J.C.MacSwell

If you had an elite biologically female athlete that transgendered to male you could give them an X metre distance stationary head start in a race against cis gender males. X might be the distance Flo-Jo was from the finish line after 9.49 seconds (9.49 seconds being Usain Bolts WR) during her 10.49 second WR run, after allowing that she didn't plan her race to finish at that point. That might not be a satisfactory way to include them, but would be much more accurate and objective than anything based on the allowance or encouragement of unnatural use of performance enhancing or de-enhancing drugs and trying to judge what the effects might be, or what the motivation might be for using more or less of them. It might not be satisfactory...in part because it might threaten male sports, slight as it may be in comparison to the current threat to female sports (from the current rule makers).

Good one!

Do you believe Div 3 teams generate more revenues than the div 1 teams at that tournament? Don't be an ass.

I thought I had, but maybe not clearly enough. Reading comprehension much?

She's as elite an athlete as her teammates, regardless if she can't compete at that level.

It's not an extraordinary claim Zap. If you claim it's not true...that would be. https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/finances/championships-finances "For 2011-12, the most recent year for which final numbers are available, the NCAA spent a total of $105.3 million on championships. Of that, $68.8 million (65 percent) was spent on Division I and National Collegiate championships, $17.8 million on Division II championships (17 percent) and $18.7 million on Division III championships (18 percent)." also: https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/finances/expenses "Frequently Asked Questions The NCAA sends $503 million to Division I conferences and institutions. Does that cover most of their operating expenses? No. At a typical Division I institution, the NCAA distribution will cover less than 5 percent of expenses." Hopefully that might help you understand. If you want to question the obvious further...you're on your own. Certain Div 1 Mens teams generate huge revenues...Div 1 minor sports, div1 womens teams, div 3 teams...not so much.

You think Div 2 and 3 teams generate more revenues than Div 1?

The NCAA mens teams that generate lesser revenues were't at that tournament. Rest assured that the females teams at that tournament had at least as nice accommodations as mens lower division teams.

I'm willing to bet that schools that have teams that generate less revenue....have lesser accommodations for said teams. Again. I agree.

What kind of accommodations would the women's teams get get, if not subsidized by the money generated by the NCAA mens teams? Why are they not comparing themselves to the mens table tennis team? Some men will always be pigs. Another unfortunate universal truth...

People compete on side with, and against, people of their preferred sex all the time. I'm sure it happens... ...but the point of sex-segregating in competitive sports was to give female athletes a chance to train, compete and excel on a more level playing field, an achievable level for many and a goal for many more that they would not have otherwise had. A further point I have tried to make many times is that this has produced many, many elite athletes, who deserve to be recognized as such. Ideally transgender men and women would get the same chance but IMO it should not be by displacing these women, especially while retaining male advantages. That of course can have many interpretations, a lot of which has been covered in this thread.

I haven't suspected any trans athletes motives, nor do I condemn any of them for wanting to play.

The current rules using testosterone measurement alone to attempt to minimize male advantages favours transgenders, as a group. Especially with the maximum allowed being well above cis gender averages. Whether it favours any given athlete is another question entirely (not that you asked that), but one CY has suggested can be answered on a case by case basis. I see that as a potential s...show, on a scale that would make a French figure skating judge blush...

To CY: Say you are a National team coach and (don't ask me how) climate change depends on your athletes winning medals... I'm sure you could think of many ways the current system could be exploited. I'm not sure you would use them...but I'm damn sure you would be well aware of them. Why?

Cis genders are at risk of other cis genders working the system or cheating, and from transgenders doing the same, or being left at an advantage even without any competitor doing anything immoral or questionably so. The same could be said of the risks for transgenders, being left with cis genders at an advantage. edit: changed a comma position

There are a number of ways transgenders can work the current system. I'm not one to call them cheaters if they take advantage of them. I will question the rule makers for their short sightedness, especially if it was agenda driven rather than simple incompetence.

I read it. One could hope that's always true, or, when making rules, put measures in place to make sure that's always the case. But is that your best explanation to: How is your "Transition is a medical process controlled by the physician following best practices." any less vague than: Other than my clearly pointing out that it was not the only option, as did MigL. Certainly not for that reason on it's own. CY has yet to concede that with regard to transgenders. In fact he seemed appalled that we would even consider it.

I think they are all doing different things, from surgery and/or drug regimes to nothing at all. You think they are all doing the same thing, and to the same degree?

I'm not sure where you got this information. Why are you divulging it on a public forum? Are you not one of us?

Apparently you don't. What part of the concept of a physician weighing the risks/rewards of drug prescription don't you understand? Targeting optimal health vs an arbitrary "one size fits all" rule are not the same thing. Leaning on the fact that in many cases they could be means you simply don't understand the problem. We know that folks overdose. Intersex athletes are compelled to by the current rules. (They aren't cheating IMO, nor do I feel they are fully responsible for any adverse health risks they assume). And of course as MigL pointed out...many folks cheat.

They have two targets. 1. Optimal for health, presumably under a physicians care while weighing the risks, and 2, meeting the compulsory targets to be allowed to compete. If 2, is already achieved during times they've met 1 they aren't taking drugs to make a testosterone target for competition purposes. If they meet 1 first they have to decide whether to continue/increase dose/do what it takes to make compliance. They have to decide whether they want to take drugs for competition purposes. Yes. I'm that some would do that. No. I'm not assuming all transgender folks would do that. as per above there will be cases of it You're the biology expert. Can you not see the flaw in that statement? Some will be at increased risk. To paraphrase Zap...Give me a friggin' break...

So here you go. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_people_in_sports#:~:text=In October 2019%2C World Athletics,the DSD (intersex) regulations. "in October 2019, World Athletics changed the testosterone limit for transgender competitors, setting it at 5 nmol/L, from the previous 10 nmol/L, in order to bring it in line with the DSD (intersex) regulations" (as an aside...biological females generally have levels much lower than that, but artificially increasing it would be against the rules, and 5 nmol/L is probably to high too high to limit the advantage, especially if just maintained for a year before competition) WADA anti-doping agency:https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/tuec_transgender_version1.0.pdf "Hormone therapy will be essential for the anatomical and psychological transition process in most transgender athletes." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6628137/ Managing the risk of venous thromboembolism in transgender adults undergoing hormone therapy "Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a known risk of hormone therapy." (note also the previous links with health concerns of intersex athletes forced to meet the targets)

I have followed this for some time. Which part do you not agree with? I have to leave for a bit but should easily find links to support my interpretation...or misinterpretation.

They are required to make testosterone targets. Drug regimes are required to do this in most cases often with unhealthy results.

So you want to include transgenders in female sports while subjecting them to drug schemes with uncertain results...then see what happens and evaluate further?