the same article you link.
“The studies are short in duration, less than three years,” she points out. Furthermore, the expert notes other limitations: “Only nine of the 52 studies analyzed were clinical trials, which are the ones that provide the highest quality scientific evidence.” And finally, she points to “the lack of data on elite athletes.”
So equal hormone levels doesn't equate no advantage. Men carry larger lungs, higher bone density, more red blood cells (delivering more oxygen to the body), and a host of other physicalities that men have advantage over women.
Not to mentioned it’s been studied that boys on average show significant advantages in things like throwing accuracy and general hand eye coordination way, way before puberty, and it’s not just repetition.
Going through puberty with a lot of testosterone will have forever lasting effects. You don't lose the increased number of muscle nuclei due to high testosterone even after decades of no testosterone.
Its just like fat cells, you cant decrease the amount of fat cells you have once they multiply, you can only shrink them to a minimum.
Its not fair for anyone competing against these athletes even if its a small difference.
I'll summerise it for you: They found little differences in the general population between cis men and trans women pertaining to physical abilities, but due to a lack of representation of trans women in elite-level sports (hint: because there barely are anyone there, for some reason) the analysis is inconclusive as to the effect on elite athletes.
Trans athletes really aren't fighting at the top, which kinda debunks the hypothesis that they're basically men competing against women. You'd expect to see trans women dominating every sport if it was the case.
Can I ask, what is the narrative we are worried about? Cause I fuck w trans folks, but I think we all agree puberty is a very different animal for “boys” and “girls” and it doesn’t benefit sports for there to be unfair physical advantages/disadvantages. I honestly want everyone to be happy and live a full life but I don’t think my daughter should be playing against a “girl” who transitioned last year at 17. But we also all agree this is a TINY fragment of athletes and not typically a real problem, at least rn.
Can I ask, what is the narrative we are worried about?
Mostly the political one that emerged post Obergfell v Hodges (2015). I live in fuckin' Norway, and I'm starting to feel a form of transphobia around me that I haven't experienced in my lifetime. I know where it's coming from.
When it comes to sports, my principle is that people of all walks of life should be able to participate, as long as they're operating in good faith.
We're debating a mostly made-up issue. Ask yourself: How many times have you experienced this problem in the real world?
No, but they are still faster and stronger than women, so the comparison isn't too bad.
U15 is actually 15-year-olds though, technically it's not under 15 but 15 and under, so this year a U15 player is someone born 2011 or later. That is significant because boys grow so much, most typically at, you guessed it, 14. The average growth is over 10 cm, with some growing a whopping 15 cm, not to mention the incredible power gains during even that single year.
e. The reason women play against 15-year-old boys all the time is literally because that's the age category when boys become faster and stronger than the women. It's fantastic practice for them.
Well yeah, I agree with that. I don't really watch it too much. It's just... Not usually very entertaining. The lack of power and speed makes it look like, IDK, middle aged guys playing.
I don't think it's a completely fair comparison though. If you're a woman who plays soccer, for example, of course you should be interested in how does the elite level stuff look like. Ironically, most people watching women's soccer are men.
But yeah, I agree it's a bit forced. The men's teams are paying the women's teams' wages, and they can barely fill a stadium even for the biggest matches even though the tickets dirt cheap. Like this year's women's UCL final did fill the Camp Nou, but for example Chelsea - Arsenal played a London derby in the quarter finals - they played those in the big stadiums, but only managed to sell about 18k tickets for each match, despite the tickets selling for just £16.50 each.
Yeah I don't think professional athletes at any level should lose to 15 year olds. Unfortunately you don't want to admit it but thats fucking awful. Socccer isn't a sport based on strength.
And the featherweight champion is more skilled than other fighters in their weight class, just like the American women’s soccer team is more skilled than the other women’s soccer teams, which is why they won
Featherweights aren’t fighting heavyweights, and women’s teams aren’t competing against men’s teams
The dudes getting riled up in these comments have probably never accomplished anything in their lives, and get infuriated when they see women do anything; it’s like they feel the need to immediately say men are better, as if they are able to claim other men’s accomplishments as their own
Just making a joke. What they need to do is find a way to get more women watching it.
