Transgender athletes

[dimreepr]

20 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

It would be an interesting and maybe fruitful experiment to ditch the old regime of gender classification and introduce such a system as you suggest.  

It would be great, if only we could stop the cheat's from shouting "it's not fair"... 😪

[Intoscience]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Thank her for her service. She sounds pretty badass, and appears to be a pretty good example of exactly the point I’m making. 

She’s welcome to her opinion, but yes. I’d pushback on this idea of “majority.” Sure, some men will be more physically able and have a higher ceiling on their physical capabilities or performance, but probably not “most”… at least not here in the US where beer bellies abound and potato chips are often a side dish beside the cheeseburger and milkshake…and either way, even if I’m wrong… those performance ceilings I mentioned can be pretty easily accommodated and dealt with by using the sorts of divisions and classifications we’ve referenced, and with the added benefit of rendering moot these discussions about how to include trans humans in sports when they wish to compete.

Gender need not be a threshold qualification in sport. It really is that simple IMO, and it here need not matter what plumbing a person uses when they pass… unless we force it to matter. 

Thanks, I'll pass on your compliments. Yeah she is something else, they nicknamed her "The Terminator" because of her stamina and shear determination to carry on regardless. Not many would match her in this respect.

I actually agree, I think maybe the solution is to take the focus offer gender identity and focus on other aspects for classification.    

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It would be great, if only we could stop the cheat's from shouting "it's not fair"... 😪

You've lost me on this one 😵

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

You've lost me on this one 😵

You should read the thread... 😣

[Intoscience]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You should read the thread... 😣

To be honest, no disrespect, but I've stopped reasoning over your replies. They seem to be either attempting to derail the discussion or just go round in nonsensical circles.  

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Intoscience said:

To be honest, no disrespect, but I've stopped reasoning over your replies. They seem to be either attempting to derail the discussion or just go round in nonsensical circles.  

Because you don't listen...

 

On 7/1/2021 at 2:38 PM, Intoscience said:

On 7/1/2021 at 2:37 PM, dimreepr said:

Because it's just a game... 

Ah... I see where you are going on this. Yep that is one perspective, I guess it depends on the value of that game to each individual, and if or what effect it has on their lives. 

I get disgruntled, then I just let it go, since other than my short term emotional state, it doesn't really affect my life in any real detrimental way. 

Remember this?

Quote

However, if it was my professional living and the winning pay cheque was important, I may have a different view point.

Indeed, you might be tempted to cheat... 😉

[Intoscience]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Because you don't listen...

 

More because I don't agree with your point of view, and your arguments lack any substance. Your comment that it's just a "game" and the direction you were heading with this line of thought is one I'm not in favour of.

It's the same as the latest trend, the idea that kids should learn to just participate and that there is no need for competition. Well this might be true dependent on the context, age and circumstance, but completely abolishing all competition from society is not an healthy state. We are genetically wired to compete, stemming from our survival instincts coded in over millions of years of evolution. To suddenly supress this natural instinct will only result in it manifesting in some undesirable way. Competition, especially sporting competition is a healthy way to regulate natural instincts, desires and can teach us to control our aggression in a positive way.

And also as I said previously the value of the game depends on the individual playing it and what effect it may have on that person's life, positive or negative, or non at all.  

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Intoscience said:

More because I don't agree with your point of view, and your arguments lack any substance.

You're welcome to argue my argument; you know, to show why it lack's substance... 

[Intoscience]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You're welcome to argue my argument; you know, to show why it lack's substance... 

I just have, I don't agree that competition is "just a game" and I don't agree that unfairness should be ignored. Both of which you seem to be asserting. I don't see what substance either argument has.

If you play a game and there are no rules then what is the point of playing?  

[iNow]

Just in hopes of getting us back into the same zip code of being on-topic… the discussion isn’t about moving toward no rules. It’s about updating existing rules so it’s based more on merit and ability… so gender isn’t a threshold requirement for competing that needlessly excludes trans athletes. 

[Intoscience]

32 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 

 

Remember this?

Indeed, you might be tempted to cheat... 😉

Of course people are tempted to cheat, that's why we have rules, limits and any other classification. 

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I just have, I don't agree that competition is "just a game" and I don't agree that unfairness should be ignored. Both of which you seem to be asserting. I don't see what substance either argument has.

If you play a game and there are no rules then what is the point of playing?  

