Transgender athletes

[Phi for All]

52 minutes ago, VenusPrincess said:

Your grasp on reality is weak, arguably even pathological or indicative of mental illness.

!

Moderator Note

And this will NEVER be an appropriate response on this forum. Your lack of civility is unacceptable, but this is over the top. Goodbye.

 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I also don't blame the trans women athletes for wanting to identify as female and wanting to compete as such...I don't blame them at all. But it's unfair to other athletes.

This gets back to a previous point I made. Why is the default position to suggest that the cisgender women are being treated unfairly? The league wasn't developed with a rule that only cisgender women could compete. Why not take the position that it is unfair to transgender athletes to exclude them? Transgender women are not taking something away from cisgender women that rightfully belongs to cisgender women, they are simply trying to compete within the existing framework, just like cisgender women are.

I understand the desire to address the concerns of the current athletes, but a blanket "NO" harkens back to keeping women out of factory jobs, blacks out of white sports, etc.

If you are going to keep them out because it is "unfair" then it seems only fair that you (or someone) provide definitive evidence that it is indeed unfair.

[swansont]

6 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It's an example of what needs to be considered when making rules for competitive athletes, especially at the most elite levels, for both competitive fairness (I agree fairness is somewhat subjective here) and safety. More typical examples are less concerning.

No, it’s not. Actual trans people as examples would be examples.

 

6 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Did you read the article linked and agree with the conclusions? Do you accept them as "facts" as claimed and feel they have debunked the "myths"?

As an example:

“"A person’s genetic make-up and internal and external reproductive anatomy are not useful indicators of athletic performance,”according to Dr. Joshua D. Safer."

I assume Dr. Safer is a medical doctor. Would you agree with his statement?

 

I’m not a medical doctor. I have no basis to disagree.

 

6 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

It seems to me they are mostly making emotional arguments based on concerns for transgenders. However well meaning toward transgenders they are completely ignoring the threat to elite women's sports.

What actual threat exists?

Give an example. It won’t be about an olympic athlete, because zero trans athletes have competed since the IOC included criteria to let them compete.

6 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think it is very important to encourage transgenders in sports, but I think it will be very difficult to fairly include trans women fairly at elite levels for many sports, possibly most sports. It's simply not just about testosterone, even if testosterone levels are a significant factor. 

Then what is it about?

6 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Many States allow transgender high school athletes to compete in the category of their choice at State level. To their credit, at least they don't force them to alter their bodies or hormone levels, but for some athletes this gives them a distinct advantage, and it does affect many elite cisgendered woman, I would say unfairly.

Then give examples of this.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

No, it’s not. Actual trans people as examples would be examples.

 

Yes, it is. It was given in the context of an elite male athlete becoming transgender. Do you consider this, the equivalent of this, outside the realm of plausibility? How fair is it to decide after the competition takes place? Or have a transgender athlete disqualified after she has been told she can compete or even already succeeded? 

3 hours ago, swansont said:

I’m not a medical doctor. I have no basis to disagree.

It's from the link you chose to provide. Using that logic you have no basis to disagree with any medical doctor. Do you think they all share the same opinion?

3 hours ago, swansont said:

What actual threat exists?

The threat of misunderstanding the physical differences in biological men and women, and arbitrarily leaving an unfair advantage. Again I accept fairness is more than a little subjective...for some it means everyone should get a trophy for trying...how can one argue that? Can we accept that some want to compete at the highest levels and give themselves the best chance of success? (This is an argument for both sides...as again I don't blame transgenders for wanting to compete)

I've coached women in sports (not soccer or hockey other than minor youth sports but both coached and trained with women at higher levels in others) 

I watch a lot of competitive sports. I've certainly watched our Canadian Women's soccer Team far more than our Men's Team. I consider them elite athletes, much more so than the High School Teams that would beat them. The fact the Women are more than willing to play them suggests the level of dedication. They want to win but more importantly they want the challenge to improve.

They deserve more than having someone arbitrarily put them at a disadvantage.

If it wasn't a threat why would the IOC be concerned about it?

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Give an example. It won’t be about an olympic athlete, because zero trans athletes have competed since the IOC included criteria to let them compete.