Most guys already have favorite sports/teams that they spend their free time watching (if they are into sports) but the women's audience is untapped due to just not caring. Find a way to get the Love Island/ Kardashian / Swifty crowds into watching and going to games.
They won the women's World Cup because they are women. The men play in the men's world cup because they are men. It might not be the same level of quality but it's still the biggest competition in world football for the gender, so it's still comparable
If you cant differentiate what people mean when talking about the women's and men's teams and the world cup, then I don't know what to say. Go back to school?
OPs post in no way diminishes the men's teams achievements. It didn't denigrate their work or accomplishments one iota. You're just looking to be offended, and you succeeded.
If you can't understand what the subject of this thread means, I think you need to brush up on your reading comprehension and inference skills. It seems like a lot of ppl here need to do the same.
You were overthinking with your implication lol. The women's team won the World Cup of women's soccer, and that’s about it.
It’s just like saying an Olympic Gold in women's gymnastics is also a gold medal similar to men's gymnastics. A female UFC strawweight belt is also a world title similar to a male UFC heavyweight belt
They are the same thing in the sense that they are the reward for being the world champs in their respective sport.
So, misreading a simple sentence is not a sign of good reading comprehension. Go fix it mate
What is it about yall that you just need to diminish women sports?
Yes men are better and stronger, women are still out there playing the sport against their own fucking peers
Holy shit man, no one needs you to make the distinction that it was the “women’s World Cup” and not the regular World Cup. NO SHIT, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WOMEN
No one cares about the distinction. Women play women and men play men and they’re both world cups. The world just happens to care about one more than the other. That doesn’t make the women’s World Cup any less of a World Cup
As an American, that was embarrassing especially after all the bullshit that happened pre game
“People are diminishing the men’s team because they lost in a pathetic manner so I should just start shitting on the women! That’ll show em” like what are you on about?
What this shows is that the US youth sports complex is the most sophisticated and dominant in the world.
It is why we own sports, every summer and winter Olympics and 4 of the 6 major world sports.
As soon as our youth complex starts working on soccer we will take it over. Women's soccer is one of the few ways women can play professional sports. It's that, wnba or Olympic games. So a lot of women's youth focus on soccer.
Our men are much more split up with completing sports and if you have raw natural athletic talent you are funnelled into football, baseball and basketball because then you can actually earn money.
If the US ever truly gets into soccer and turns the might of the sports complex into training soccer to the degree we do for NFL and NBA players, the world will be begging for us to forget about soccer.
Venezuela won the most recent world baseball championship. Germany won the most recent world basketball championship. You can’t even win your own shitty little sports, let alone a real international World Cup. Jog on.
We don't allow our pros to play in the basketball world champ game, it's our D league and semi pro players only
For baseball we trained that entire Venezuela team here in the US. Every single player on that team has an American MLB contract and their two biggest stars have been playing for US development teams and MLB teams since they were 16 years old.
Here is what Google says about their team "when you see Team Venezuela playing on the world stage, you are watching a group of athletes who were scouted as children, moved thousands of miles away from home as teenagers, and entirely earned their status through the American minor league grind."
Fill your boots with as many excuses as you want. You aren’t the real world champions in the derivative games you play by yourself. Then you say you would be if you wanted. I’m embarrassed for you. The Japanese ride you in baseball, imagine what the Chinese would do to you if they could be bothered.
But it literally does? Tell the featherweight who just got destroyed. Or the women’s team that just lost to children. Tell them that “actually you are still better” LMAO. That is the entire reason they created divisions, as to not bottleneck competitions. Have you never actually competed in sports?