No, you have neatly summarised my position; perhaps you did listen, without realising... 

[Intoscience]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Just in hopes of getting us back into the same zip code of being on-topic… the discussion isn’t about moving toward no rules. It’s about updating existing rules so it’s based more on merit and ability… so gender isn’t a threshold requirement for competing that needlessly excludes trans athletes. 

Again, I agree, no argument there.

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

No, you have neatly summarised my position; perhaps you did listen, without realising... 

Maybe, perhaps we do agree then? Anyhow it's perhaps not that relevant to the discussion in hand. The discussion is about inclusion and disclusion due to gender identity.

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Again, I agree, no argument there.

Maybe, perhaps we do agree then? Anyhow it's perhaps not that relevant to the discussion in hand. The discussion is about inclusion and disclusion due to gender identity.

The discussion is about fairness, it's never fair to disclude an applicant...

[TheVat]

I think the point made about basketball (it tends to discriminate towards very tall people) is a fair one, as it underscores that all sports at the higher levels are going to be somewhat exclusionary and attract people with a certain anatomical blueprint.  No one has proposed "professional short people's basketball," or "football (American usage) for the small-boned."  In this sense, all sports (except those based purely on grace and finesse, like diving) tend to filter out those whose body type does not adapt well to its contact situations or need for inertial mass.  The problem seems to be mainly with limited cases where someone can be overqualified with respect to a woman's league due to having been a biological male in the past and thus attained a bone structure and mass that might lead to rather brutal outcomes for other league players.  If gender leagues were eliminated, then the tendency would be to recruit, in contact sports, those with more formidable musculoskeletal systems and we would have a sports world composed almost entirely of cis-males and trans-females, and very few cis-females who were not extreme outliers.  Which would bring us back to the question of having some other criteria for leagues that somehow permitted the smaller and more gracile a venue for play.  

It's possible we would need to redefine sport, and what societies want from it.  Do we want sports to be a professional business in which we can marvel at superb physical specimens far beyond the average human?  This is somewhat akin to advertizing wherein we see stunningly gorgeous and idealized representations of ourselves using or wearing a product.  We are invited to project ourselves into some realm of perfection well removed from our own.  Now I'm rambling a bit.  A sure sign I have no good answer to this whole conundrum. 

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Posts on personal attacks split to their own thread in Suggestions, Comments and Support.

 

[Intoscience]

15 hours ago, TheVat said:

I think the point made about basketball (it tends to discriminate towards very tall people) is a fair one, as it underscores that all sports at the higher levels are going to be somewhat exclusionary and attract people with a certain anatomical blueprint.  No one has proposed "professional short people's basketball," or "football (American usage) for the small-boned."  In this sense, all sports (except those based purely on grace and finesse, like diving) tend to filter out those whose body type does not adapt well to its contact situations or need for inertial mass.  The problem seems to be mainly with limited cases where someone can be overqualified with respect to a woman's league due to having been a biological male in the past and thus attained a bone structure and mass that might lead to rather brutal outcomes for other league players.  If gender leagues were eliminated, then the tendency would be to recruit, in contact sports, those with more formidable musculoskeletal systems and we would have a sports world composed almost entirely of cis-males and trans-females, and very few cis-females who were not extreme outliers.  Which would bring us back to the question of having some other criteria for leagues that somehow permitted the smaller and more gracile a venue for play.  

It's possible we would need to redefine sport, and what societies want from it.  Do we want sports to be a professional business in which we can marvel at superb physical specimens far beyond the average human?  This is somewhat akin to advertizing wherein we see stunningly gorgeous and idealized representations of ourselves using or wearing a product.  We are invited to project ourselves into some realm of perfection well removed from our own.  Now I'm rambling a bit.  A sure sign I have no good answer to this whole conundrum. 

This is pretty much my take on this subject. Though, maybe I have pre misconceptions regarding how much of an issue it would be if the gender category was abolished. I'm just struggling with conceptualising how it would work using a different system.

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

This is pretty much my take on this subject. Though, maybe I have pre misconceptions regarding how much of an issue it would be if the gender category was abolished. I'm just struggling with conceptualising how it would work using a different system.

Instead of 'woman's heavy weight wrestling' world champion, it would simply be 'category 5 wrestling' world champion.

But whatever the categories, when money is involved corruption is likely; all it would do is provide fewer opertunities to cry foul when they lose.