An example could be coming if they don't get it right, and I don't believe they can get it right. It would be arbitrary, and need setting up rules that require athletes altering their bodies and/or hormones to make them eligible. Is that a healthy and fair thing to place on a transgender athlete? Is it fair if they allow them to compete but at an artificial disadvantage to make sure they don't win?

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Then what is it about?

You think it's just about testosterone? Many cisgender women sprinters can improve their times using steroids. Sorry I can't provide a link that suggests none would go under 10s for the 100m but trust me it won't happen soon. If it was just about testosterone it probably would already have been done.

Same thing for transgender women athletes. Reducing testosterone alone can not guarantee there does not remain some advantage.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

 

Then give examples of this.

 

 

Hard to find examples that don't include some pretty disgusting condemnation of transgender athletes but here I think is a reasonable one:

How many States have high school boy's  track records that don't better Women's World records?

So far, at least to my knowledge, it's been honest transgenders simply wishing to compete. How long before someone decides to take advantage? 

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Yes, it is. It was given in the context of an elite male athlete becoming transgender.

Which hasn’t happened, so it’s not an example. It’s conjecture. It’s made up, and as such not constrained by facts.

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

This gets back to a previous point I made. Why is the default position to suggest that the cisgender women are being treated unfairly? The league wasn't developed with a rule that only cisgender women could compete. Why not take the position that it is unfair to transgender athletes to exclude them? Transgender women are not taking something away from cisgender women that rightfully belongs to cisgender women, they are simply trying to compete within the existing framework, just like cisgender women are.

I understand the desire to address the concerns of the current athletes, but a blanket "NO" harkens back to keeping women out of factory jobs, blacks out of white sports, etc.

If you are going to keep them out because it is "unfair" then it seems only fair that you (or someone) provide definitive evidence that it is indeed unfair.

It's arbitrary Zap. Women weren't allowed to compete in track and field in their own division until 1928. Short of them competing directly against men, this meant they were excluded. Allowing them their own division, and excluding biological men from it, seemed progressive at that time.

[zapatos]

12 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It's arbitrary Zap. Women weren't allowed to compete in track and field in their own division until 1928. Short of them competing directly against men, this meant they were excluded. Allowing them their own division, and excluding biological men from it, seemed progressive at that time.

If the decision to keep them out is arbitrary then I'm unable to understand why it should be considered.

[J.C.MacSwell]

28 minutes ago, swansont said:

Which hasn’t happened, so it’s not an example. It’s conjecture. It’s made up, and as such not constrained by facts.

It is, in the context Curious Layman introduced the term in this thread, as he clarified to you. 

 

On 3/5/2021 at 1:51 PM, swansont said:

But it’s not an example.

It’s a boogie-man. It’s a monster under the bed. A made-up scenario to frighten people. A slippery-slope fallacy. 

 

You can’t have an honest discussion if you aren’t properly representing the situation. 

Setting Rules is setting limits. You need to evaluate the plausible extremes. I don't know why you would question this as an example of what could go wrong and then deflect with semantics. You knew what CL meant, and he clarified on top of that.

Can we get back to honest discussion?

18 minutes ago, zapatos said:

If the decision to keep them out is arbitrary then I'm unable to understand why it should be considered.

That's a fair point Zap. I'm not saying it shouldn't be considered. But I've given this a fair bit of thought, and I'm saying any solution would be a arbitrary set of rules that can't be fair (IMO) to both cisgender and transgender women. Going back pre 1928 and having just one division (obviously dominated by men for anyone who might care to admit it) might not be arbitrary but would certainly exclude many who I would consider elite athletes. 

But go ahead and suggest some way forward. Even one that might insist athletes be forced to change their bodies and artificially alter their hormones to be eligible (just please don't suggest minors do this), and let's consider the consequences (even extreme ones) to them and their competitors.

 

Note: when I say don't suggest minors do it, I'm talking wrt setting rules for sport...like Swansont...I'm not a medical doctor (unlike Swansont...I'm not any type of doctor)

[swansont]

51 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Can we get back to honest discussion?

