Transgender athletes

[iNow]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Swansont opened the door; I walked in.

 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Before INow accuses Swansont of intentionally or subconsciously attempting to dehumanize transgenders, is it fair to say Swansont was just making an analogy and understood the limitations of it?

Thank you for clarifying. Of course analogies are limited, and that's part of why I reject the premise that transgendered humans are triangles, that cis-gendered females are circles, and that cis-gendered males are squares (1950s poodle skirt and leather jacket jokes about boring nerds aside).

People are NOT pegs. We are not cogs or widgets.

Athletic rules also don't mandate that all pegs be exactly the same... whether round, square, or otherwise... and that's the point. Even within the round pegs, there's tremendous variability in shape, scale, size, height, weight, physical makeup, etc.  As I think is obvious, that variability is a huge part of what makes sports so interesting in the first place... there are MAJOR differences in innate ability and learned expertise and capability, and that's the entire point! 

The rules of sports in no way imply that only ONE peg type can or should fit. The rules for ALL sports are 100% invented and arbitrary, yet are being used now to exclude a class of humans who are already facing exclusionary and violent pressures everywhere else throughout their lives. 

Yes, TheVat... We're often repeating ourselves, but that doesn't mean should just shutup and stop. There's a chance people reading from the sidelines might just be convinced by a post today that says the same thing a post a week ago said, even though the week old post had no impact on their thinking. 

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

You agree that we are stuck in a binary system, so you recognise that this system maybe outdated. Yet it is you who insists on trying to fit the triangle peg into either a round or square hole. 

That’s what we’re stuck with, at the moment. It’s not my insistence, per se. Society either does this, or excludes the triangle from participation. 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Before INow accuses Swansont of intentionally or subconsciously attempting to dehumanize transgenders, is it fair to say Swansont was just making an analogy and understood the limitations of it?

Thank for saving me from having to post this. (and technically I dehumanized all humans, which is kinda the point of the analogy. reduced emotional/ideological baggage)

 

[TheVat]

52 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

Yes, TheVat... We're often repeating ourselves, but that doesn't mean should just shutup and stop. There's a chance people reading from the sidelines might just be convinced by a post today that says the same thing a post a week ago said, even though the week old post had no impact on their thinking. 

No, you shouldn't stop, I agree.  My POV was more that it might be useful to move on to how data might be gathered (this is a biology forum, my keen powers of observation disclosed to me this morning) that would address the question I have yet to see really answered here:  if a man transforms into a woman, retaining deep lungs, heavy bones, and more fast-twitch explosive strength, will her new set of capacities be those of a very gifted woman (well and good) or will they be they be off the charts WRT to cis-women?  Rather than just having the chat keep derailing as people strive to signal their goodness and empathy and progressive values, it would be nice to have some actual facts in hand to address the physiology part of the question.   Not everyone who wants a straight answer to this has an Agenda.  Sexual reassignment treatment/surgery is still a fairly new phenomenon on this planet, and curious people want to, for whatever reason, (sometimes it's just curiosity) have answers to such questions. 

If you traveled to another planet, where you had no stake whatsoever in their cultural beliefs, and were informed that some members of that society chopped off body parts and altered body chemistry in order to feel more truly themselves, I imagine that you would, without much guilt or deep self-reflection, want to know what was behind that practice.  We can't any of us be that impartial, in this matter, because we live here on Earth and grew up with deeply acculturated assumptions about our bodies and what we do with them.  I would wager that NOT ONE PERSON HERE, on first encountering the concept of sexual reassignment, before they had time to carefully compose their attitudes, was not knocked a bit off balance and perhaps even shocked.  Acceptance of trans people will come when there's honest conversation about this and any question can be asked.  JMO.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

My POV was more that it might be useful to move on to how data might be gathered

Fair point. In the article I shared most recently, the rather clear suggestion was there was practically no scientific evidence whatsoever suggesting a major or relevant difference. This aligned with another article I read just yesterday but chose not to share here given how the facts within past links kept getting ignored. 

 

[Prometheus]

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

My POV was more that it might be useful to move on to how data might be gathered (this is a biology forum, my keen powers of observation disclosed to me this morning) that would address the question I have yet to see really answered here: 

 

48 minutes ago, iNow said:

Fair point. In the article I shared most recently, the rather clear suggestion was there was practically no scientific evidence whatsoever suggesting a major or relevant difference. This aligned with another article I read just yesterday but chose not to share here given how the facts within past links kept getting ignored. 

Way back i posted a review from the journal of medical ethics and sports medicine, and this BMJ editorial all voicing concerns about elite level competition. They explore some of the biomedical evidence and reasoning behind those concerns. I also just came across this one in current sports medicine - i've not seen the full text so i don't know their conclusions but they do have a literature review section which explores some of the evidence.

Sorry iNow, i've haven't at all kept up with this thread - the last article i could find that you linked to was about signatories from US sports federations?

[CharonY]

17 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

 

Way back i posted a review from the journal of medical ethics and sports medicine, and this BMJ editorial all voicing concerns about elite level competition. They explore some of the biomedical evidence and reasoning behind those concerns. I also just came across this one in current sports medicine - i've not seen the full text so i don't know their conclusions but they do have a literature review section which explores some of the evidence.

Sorry iNow, i've haven't at all kept up with this thread - the last article i could find that you linked to was about signatories from US sports federations?

