J.C.MacSwell

Emotional arguments aside, minor sports are typically categorized by birth year in two year intervals (Peewee, Bantam etc), which can give a 2 year difference of age in each category (and effectively more than that including premature birth dates). So it is not uncommon to have Tanner Stage 1 individuals required to compete with some that are in or have even completed Tanner Stage 6. (and it is a significant safety issue in physical sports)

I used to. I'm sure there are some new Orwellian definitions that haven't made it up to Nova Scotia yet... Let's just call your link and claim "not very scientific" and move on.... More importantly it will be interesting to see how the FINA rules on transgenders affects the rules on fairness and inclusion in other sports and also at other levels of sport. It certainly disincentivizes athletes taking drugs (assuming they hadn't started any protocols before the age of 12) for the purposes of meeting arbitrary targets. OTOH it could lead to some unfortunate effects on inclusion at younger ages.

Are you sure you agree with the statement as written? (because you seem to be suggesting you do... and yet feel compelled to qualify it?) "If you decide to stop taking them, your body will go through puberty just the way it would have if you had not taken puberty blockers at all." Or do you just like to think you want to support the "scientists" that wrote it? ...and Jesus right back at ya if you think "body going through puberty" is somehow limited to not include skeletal growth. And what exactly does this mean? I suspect it means something different from what it seems to imply. (no possible harm and full completion of the process with no detrimental long term effects)

I provided evidence I believe you are capable of reading and understanding. The claim made in the link, which I clearly bolded for all to see is unscientific. You tell me why you feel compelled to support it. The link doesn't support it. No one else here agrees with it, even if they believe the idea behind it, (drugging children to delay the onset of puberty) is a justifiable risk. (I myself don't exclude that as a possibility in some cases) Am I being unkind calling the statement pseudoscience? Perhaps. But that's what it is as defined by the definition I put forward. "Pseudoscience is a proposition, a finding or a system of explanation that is presented as science but that lacks the rigor essential to the scientific method. Pseudoscience can also be the result of research that is based on faulty premises, a flawed experimental design or bad data. The term pseudoscience can refer to a single claim or statement that is purported to be backed by science or data but doesn't stand up under scientific scrutiny" Compare with the recent FINA rule changes. (and hopefully get back OT) https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/20/sport/swimming-transgender-ruling-explainer-spt-intl/index.html I think they effectively got it right for the elite swimming they are mandated to govern, though not without controversy. Those who campaigned for change argued that people who have gone through male puberty have physical advantages and therefore women's competition needed to be protected. Supporters of trans participation argue that not enough research has been done into the question of whether trans women have any advantage. Groups such as Athlete Ally have stated that FINA's new policy is "discriminatory, harmful, unscientific."

AGAIN, from your link Pseudoscientific statement (you can call it what you like...just don't claim it's scientific): "If you decide to stop taking them, your body will go through puberty just the way it would have if you had not taken puberty blockers at all." Closely followed by more honest scientific statement: "We are not sure if puberty blockers have negative side effects on bone development and height. Research so far shows that the effects are minimal. However, we won’t know the long-term effects until the first people to take puberty-blockers get older." Now, you can debate whether an intervention is worth taking the risk and whether it's warranted, but you can't support the bolded as a scientific statement.

I did...or rather...your link did. https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/pseudoscience "Pseudoscience is a proposition, a finding or a system of explanation that is presented as science but that lacks the rigor essential to the scientific method. Pseudoscience can also be the result of research that is based on faulty premises, a flawed experimental design or bad data. The term pseudoscience can refer to a single claim or statement that is purported to be backed by science or data but doesn't stand up under scientific scrutiny" How is the bolded a scientific statement?

Sorry. My mistake. I thought you meant the claim I referred to. Now, from your link: "If you decide to stop taking them, your body will go through puberty just the way it would have if you had not taken puberty blockers at all." Closely followed by contradictory statement: "We are not sure if puberty blockers have negative side effects on bone development and height. Research so far shows that the effects are minimal. However, we won’t know the long-term effects until the first people to take puberty-blockers get older." Seems your link was put together by a team of pseudo scientists and scientists...Nice to see them work toward a common goal.

I beg to differ. Science was not that bad that that would be a reasonable argument. The argument was a political and emotional one.

Pseudo scientists

Kid grows up. Doesn't like the results. Gets to sue them. Onus on them to defend based on the circumstances and actual science (none of the "we thought testosterone suppression would be sufficient to make sport fair" level "science")

...or as is now arbitrarily encouraged by FINA rules...under 12 year olds.

My premise stems from holding "first, do no harm" or "primum non nocere,") as the default position over any questionable medical practices.In other words they should be damn sure they know what they are doing when doing something where lesser interventions are reasonable. I agree. My statement did seem to suggest any participants involved should be culpable. But the ones making the decisions need to be held accountable, to the degree they are involved in those decisions, or allowing those decisions. It can't all be put on the 8 and 9 year olds.