[MigL]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Instead of 'woman's heavy weight wrestling' world champion, it would simply be 'category 5 wrestling' world champion.

Sure, but then I could say 'you were beat up by a girl, ha-ha'.

Another example that shows there is a problem with the current system, and rather than waiting for problems to arise, clear rules should be IN PLACE, before they do.

Rules governing Olympic runners send a disturbing message to female athletes, especially those who are Black (msn.com)

[swansont]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

 Another example that shows there is a problem with the current system, and rather than waiting for problems to arise, clear rules should be IN PLACE, before they do.

Rules governing Olympic runners send a disturbing message to female athletes, especially those who are Black (msn.com)

But this is an example where clear rules are in place, and it's a problem. These are not transgender women, nor is there any suggestion that they have cheated.

This is like setting a height limit in basketball. Or, as the article notes, like banning someone for having abnormally large hands in basketball, or better than 20/20 vision in baseball. 

 

[MigL]

I agree, but it does indicate that there are problems with the current rules.
Just trying to 'slot' these extraordinary instances into the existing framework of rules won't work anymore.
That is all some of us are asking for; reexamining the rules to give all competitors a fair shot.

[dimreepr]

23 hours ago, MigL said:

Sure, but then I could say 'you were beat up by a girl, ha-ha'.

Another example that shows there is a problem with the current system, and rather than waiting for problems to arise, clear rules should be IN PLACE, before they do.

Rules governing Olympic runners send a disturbing message to female athletes, especially those who are Black (msn.com)

of course there's a problem with the current system...

Quote

'you were beat up by a girl, ha-ha'.

That's it... 😉

[TheVat]

I appreciated the MSN article's observation that "correlation is not causation."  My testosterone is likely to be considerably higher than that of the two Sub-Saharan women, yet I'm entirely sure they would complete any footrace with me laps behind them.  (unless the starting gun contained live rounds and was fired directly at them)

The multitude of physical factors is so large -- skeletal proportions, ratio of fast-twitch fibers, hormonal balance, variations in mitochondrial DNA (yes, some folks do have better mitochondria for certain sports where endurance matters -- we're not sled dogs, but there's a variable range in the human species), allergic responses, erythrocyte count (do you live above 2000 m.?), innate joint flexibility (woman do better than men, on this one), and so on. 

In some competitions, like running, specific physical factors are strongly linked with cis-gender and are understood to relate to the mechanics of running.  Narrow hips allow for more efficient bipedal running.  Paired with a deep chest, you get the classic physique of the long-distance runner.  All the training and fierce spirit in the world is not going to make a cis-female competitive in that particular sort of competition, because race outcomes are so dependent on anatomical factors.  It's not like basketball, where a short man can get onto a team with speed, lightning=fast moves, and amazing outside shots (Nate Archibald is the classic exemplar).  

So, you would be left with two choices for aspiring female long-distance runners.  One, you can compete, but you will probably lose all the time.  Two, you can compete only with people whose bipedal mechanics is somewhat similar to yours, which would be the traditional women's event.  So, where do the biomechanically-different trans-females go, then?  With larger chest cavities and vital capacity, and narrower hips, they would seem to be competitive in the men's event.  Does the problem then become one of nomenclature? 

 

(forgive my longwindedness, and my likely rehashing aspects of this discussion that probably were already covered somewhere back in the 17 prior pages of this thread.)

 

 

 

[CharonY]

10 hours ago, TheVat said:

ll the training and fierce spirit in the world is not going to make a cis-female competitive in that particular sort of competition, because race outcomes are so dependent on anatomical factors. 

It is only a nitpick, but I would qualify this by stating that anatomy becomes an issue on the mid-high level of competition and that the difference depends quite a bit on the type of running. Obviously some training often beats out no training at all in most types of races.

But also look at this : 

Quote

• Female ultra runners are faster than male ultra runners at distances over 195 miles. The longer the distance the shorter the gender pace gap. In 5Ks men run 17.9% faster than women, at marathon distance the difference is just 11.1%, 100-mile races see the difference shrink to just .25%, and above 195 miles, women are actually 0.6% faster than men.

Sure, it still means that in the vast majority of types of races men outrun women, but obviously the anatomic advantage does not translate universally. 

If it was that easy one could e.g. make hip-distance based leagues for example.

