on men and women fencing

[anotheranon]

...and the discussion over at Fencing.net re: transsexuals and athletics:

For those unwilling to plow through the 25+(!) pages of commentary, I gather that a trans woman won one of the veteran women's epee events at the latest North American Cup, and some competitors feel this is very unfair. I dreaded where the commentary would go but apart from a few statements made more out of ignorance than transphobia, it's a fairly moderate conversation overall.

Most of the commenters seem to be working on 3 assumptions:

1) men and women fence differently,
2) the men's style is inherently better/more successful in competition (I don't see any comments from men worried about potentially fencing a trans man), so
3) a woman who used to be a man has an unfair advantage (even after surgery/hormone therapy) over women.

While I can see 1, I'm struggling with 2, and so don't agree with 3, and I'm reluctant to comment over at the forums as I'm a relative noob/small fish in the big pond of competitive fencing so I fear my speculations would get me roasted alive. But if you'll indulge my thinking aloud here:

In my limited competitive experience, men and women DO tend to fence differently, men tending to be more aggressive and comfortable with infighting and women more tentative and defensive. Having said that, there is wide variety within genders - I've fenced tentative guys who take forever to attack and aggressive girls who will leave welts :P

While I concede that men's superior muscle mass and speed confers advantages in some sports, I'm not sold that it's the ultimate indicator of success in fencing because of the profound mental component. Besides, if I've learned nothing else it's that anyone, young or old, male or female, new or veteran, has the potential to pull out some awesome on the strip - the sword really is a great equalizer.

Still, I know a lot of women who really don't like to compete mixed tournaments because of this, and I've been one of them time to time (teenage boy bravado can translate to hitting too hard and other unpleasantries). I sometimes wonder if a circulating "guys are better fencers" meme may psych out some women before they even have a chance to try?

A better argument of unfairness is made that women have only been able to compete nationally in epee and saber for the past ~20/30 years, and therefore a veteran-age (40+) trans woman potentially has the huge advantage of years competing as a man before transitioning that her female peers lack. And I suppose that's true, but so does any fencer over ~30 who's been fencing since high school or earlier compared to someone of the same age who picked it up as an adult [raises hand].

So, my own conclusions, with the disclaimer that things may be different at the elite level and without extrapolating my own experience to anyone else: I don't really see the point in having the gender divisions anyway. If men and women do fence differently, well, doesn't it make one a better fencer to fence everyone available? (The age divisions still make sense to me, as everyone tends to lose reflexes/speed with age).

If there are still going to be men's and women's events, trans people should fence with the gender they chose to be. Any advantages/disadvantages will be evened out by other factors (age, fitness, training, smarts), and I suspect there are so few trans people competing in elite sports that any skewing of bell curves and the like will be negligible.

Opinions heartily welcomed, and if I've been insensitive to the trans community in any way, please let me know where my language or context has failed and I'll attempt to correct it.

Comments

[nminusone.livejournal.com]

The scientist in me says just test it! Do a test where everyone fences everyone else without regard to gender, only grouping by age and other known factors. If there is a correlation with gender it shouldn't be too hard to find.

Is stature (greater reach, greater stride) an advantage in fencing? The 50th percentile man is 6" taller than the 50th percentile woman. In boxing and martial arts a few extra inches of reach can be a big deal. If that's true here I can see why people would be upset about getting lumped in with taller opponents.

[anotheranon.livejournal.com]

FWIW, you can go to AskFred.net (registration site for fencing events) and look up results for mixed/open competitions for some rough data. My own quick look over results for the past month or so shows that the top 5 tend to be men, though not exclusively. I didn't have time to look at these numbers in comparison to men vs. women registered overall, ratings of those men and women, etc.

Greater reach can be an advantage in scoring a touch without getting touched in turn, and I've observed that both men and women who are taller than average are nudged to fence epee, where there is no right of way so this is even more of an advantage (I can explain right of way if you really, really want me to). As I said before, though, YMMV.

[jlsjlsjls.livejournal.com]

Granted I'm a non-fencer, but I'd think that one of the goals of the sport is to be able to tackle a variety of opponents, not just those who match one's own physical dimensions/gender, since variety is how one develops greater skills and abilities. Surely limiting the competition by putting everyone into little segregated compartments can only lead to fencing becoming a very limited, predictable series of movements.

It'd be rather like having runners who will only compete against those whose legs are exactly the same length as their own.

Edited to add: Also, while fencing is considered a sport today, it's really a wartime survival skill ... can you imagine an army where the soldiers whined and wouldn't fight anybody bigger/smaller than themselves?

[anotheranon.livejournal.com]

It'd be rather like having runners who will only compete against those whose legs are exactly the same length as their own.