I'm not suggesting they need be held accountable to me. But if and when the child actually becomes old enough to make their own decisions, would you not agree they should have the right to sue anyone that participated in any interventions to the natural path their bodies were on, if those interventions proved to be adverse? Is this claim from the same crowd that claimed testosterone alone should be sufficient (and recommended by some of that crowd) to allow trans women to compete fairly with other women? (are you sure they are not letting politics and their emotions get in the way of the science?) From the abstract, let's follow the data a little bit more: (13.73–19.04 years; M = 16.59, SD = 1.19) who received gender-affirming hormones were assessed at least 2 times: before the start of treatment and at least 3 months after treatment. Results: After gender-affirming hormones, a significant increase in levels of general well-being and a significant decrease in levels of suicidality were observed. So that limited data had older children and youths participating and taking gender-affirming hormones. I see no mention of puberty blockers (which seems fairly late to be effective in that group) I'm not against drug interventions when critically necessary, or for that matter older children or adults transitioning (despite claims by those against that the data shows no improvement), but I am against over prescribed medications (and OT drug use for sports performance enhancement or making arbitrary testosterone targets)

The new policy states transgender women must prove they had not experienced male puberty "beyond Tanner Stage 2 [of puberty] or before age 12, whichever is later" Essentially this will disclude trans women from elite female swimming. It may also influence a guideline for competitive sports above recreational. Although there surely can be rare and reasonable medical interventions prior to 12 years old, anyone else messing with childrens biology before 12 to the degree required need to be held accountable for any and all adverse effects IMO.

This might be a good time to point out that as far as Row vs Wade goes...I prefer to Row when the water is deeper,and Wade when there's not enough water to float the boat.

Because it's a bad argument. I think they should be legal in some cases and in some cases not. I can therefore agree with arguments from each side. Capiche?

thus the "or" But in that case I maintain they are hanging the very people they believe they are helping, out to dry. Let's not forget that many pseudo biologists had: 1. Been claiming to be experts in biology and sport 2. been claiming that trans women could compete fairly in physical sports on testosterone suppression alone. 3. Suggested it could be done in a healthy manner for the trans women 4. Actually had their ideas given credence my sports bodies, despite the obvious lack of science (and common sense when readily available facts are considered) behind it I say pseudo biologists despite their capabilities, with respect to actual biologists...a group they can include themselves in when they actually do science.and don't let their emotions and politics get in the way.

Sorry Alkonoklazt. I'm only being facetious. It's been a common theme in the thread by some posters that somehow it can be made fair to allow trans women to compete in elite sports in some practical manner without threatening women's sport, even though there are far more men that can compete at the elite women's level than there are women that can. Anyone that believes this to be true in physical sports understands little about the biology or is being extremely short sighted on the social impact on the transgenders being encouraged to compete (IMO of course). So I'm taking the position that trans men deserve there chance in men's sport every bit as much as it's claimed trans women do in women's sport. Why wouldn't they? As to the weak "it's only 6 individuals argument" it should be only a matter of time for there to be plenty more unless it's intended to maintain a social stigma against them competing...a very unhealthy situation for a vulnerable section of our populations.

What's wrong with different sized rackets? You sound like one of those "elitists" that would rather watch the likes of Usain Bolt in an all XY Olympic 100m mens final than allow trans men a fighting chance and a 0.91 second head start.

Well that's a fine kettle of fish...

If it's about percentages: What percentage participate hoping to someday advance to elite level, and in particular, what percent of females do so looking up to female role models? (I do get that potential trans individuals deserve the same...but if based on percentages as you suggest it should not be part of your focus)

@ Dim When knowingly avoiding the context, what's the point of posting?

Are fetuses lives included in that equation? Because unless you include just the mothers there is no evidence that making abortions illegal would cost more lives. Also, would you think it hypocritical to oppose clinical infanticide, if you were concerned many mothers might do themselves in while illegally killing their kids?

Fairness in the top 200...no problemo. For mens play: Those with no Y chromosomes play on the usual markings on their side of the court, but get to use the doubles markings on the other side if a Y chromosome individual is playing them. Markings can be adjusted until there are as many trans men in the top 200 as cisgender men. For womens play: Those with any Y chromosomes must use a smaller racket. Racket size can be adjusted until there are as many cisgender women in the top 200 as trans women. Easy-Peasy. Other associations may form to try to keep the balance differently, and possibly there might also be a Non-gender league that forms where only those with no Y chromosomes play in one division and those with one in another. Win for everyone as they can all choose what league they might wish to play in. Compensation and prize money to be determined by each association based on costs and revenues.

Statistically at least, the majority tend to favour the right of a women to choose earlier in pregnancy and the rights of the fetus to live later in pregnancy.