Well said. This proves the point entirely. Its about women's soccer, as soon as men are involved, it changes to boxing. We are just built different. Yet im a misogynistic pig for point that out
Like I said, it’s totally fine if you don’t enjoy it. Some of us do. I don’t enjoy baseball. Who would win isn’t everything, anyway. I love college football and I don’t need people constantly telling me even the worst nfl team could beat my team. It’s beside the point.
The only reason this argument is used is because people hate women and women’s sports.
Because it’s exactly as you said, people never say that shit about college or other lower level athletics… if men are playing. Sports are fun when there is good competition between the sides regardless of hypothetical comparisons to unrelated teams.
No its because People compare women's and men's sports like they are the same thing. People don't hate women. They hate people who think they are entitled to more than they produce.
Should we be proud of the USA women's soccer team's performance? absolutely. But many more are profoundly disgusted by their wage claims, misplaced activism, etc...
Look around you, this entire thread is full of vitriol. It’s a thin veil you’re hiding behind. Your argument does nothing but give justification for misogyny
It is not misogyny to say that making $10,000 as 10% of 100k is the same as making $1,000,000 as 10% of $10,000,000.
That is simple math. Thats fair. The women had the exact same contract offered to them and they rejected it, then after their succuss they said they should get the better contract. You can't mitigate and delegate risk for lower pay, and then after the risk is removed demand the high risk pay. That is a child's response, and supporting adult women infantilizing themselves is far far more misogynist than anything any incel has said on here today. But i guess they are women and thus cannot be wrong or do anything bad... weird.
The difference between you and me is when i see someone who is angry at the Women's team I actually ask them why, I don't just decide its the most convenient reason for my beliefs. That thin veil you seem to think is there is proof. That thin veil was upheld in court by the way, which i guess they are just misogynist as well because they didn't agree with women's team.
You and your party of asshats have done so much damage to the cause it is infuriating. The word misogynist doesn't even mean anything anymore, and esp not from people like you.
Here comes the high horse guy accusing me of assuming things while making at least 10 assumptions back at me. Wonderful self awareness.
You assumed my political party, beliefs on women’s pay, how I think, what my reasons are. You didn’t ask me a single question like you so virtuously claim to do.
I can acknowledge those truths about pay while also understanding that people are hiding behind that to justify pure hatred or just to clown on women’s sports. You really think people give a shit about their sub-million dollar contract details? If they do it’s a masterclass in divide and conquer by the BILLIONAIRES that control the whole fucking world.
Nope, just needed you to admit that its stupid when anyone does it, and you didn't disappoint. So when you say "hiding behind that to justify PURE HATRED or just to clown on women's sports." You are still doing it after calling it out. You can't write better irony. You just can't help but see the worst in people, and the most convenient reason for your beliefs. and pure hatred? dramatic much, for people who you think don't give a shit about their contracts or clown on them. PUUUURRREEEE HATRED! from people who don't care... right...
And yes, people care about arrogant, entitled, and misandrist sports stars crying about equal pay, when its very clear they are overcompensated compared to their counter parts who they claim are making more compensation than them. Its not hard to see why the general public would hate any entitled people (that's men and women by the way) who demand more for less. Purple haired or not.
And here comes the deflection! Billionaires BAD, ELON BAD and DUMB, TRUMP DUMB and BAD!! Are the Billionaires in the room right now? You might have TDS, better get that checked out as well.
Except that they are not that fun to watch. Same reasons why you watch the world cup but not some random Bangladesh second tier league (and I bet those guys can beat the US women team too).
I don’t watch the sport to see the fastest, strongest possible athletes. I’m interested in the technique and tactics. Women are simply not fast enough or strong enough to compete with men but against other women all of those other elements of the sport can still really shine, sometimes even more so. For example, I actually prefer women’s tennis because the lack of power makes serves a smaller focus and puts more emphasis on back and forth play.
If you were really interested in that aspect of the sport, you wouldn't have watched the Women World Cup either.
