Transgender athletes

[StringJunky]

What we going to do when disabled athletes have bionic limbs and they start thrashing the able-bodied.... reverse discrimination protests on the horizon?  :D  Rules of this nature can only ever be arbitrary.

[iNow]

19 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

What we going to do when disabled athletes have bionic limbs and they start thrashing the able-bodied....

Enjoy the show when all 2 of them ultimately decide to compete? 😂 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

I think the better question perhaps is why can’t you see that gender divisions / classes and how trans humans interact with those is equally arbitrary… just like ALL rules in ALL sports which are arbitrary, too.

I think a better question is "how is it that educated and intelligent people can become so polarized in their thinking that they consider the judging of weight divisions to be equally arbitrary to judging category placement based on someone's perceived ability stemming from "biological advantage" remaining after transitioning.

From CY's suggestion: (bolded by me, apologies to Swansont for any "cherry picking" that might suggest)

“Men’s” divisions could be eliminated and replaced with “open” divisions. Any athlete could be allowed to compete in that division.

Then, transgender athletes could be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Based on their athletic ability, a tournament organizer could determine which division is most fair for them to compete in, “women’s” or “open.”

For trans women athletes, at issue is their athletic ability, not their womanhood. If a tournament organizer determines that a trans woman athlete is too good to compete against other women because of her biological advantage, requiring her to compete in an “open” division does not undermine her humanity.

Instead, this acknowledges – and takes seriously – that she identifies as a woman, but that respect for the principles of fair competition requires that she not be allowed to compete in the women’s division.

 

Again I will state that this could be a workable solution for recreational level sports, dependant on the good will of all involved. Beyond that...not a hope in Hell.

[swansont]

55 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

What we going to do when disabled athletes have bionic limbs and they start thrashing the able-bodied.... reverse discrimination protests on the horizon?  Rules of this nature can only ever be arbitrary.

I don’t see artificial enhancements currently being as hard to distinguish as the topic of the thread.

 

[CharonY]

49 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think a better question is "how is it that educated and intelligent people can become so polarized in their thinking that they consider the judging of weight divisions to be equally arbitrary to judging category placement based on someone's perceived ability stemming from "biological advantage" remaining after transitioning.

The answer to me is fairly straightforward, for the established measures there are already parameters in place, so in your mind it is clear. For the second measures are being discussed and since they are not clear (yet) you assume it is different quality.

Yet, as OP ascertains that transgender athletes have, objectively, a different quality in performance, it would simply mean that one need to establish thresholds to distinguish those features. If they do not exist, then obviously the distinction was meaningless. If they exist, it becomes a measure of identifying usable thresholds. That is one standard approach you use in science, when you want to categorize based on continuous variables. There is likely some assumption in your mind that makes you hard to see that.

For example, in sports where speed is the key parameter, athlete speed/acceleration/time can be measured. Then, if an athlete reaches a certain threshold (or several) and perhaps adding consistency to the mix, you can define when someone gets entry to the open league.

In others, one might decide to measure muscle properties/densities and so on. By making these measures gender neutral, in categories where women are likely to underperform compared to men, they are also more likely not to pass the threshold without having an outright, and arbitrary ban.

After all, the assertion was that somehow the distinction between women and transgender women is objective. If that is so, I want to see measures to support that and then we can use those measures to define new categories. Again, it does not seem as arbitrary by separating certain weight groups by, say 8 pounds, others by 15 (or keep the highest open ended). And likewise it encourages cutting and other measures to keep weight at weigh-ins and how folks bounce between the different weight classes. 

I mean, the obvious reason why this is so hard for some folks to get behind might be because they have a strong idea about gender or sex in mind, and consider that an objective measure and anything potentially breaking might be seen as less objective. But again, science (not politics) have moved away from that, using measures, not assumptions.

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I don’t see artificial enhancements currently being as hard to distinguish as the topic of the thread.

 

Sorry, I was being a bit flippant.

58 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The answer to me is fairly straightforward, for the established measures there are already parameters in place, so in your mind it is clear. For the second measures are being discussed and since they are not clear (yet) you assume it is different quality.

Yet, as OP ascertains that transgender athletes have, objectively, a different quality in performance, it would simply mean that one need to establish thresholds to distinguish those features. If they do not exist, then obviously the distinction was meaningless. If they exist, it becomes a measure of identifying usable thresholds. That is one standard approach you use in science, when you want to categorize based on continuous variables. There is likely some assumption in your mind that makes you hard to see that.

For example, in sports where speed is the key parameter, athlete speed/acceleration/time can be measured. Then, if an athlete reaches a certain threshold (or several) and perhaps adding consistency to the mix, you can define when someone gets entry to the open league.

In others, one might decide to measure muscle properties/densities and so on. By making these measures gender neutral, in categories where women are likely to underperform compared to men, they are also more likely not to pass the threshold without having an outright, and arbitrary ban.