On 7/7/2021 at 5:03 PM, MigL said:

I agree, but it does indicate that there are problems with the current rules.
Just trying to 'slot' these extraordinary instances into the existing framework of rules won't work anymore.
That is all some of us are asking for; reexamining the rules to give all competitors a fair shot.

Then the question could be expanded to other issues regarding fairness. Competition on the highest levels often requires a lot of money for highly technical training. Or perhaps the ability to enhance athletes without being found out for doping. So wealth (of the organization) can skew results. As others have mentioned, height differences are not considered an issue and so on. So I am wondering what specifically makes this case so much more egregious that it needs to be looked on specifically over other issues. Let's say for example there are cis-gendered women with high testosterone levels and which have some increases in muscle mass among their peers and a transgender woman who, due to early transition has similar levels and performance. Who gets to perform in which group?

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

 

But also look at this : 

• Female ultra runners are faster than male ultra runners at distances over 195 miles. The longer the distance the shorter the gender pace gap. In 5Ks men run 17.9% faster than women, at marathon distance the difference is just 11.1%, 100-mile races see the difference shrink to just .25%, and above 195 miles, women are actually 0.6% faster than men.

This doesn't seem to be true at elite levels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramarathon

Men[edit]

Event	Record	Athlete	Date	Place
50 km	2:43:38	Thompson Magawana (RSA)	12 Apr 1988	Claremont, South Africa
100 km	6:09:14	Nao Kazami (JPN)	24 Jun 2018	Yubetsu-Saroma-Tokoro, Japan
100 miles	11:28:03	Oleg Kharitonov (RUS)	20 Oct 2002	London, United Kingdom
1000 km	5d 16:17:00	Yiannis Kouros (GRE)	26 Nov – 2 Dec 1984	Colac, Australia
1000 miles	10d 10:30:36	Yiannis Kouros (GRE)	20–30 May 1988	New York City, USA
6 hours	97.200 km	Donald Ritchie (GBR)	28 Oct 1978	London, United Kingdom
12 hours	163.785 km	Zach Bitter (USA)	14 Dec 2013	Phoenix, USA
24 hours	303.506 km	Yiannis Kouros (GRE)	4–5 Oct 1997	Adelaide, Australia
48 hours	473.495 km	Yiannis Kouros (GRE)	3–5 May 1996	Surgères, France
6 days	1036.800 km	Yiannis Kouros (AUS)[a]	20–26 Nov 2005	Colac, Australia

1. ^ Kouros had Australian citizenship for part of his running career. Nationalities here are as given in the IAU records table.

Women[edit]

Event	Record	Athlete	Date	Place
50 km	3:07:20	Alyson Dixon (GBR)	1 Sep 2019	Brașov, Romania
100 km	6:33:11	Tomoe Abe (JPN)	25 Jun 2000	Yubetsu-Saroma-Tokoro, Japan
100 miles	12:42:40	Camille Herron (USA)	11 Nov 2017	Vienna, IL, USA
1000 km	7d 16:08:37	Paula Mairer (AUT)	29 Sep-6 Oct 2002	New York City, USA
1000 miles	12d 14:38:40	Sandra Barwick (NZL)	16–28 Oct 1991	New York City, USA
6 hours	85.492 km	Nele Alder-Baerens (GER)	11 Mar 2017	Münster, Germany
12 hours	149.130 km	Camille Herron (USA)	9–10 Dec 2017	Phoenix, Arizona, USA
24 hours	270.116 km	Camille Herron (USA)	26–27 Oct 2019	Albi, France
48 hours	397.103 km	Sumie Inagaki (JPN)	21–23 May 2010	Surgères, France
6 days	883.631 km	Sandra Barwick (NZL)	18–24 Nov 1990	Campbelltown, Australia

[iNow]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

This doesn't seem to be true at elite levels.

Except, it is. What you shared are world records… examples of ONE runner being best… basically, anecdotes.

What Charon shared, however, was based on the largest ever study done on trends in ultra marathons over 23 years across over 15,000 events and it included over 5 MILLION results. 
 

Quote

In this study, we explore the trends in ultra running over the last 23 years. We have analyzed 5,010,730 results from 15,451 ultra running events, making this the largest study ever done on the sport. 

But yeah… I agree. If you look at just ONE runner in the top record holding spot, then the claim doesn’t “SEEM” true.