That's what I'm thinking, sort of.

Just to play devil's advocate to my own post, I suppose if the assumption that men and women compete differently is correct AND the current system of national-level tournaments being divided by gender remains the norm, it would make sense to compete only against opponents of the type you're going to see in those national competitions in order to get higher scores.

But winning isn't the point for me, so...

it's really a wartime survival skill

Not exactly - modern swordplay came out of various dueling weapons, which were more for street fighting. But, your statement about not being picky about who you're fighting with still holds :P

[jlsjlsjls.livejournal.com]

True enough. Though to me, since duels traditionally generally came about for the same bad reasons as wars do, they tend to classify as the w-word on a very small scale in my head. (and recall my Irish ancestry ... m'head is full of the Tain tale of Cuchulainn holding off Maeve of Connacht's invading army on his own by issuing continuous single combat challenges ***GRIN***) And I did have a wonderful giggle after posting that reply, imagining two massive opposing armies spending so much time and resources getting everyone perfectly matched up for combat that they couldn't afford to do the fightin' and all went home with no blood shed. 'twas a very pleasant thought ...

And I know you're in it for the gaining of the skills, with competition being a means of measuring those gains ... the most admirable reason there is for tackling any activity. :-)

[glitter-femme.livejournal.com]

I don't know much about fencing, but my first thought would be that if men and women fence differently and the way men fence is better/more likely to lead to victory, maybe women should be fencing that way, too. And I'm inclined to agree with thoughts on facing a variety of opponents leading to better skills for everyone.

I often wonder, in cases like this, where cis people expect trans folks to fit in. How would these same cis women who are incensed about facing a trans woman feel about competing against a trans man? Wouldn't they make the argument that it was totally unfair to face someone whose muscles had been enhanced by testosterone that way, and who flat-out wasn't a woman? So is the argument that trans people shouldn't be allowed to compete at all? And as far as fairness, trans women are often actually at a disadvantage in sports, since they lose so much upper body muscle mass with hormonal transition, but generally still have the larger, heavier skeletons that musculature goes with. I was also reading recently that women are more likely to do poorly on math and science exams if they're told beforehand that this test usually has a gender disparity in results (and to do much better, often better than the men being tested, when told that it doesn't), and I wonder if the same sort of effect might come into play here, where people are going into the bout already feeling defeated by factors they see as unfair.

Re: vocabulary, these days many folks are putting a space after "trans" (e.g. trans women, trans man, trans people.) The thinking is that this makes trans a modifier like any other adjective -- white, short, happy, etc -- rather than creating a special, different class of people (which often carries the implication that they're not really men or women, they're this other thing. And while some trans folks aren't simply men or women, many are.) FYI, since you asked =)

[anotheranon.livejournal.com]

if men and women fence differently and the way men fence is better/more likely to lead to victory, maybe women should be fencing that way, too. And I'm inclined to agree with thoughts on facing a variety of opponents leading to better skills for everyone.

Well, if victory is your only goal. As I commented upthread to jlsjlsjls, if your real aim is to score touches, then train for what you're likely to face - which as of now, is members of your own gender. My own goals are to develop enough self control in a variety of situations, so fencing bigger/badder fencers is actually GOOD for me, no matter how loath I may be to do it (because I do still like to win :P)

I was also reading recently that women are more likely to do poorly on math and science exams if they're told beforehand that this test usually has a gender disparity in results (and to do much better, often better than the men being tested, when told that it doesn't), and I wonder if the same sort of effect might come into play here, where people are going into the bout already feeling defeated by factors they see as unfair.

You state my concern far better here than my line in the original post about people psyching themselves out! Indeed, if women in fencing are constantly told that men are better fencers, how much of this undermines their game before they even hit the strip? Fencing depends heavily on psychology and thinking you know beforehand what's going to happen (for good or ill) can ruin any advantages gained through the physical alone.

"trans" (e.g. trans women, trans man, trans people.)

Edited above and I hope I caught every instance. Grammar-hammering in the name of respect gets my vote :)

[glitter-femme.livejournal.com]

if your real aim is to score touches, then train for what you're likely to face - which as of now, is members of your own gender.

Well, yes, but -- again with my outsider's perspective and lack of knowledge -- it seems this could get a bit circular. Train for what you're likely to face, and then keep competitions segregated so everyone faces what they trained for? (And of course trans women are members of these women's own gender, so there's that as well. And even only fencing against cis women one is likely to come up against opponents much taller than one sometimes.)
But I, like you, believe in learning things for the purpose of doing them well. So I'd want to face a wider variety of competition in order to gain more skills. And perhaps I don't quite understand people who do it only to win =)