After all, the assertion was that somehow the distinction between women and transgender women is objective. If that is so, I want to see measures to support that and then we can use those measures to define new categories. Again, it does not seem as arbitrary by separating certain weight groups by, say 8 pounds, others by 15 (or keep the highest open ended). And likewise it encourages cutting and other measures to keep weight at weigh-ins and how folks bounce between the different weight classes. 

I mean, the obvious reason why this is so hard for some folks to get behind might be because they have a strong idea about gender or sex in mind, and consider that an objective measure and anything potentially breaking might be seen as less objective. But again, science (not politics) have moved away from that, using measures, not assumptions.

Just had coffee with a friend and, mentioning this subject to him,  he has fixed assumptions about gender; one is born with it and your genitals tell you what you are. He is not scientifically-minded in anyway.

Edited July 3, 2021 by StringJunky

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

The answer to me is fairly straightforward, for the established measures there are already parameters in place, so in your mind it is clear. For the second measures are being discussed and since they are not clear (yet) you assume it is different quality.

Yet, as OP ascertains that transgender athletes have, objectively, a different quality in performance, it would simply mean that one need to establish thresholds to distinguish those features. If they do not exist, then obviously the distinction was meaningless. If they exist, it becomes a measure of identifying usable thresholds. That is one standard approach you use in science, when you want to categorize based on continuous variables. There is likely some assumption in your mind that makes you hard to see that.

For example, in sports where speed is the key parameter, athlete speed/acceleration/time can be measured. Then, if an athlete reaches a certain threshold (or several) and perhaps adding consistency to the mix, you can define when someone gets entry to the open league.

In others, one might decide to measure muscle properties/densities and so on. By making these measures gender neutral, in categories where women are likely to underperform compared to men, they are also more likely not to pass the threshold without having an outright, and arbitrary ban.

After all, the assertion was that somehow the distinction between women and transgender women is objective. If that is so, I want to see measures to support that and then we can use those measures to define new categories. Again, it does not seem as arbitrary by separating certain weight groups by, say 8 pounds, others by 15 (or keep the highest open ended). And likewise it encourages cutting and other measures to keep weight at weigh-ins and how folks bounce between the different weight classes. 

I mean, the obvious reason why this is so hard for some folks to get behind might be because they have a strong idea about gender or sex in mind, and consider that an objective measure and anything potentially breaking might be seen as less objective. But again, science (not politics) have moved away from that, using measures, not assumptions.

You've suggesting subjecting transgenders to tests to place them in " open" or "women's" category.

What criteria are you using to decide who these transgenders are? Why are cisgender women, to the degree you feel you can define them, going to free from the same scrutiny?

Why can they not be told they cannot compete in the "Women's" category?

Is this all clear in your mind?

[Holmes]

23 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Sorry, I was being a bit flippant.

Just had coffee with a friend and, mentioning this subject to him,  he has fixed assumptions about gender; one is born with it and your genitals tell you what you are. He is not scientifically-minded in anyway.

What about males have XY chromosomes and females have XX?

If I have XY chromosomes does it matter if I insist I have XX?

 

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

The answer to me is fairly straightforward, for the established measures there are already parameters in place, so in your mind it is clear. For the second measures are being discussed and since they are not clear (yet) you assume it is different quality.

Yet, as OP ascertains that transgender athletes have, objectively, a different quality in performance, it would simply mean that one need to establish thresholds to distinguish those features. If they do not exist, then obviously the distinction was meaningless. If they exist, it becomes a measure of identifying usable thresholds. That is one standard approach you use in science, when you want to categorize based on continuous variables. There is likely some assumption in your mind that makes you hard to see that.

For example, in sports where speed is the key parameter, athlete speed/acceleration/time can be measured. Then, if an athlete reaches a certain threshold (or several) and perhaps adding consistency to the mix, you can define when someone gets entry to the open league.

In others, one might decide to measure muscle properties/densities and so on. By making these measures gender neutral, in categories where women are likely to underperform compared to men, they are also more likely not to pass the threshold without having an outright, and arbitrary ban.

After all, the assertion was that somehow the distinction between women and transgender women is objective. If that is so, I want to see measures to support that and then we can use those measures to define new categories. Again, it does not seem as arbitrary by separating certain weight groups by, say 8 pounds, others by 15 (or keep the highest open ended). And likewise it encourages cutting and other measures to keep weight at weigh-ins and how folks bounce between the different weight classes. 

I mean, the obvious reason why this is so hard for some folks to get behind might be because they have a strong idea about gender or sex in mind, and consider that an objective measure and anything potentially breaking might be seen as less objective. But again, science (not politics) have moved away from that, using measures, not assumptions.

Why not do the rather obvious and honest thing?

Introduce two additional categories: MtF and FtM can anything be fairer than that?

Perhaps that won't work, perhaps we'll eventually see more categories like MtFtM or FtMtFtMtF...

 

Edited July 3, 2021 by Holmes

[zapatos]

26 minutes ago, Holmes said:

 

 

Why not do the rather obvious and honest thing?

Introduce two additional categories: MtF and FtM can anything be fairer than that?