Mike Tyson as a transgender fighter isn’t honest discussion, and I’m not really pleased with the insinuation that I’m the one not engaging in it. 

“you know what he meant” is another line that has no place here. I can only go by what people say. I don’t read minds.

[zapatos]

37 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

But go ahead and suggest some way forward.

My suggestion is to look at data that predicts the impact of transgender women on women's sports, discuss it, and develop a plan. It would not involve anyone being forced to change their bodies or hormones.

That would involve things such as how many people are involved, what the average difference is between trans- and cisgender women wrt to physical ability, whether or not that difference is material in the sport being discussed, the feedback received from the women/governing bodies/governments/etc.

IMO the default position should be to let them play, and only exclude them if their inclusion is deemed "unfair", however that may turn out to be defined.

There is no reason this has to be an arbitrary decision, and analysis may very well find that the inclusion of transgender women in women's sports is indeed fair.

On a side note, I suspect that even if a transgender woman is materially faster and stronger than her soccer teammates it will not necessarily make much of a difference as she is only one of 22 people on the pitch.

[J.C.MacSwell]

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

My suggestion is to look at data that predicts the impact of transgender women on women's sports, discuss it, and develop a plan. It would not involve anyone being forced to change their bodies or hormones.

That would involve things such as how many people are involved, what the average difference is between trans- and cisgender women wrt to physical ability, whether or not that difference is material in the sport being discussed, the feedback received from the women/governing bodies/governments/etc.

IMO the default position should be to let them play, and only exclude them if their inclusion is deemed "unfair", however that may turn out to be defined.

There is no reason this has to be an arbitrary decision, and analysis may very well find that the inclusion of transgender women in women's sports is indeed fair.

On a side note, I suspect that even if a transgender woman is materially faster and stronger than her soccer teammates it will not necessarily make much of a difference as she is only one of 22 people on the pitch.

You have to consider that every one of them could be transgender, or all 11 against none. In many States for High School sports, that's currently the law.

If for some reason you think that's an unreasonable assumption, consider some High School trying to make a point... or not...who is it to question them?

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You have to consider that every one of them could be transgender, or all 11 against none. In many States for High School sports, that's currently the law.

Sure, no reasonable questions should be excluded from consideration.

If we find that transgender athletes are generally no better than cisgender athletes then we have no issues.

If we find that there are very few transgender athletes and none are head and shoulders above the rest, then we have no issues.

If we find that transgender athletes are markedly better and trying out for teams in great numbers that is going to hurt great numbers of cisgender athletes then we may find a way to include them in a fair way, have a separate league, develop a handicapping system, or (again IMO) as a last resort not let them compete in certain sports.

I don't feel that coming to a reasonable solution is going to be all that difficult. To me the difficulty lies with getting people to overcome their prejudices and preconceptions and approach this just like any other new situation that a sport must deal with (like drugs, blood doping, etc.)

[J.C.MacSwell]

30 minutes ago, zapatos said:

 

If we find that transgender athletes are generally no better than cisgender athletes then we have no issues.

 

Generally is fine for recreational competition. Not so much at the elite levels.

 

30 minutes ago, zapatos said:

 

If we find that there are very few transgender athletes and none are head and shoulders above the rest, then we have no issues.

 

I think sports competition (and more so training for it) is healthy. For everyone, and should be encouraged. As we age it seems less so, but I still believe that. Ultimately it's best to compete against yourself, but competitions can focus that.

30 minutes ago, zapatos said:

 

If we find that transgender athletes are markedly better and trying out for teams in great numbers that is going to hurt great numbers of cisgender athletes then we may find a way to include them in a fair way, have a separate league, develop a handicapping system, or (again IMO) as a last resort not let them compete in certain sports.

 

Who bears the brunt of that process? Elite cisgender athletes, and transgender athletes both elite and not so elite.

30 minutes ago, zapatos said:

 

I don't feel that coming to a reasonable solution is going to be all that difficult. To me the difficulty lies with getting people to overcome their prejudices and preconceptions and approach this just like any other new situation that a sport must deal with (like drugs, blood doping, etc.)