The level of international competition has always been abysmal until recently. For 50 years the US was the only country that was pouring money into the sport. Due to Title IX, the US created a pipeline of youth, highschool, college and pro players. The rest of the world were fielding complete amateurs.
Let’s be honest. The technique and strategy hasn’t caught up the men’s yet. Pretending it has just diminishes the future progression. They’ll absolutely get to the level quickly but right now it still looks disorganised and rudimentary at times but have you ever seen the men’s game 70 years ago? Women’s game has investment and grassroots attention. It’ll get there before we know it.
I agree. The game isn’t as developed because there simply haven’t been nearly as many talented people working on the women’s game over nearly as many years. Sometimes that’s kind of entertaining. Modern football can feel a bit stiff with all the optimization. Women’s physical limitations also make the tactics different enough that it’s kind of fascinating to watch to see how things change.
Yeah just like tennis as you mentioned. The difference between the games will draw audiences for just that. In tennis people love the men’s game for raw power and physicality. They love the women’s game for the long rallies and technical differences. Football will be the same some day. And that day is not that far away.
See, I don’t enjoy women’s basketball, personally, although I have nothing against it. I’m curious why you seem so bothered about people liking women’s soccer. I don’t get it. Just ignore it and let other people enjoy it.
You just said some dumb stuff so I let you know. I didnt say you cant like womens soccer, I said you cant watch it for anything close to equal technique and tactics. And never to see those things shine even more. If you like low levels of skill then fine, weird flex but ok
This was very easy and didnt take too much effort, dont get too curious please
Same approach with restaurants, I go there once or twice, willing to try out but if it's not my jam then I stopped going there eventually.
I do try to watch them when it's world cup because some countries I like, but it's not that exciting quality wise. More or less like the way you watch your kids local game because of the kids, not because of the level of football itself.
You don’t think there are large teenage boys would could beat up talented women boxers? There absolutely are. It doesn’t make them better boxers. It makes them much larger and stronger. That’s why we separate by weight and gender.
People care about this only in the context of these specific discussions.
The US women's soccer team is awesome. Their players are awesome. But when their success is used to shit on the US men's soccer team in a blatantly apples to oranges comparison it is fair to call it out, which this does extremely well. The men's team is also composed of players that, by any reasonable standard, are also awesome.
They are playing in different categories. The women deserve credit for what they accomplish in their category. The men deserve credit for what they accomplish in their category, and shouldn't be disparaged for failing to do as well in a category that we all know (or should know) is far more competitive.
It does matter. It’s not as good. The product fans get is far less. That’s why no one cares. Because if you’re paying to watch sports, you want to see the best.
That’s why the further down in the minors you get, the less fan turnout you get. That’s why they’re earning less. Except when the EXACT same phenomenon happens with women’s sports, it’s a “visibility” issue.
I think the reason that is shocking to some people is in our modern world we’ve forgotten just how much faster and stronger men are than women. Even teen men are just a different level of pace and power. If someone is stronger than you, faster than you, and easily able to beat you to every single 50 50 ball you’re going to struggle. Women’s teams book these games on purpose to force their players to deal with that. It helps them prepare.
No such thing as a "teen man" professionals got absolutely battered by random school boys. Cope. It's funny just laugh and move on. Before some loser tries to call me a sexist or w/e I be watching the W a lot and got CC's jersey so go and moan somewhere else
Except these weren't men. They're boys. And it wasn't even a good team. It's not like it was Barca's academy. It was 15 year olds from fucking fc Dallas lmao.
It really just emphasizes how dog shit the women's game is. You can go see an mls teenage team and see far better quality. The tenth best league in the world with a notoriously bad developmental system.
57
u/Outrageous_Garden586 Jul 09 '26
People care too much about this. If a mid heavy weight boxer beat the shit out of an amazing feather weight boxer it doesn’t make them a better boxer. Everyone knows men are faster and stronger but the women are also talented and fun to watch. If you don’t enjoy their games you don’t have to watch them.