 

What is fair about having someone compete against possibly no one?

[Holmes]

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

What is fair about having someone compete against possibly no one?

They'll never lose?

Edited July 3, 2021 by Holmes

[swansont]

36 minutes ago, Holmes said:

What about males have XY chromosomes and females have XX?

And what of people who don’t fall into these two categories?

[zapatos]

6 minutes ago, Holmes said:

They'll never lose?

Are you that naive or are you trying to make some sort of point?

[Holmes]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

And what of people who don’t fall into these two categories?

Then such people are not male or female.

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Are you that naive or are you trying to make some sort of point?

It was answer to your odd question: What is fair about having someone compete against possibly no one?

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, Holmes said:

It was answer to your odd question: What is fair about having someone compete against possibly no one?

If you create a division in olympic competition that only includes individuals who are FtM, you may find you have no competitors.

[Holmes]

Just now, zapatos said:

If you create a division in olympic competition that only includes individuals who are FtM, you may find you have no competitors.

Why?

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, Holmes said:

Why?

Are you trolling me?

[J.C.MacSwell]

Just now, zapatos said:

Are you trolling me?

I would like to know your answer also.

Is there something about FtM individuals that you feel makes them unlikely to want to compete?

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I would like to know your answer also.

Because there are few FtM olympic level competitors in, say, soccer.

[Holmes]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Because there are few FtM olympic level competitors in, say, soccer.

So how many are there?

Edited July 3, 2021 by Holmes

[swansont]

13 minutes ago, Holmes said:

Then such people are not male or female.

So you would not let these other people compete? That hardly seems fair.

 

These are the only two options currently before us. Men’s sports and women’s sports.

Once you acknowledge that this is an artificial dichotomy, the wheels come off many of the arguments. 

 

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, Holmes said:

So how many are there?

Yeah, you're trolling me.

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Because there are few FtM olympic level competitors in, say, soccer.

Fair enough. They are obviously at a disadvantage if they have to compete against men, for much the same reasons MtF competitors could have advantages against women.

Wouldn't that change if they had their own category?

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

So you would not let these other people compete? That hardly seems fair.

 

These are the only two options currently before us. Men’s sports and women’s sports.

Once you acknowledge that this is an artificial dichotomy, the wheels come off many of the arguments. 

 

Was this "artificial dichotomy" not being used in CY's suggested solution? What exactly is the comparison as to whether a transgender has a remaining biological advantage?

[Holmes]

Just now, swansont said:

So you would not let these other people compete? That hardly seems fair.

No I would not, and I don't know how "fair" could be defined in the context of this question. 

It seems to me that women in a women's category can never benefit from the inclusion of men who have transitioned, but the men who have transitioned are more likely to benefit, more likely than if there was a MtF category.

Therefore on this (admittedly informal) analysis, it is not equitable.

Just now, swansont said:

These are the only two options currently before us. Men’s sports and women’s sports.

Well these categories are defined on a long established traditional division based on XX or XY chromosomes.

Men and Women have entered sports and competed on that understanding, it doesn't strike me as fair to now permit exceptions that could disadvantage Women.

Just now, swansont said:

Once you acknowledge that this is an artificial dichotomy, the wheels come off many of the arguments. 

I don't know what you mean by "artificial", can you explain?

[zapatos]

12 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Wouldn't that change if they had their own category?

I doubt it. There aren't that many olympic level athletes as it is. And now you would have to field teams of olympic level athletes from around the world with transgender athletes? 

 

[Holmes]

Since there are at least 58 genders, insisting that these can all be meaningfully and fairly partitioned in sports into just two categories not based on chromosomes strikes me as unscientific.

If this is to be partitioned into just two then surely, scientifically basing it on the chromosome paring of XX and XY solves this problem.

1. Agender
2. Androgyne
3. Androgynous
4. Bigender
5. Cis
6. Cisgender
7. Cis Female
8. Cis Male
9. Cis Man
10. Cis Woman
11. Cisgender Female
12. Cisgender Male
13. Cisgender Man
14. Cisgender Woman
15. Female to Male
16. FTM
17. Gender Fluid
18. Gender Nonconforming
19. Gender Questioning
20. Gender Variant
21. Genderqueer
22. Intersex
23. Male to Female
24. MTF
25. Neither
26. Neutrois
27. Non-binary
28. Other
29. Pangender
30. Trans
31. Trans*
32. Trans Female
33. Trans* Female
34. Trans Male
35. Trans* Male
36. Trans Man
37. Trans* Man
38. Trans Person
39. Trans* Person
40. Trans Woman
41. Trans* Woman
42. Transfeminine
43. Transgender
44. Transgender Female
45. Transgender Male
46. Transgender Man
47. Transgender Person
48. Transgender Woman
49. Transmasculine
50. Transsexual
51. Transsexual Female
52. Transsexual Male
53. Transsexual Man
54. Transsexual Person
55. Transsexual Woman
56. Two-Spirit

Edited July 3, 2021 by Holmes