I disagree. I think it's pitting cisgendered and trans women against each other in an unfair and unhealthy manner by asking them to accept solutions from "experts". Even if, somehow, they got it exactly right (assuming there is one)...there's no way it will be fully accepted. Nor should it, as no one exactly knows. Some think it's just testosterone...anyone who has the slightest understanding of Darwin's theory, and specialization, should know better IMO. But it's politics, and what Richard Feynman might call "cargo cult science" trumps scientific method.

That said, I'm open to sound arguments. 

[zapatos]

19 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Generally is fine for recreational competition. Not so much at the elite levels.

 

Why not? I'm having trouble finding any transgender athlete who has had even modest success at the professional level.

19 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Who bears the brunt of that process? Elite cisgender athletes, and transgender athletes both elite and not so elite.

Could be. I imagine though that transgender would find a handicap for themselves or their team less onerous than being banned from competition altogether.

When two people are at odds, someone is ultimately going to have to bear the brunt. No getting around that.

19 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 I think it's pitting cisgendered and trans women against each other in an unfair and unhealthy manner by asking them to accept solutions from "experts".

Sort of like pitting pitchers agains hitters by asking them to accept "solutions from experts" who make a decision on the height of the pitching mound. 

The governing bodies of sports always get the last say. This is no different than any other issue in any other sport. Unless people choose to make it different.

19 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

there's no way it will be fully accepted.

I'm sure we can come up with dozens of rules in all sports that are not fully accepted by all. Why would we set the bar higher for this issue than for any other issue?

 

Edited March 21, 2021 by zapatos

[J.C.MacSwell]

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Mike Tyson as a transgender fighter isn’t honest discussion, and I’m not really pleased with the insinuation that I’m the one not engaging in it. 

“you know what he meant” is another line that has no place here. I can only go by what people say. I don’t read minds.

Understood. I apologize.

Can you consider that Curious Layman intended honest discussion as well?

[MigL]

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Can you consider that Curious Layman intended honest discussion as well?

Yeah !
Never mind the transgendered; why can JC ( and I ) post the same opinions and get treated 'respectfully', while poor Curious Layman was accused of having a hidden agenda, and pilloried ?

Is this evidence of noob discrimination, as the rest of us have been around for 10 years or more ? 
Can we not be more inclusive ? 😀

Edited March 21, 2021 by MigL

[iNow]

You’re being neither silenced nor cancelled, but you are being a bit melodramatic and snowflakey. 

[MigL]

Melodramatic I can live with.
Glad you didn't say 'drama queen'.

[zapatos]

31 minutes ago, MigL said:

Never mind the transgendered; why can JC ( and I ) post the same opinions and get treated 'respectfully', while poor Curious Layman was accused of having a hidden agenda, and pilloried ?

I guess you didn't accept my explanation the first time you called me out for that post. 

[MigL]

TBH, I don't remember it, Zap.

[Prometheus]

9 hours ago, zapatos said:

Why not? I'm having trouble finding any transgender athlete who has had even modest success at the professional level.

I gave this example early on in the thread; it raised questions in MMA.

I agree that Curious laymen was unfairly set upon in this thread. 

 

[zapatos]

4 hours ago, Prometheus said:

I gave this example early on in the thread; it raised questions in MMA.

 

In her professional career she had a grand total of five wins.

As I said, I'm having trouble finding any transgender athlete who has had even modest success at the professional level.

[Prometheus]

24 minutes ago, zapatos said:

In her professional career she had a grand total of five wins.

As I said, I'm having trouble finding any transgender athlete who has had even modest success at the professional level.

Ronda Rousey is generally considered the best female MMA fighter of all time. Her record was 12 wins from 14 fights. By that metric i'd consider Fox's 5 wins out of 6 at least moderately successful.

[iNow]

Fair points, but a single lone example is better described as an anecdote, not as evidence nor something indicative of trends requiring rule changes. 

[Prometheus]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

Fair points, but a single lone example is better described as an anecdote, not as evidence nor something indicative of trends requiring rule changes. 

True enough, but i thought it a good case study - better the Iron Mike anyway. This list has about 40 transgendered sports people. Whether that's enough to ask questions is a judgement call, but i don't think it unreasonable of professional sporting bodies to pose the question to the medical community.