From what a quick screening of the lit it seems that most call for more data (the current sports medicine article makes a couple of good suggestions). I.e. it is necessary to understand more about the transition process. Some of the articles that you and I shared indicated mixed results (i.e. decline in certain performances after transition but no decline in others in the tested period). Considering that much of the research only started a few years ago it is hardly surprising. That being said, as one can see in this thread, there are a lot of assumptions being made, and even if they turn out to be true, there is not enough weight of evidence to support it. To take a well known issue as an example, if there were only a dozen of papers in total describing climate change, folks would not scramble to address this issue (and of course, even after thousands of studies the response is still rather muted). 

[Prometheus]

1 minute ago, CharonY said:

From what a quick screening of the lit it seems that most call for more data (the current sports medicine article makes a couple of good suggestions). I.e. it is necessary to understand more about the transition process. Some of the articles that you and I shared indicated mixed results (i.e. decline in certain performances after transition but no decline in others in the tested period). Considering that much of the research only started a few years ago it is hardly surprising. That being said, as one can see in this thread, there are a lot of assumptions being made, and even if they turn out to be true, there is not enough weight of evidence to support it. To take a well known issue as an example, if there were only a dozen of papers in total describing climate change, folks would not scramble to address this issue (and of course, even after thousands of studies the response is still rather muted). 

Yeah, that was where we left it - even though there's not tons of research it was still more than either of us could dive into at the time. It should also be remembered that none of those articles were advocating bans. But i'm hoping @TheVat, or someone else, will be able to dive into the literature and share their findings.

[J.C.MacSwell]

10 hours ago, swansont said:

 

Thank for saving me from having to post this. (and technically I dehumanized all humans, which is kinda the point of the analogy. reduced emotional/ideological baggage)

 

You are certainly an equal opportunity dehumanizer...😀

...and +1 on the reduced emotional/ideological baggage

[iNow]

7 hours ago, Prometheus said:

the last article i could find that you linked to was about signatories from US sports federations?

It was about many things, one of which was rather overwhelming support from thousands of current female athletes competing in existing female leagues. The idea shared was of them rejecting the entire premise that they needed protection from do-gooders seeking to exclude transgendered females, or that it even mattered if the science showed transgendered females MIGHT benefit from some minuscule advantage. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

It was about many things, one of which was rather overwhelming support from thousands of current female athletes competing in existing female leagues. The idea shared was of them rejecting the entire premise that they needed protection from do-gooders seeking to exclude transgendered females, or that it even mattered if the science showed transgendered females MIGHT benefit from some minuscule advantage. 

That's a wishful narrative. The truth is that many current female athletes are decried if they speak out, and just like the transgender athletes hope that the rules favour them...or at least don't disfavour them.

[iNow]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The truth is that many current female athletes are decried if they speak out,

Righto, and another truth is that many thousands of current female athletes also speak out in support of just letting transgendered girls play. 

In similar spirit, perhaps if we’d ignored the “wishful narratives” of black voices we might still have slaves on plantations actively harvesting cotton today. I’d say it’s a win historically that the rules were changed to favor them, but YMMV. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

27 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

That's a wishful narrative. The truth is that many current female athletes are decried if they speak out, and just like the transgender athletes hope that the rules favour them...or at least don't disfavour them.

...and bullied by threats to not speak out...

 

25 minutes ago, iNow said:

In similar spirit, perhaps if we’d ignored the “wishful narratives” of black voices we might still have slaves on plantations actively harvesting cotton today. I’d say it’s a win historically that the rules were changed to favor them, but YMMV. 

 

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

"Navratilova ... rejects accusations of transphobia, and says she deplores "a growing tendency among transgender activists to denounce anyone who argues against them and to label them all as 'transphobes."

[iNow]

9 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

...and bullied by threats to not speak out...

“We are nonviolent with people who are nonviolent with us.”

“I believe that there will ultimately be a clash between the oppressed and those that do the oppressing. I believe that there will be a clash between those who want freedom, justice and equality for everyone and those who want to continue the systems of exploitation.”

”I believe in treating people right, but I’m not going to waste my time trying to treat somebody right who doesn’t know how to return the treatment.”

Brother Malcolm had a way with words. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

Brother Malcolm had a way with words. 

So did Martin Luther King Jr. I preferred his approach.

Edited July 29, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[Intoscience]

I don't think anyone is suggesting we simply ban transgender female athlete's from competing in the female category, just because it doesn't seem fair. I'm certainly not advocating this even if the shape analogy gave this perspective. Its very clear that the situation is not simple, since it seems medical studies and evidence is currently limited.

What I would like to see is that there is conclusive evidence to support in favour either argument. Once this is determined and accepted then the system either can remain as is or amended / expanded so as not to negatively discriminate against anyone

It appears to me that we are all not being honestly objective, and we are allowing our opinions and feelings to be vented in our posts. I don't think this is a negative thing and I don't think it is suggesting any transphobia. It's not morally wrong to discuss gender identities, sexual differences, biological differences... in this way. But there is a distinction between these that should be recognised and not muddying the waters in regards to this thread. 

Can we all agree that there are biological differences between male and female? Because this should be the focus, since the question is do those biological differences equate to potential performance differences in sports? If they do, then are those differences significant enough to warrant an investigation into the advantage/disadvantages in potential performance... and would this have an adverse effect on the current system or would it make no difference? 

Sexual identity should be irrelevant to this study, since I can proclaim that I want to be identified as a woman and then compete against women in sports. This would be no different than me proclaiming I want to be identified as a child and then compete against children. 

What we need is hard scientific evidence to determine whether or not transgender women have a clear unfair advantage over cis-gender women in potential performance. Not opinions based on beliefs or culture.          

Edited July 29, 2021 by Intoscience

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I don't think anyone is suggesting we simply ban transgender female athlete's from competing in the female category, just because it doesn't seem fair. I'm certainly not advocating this even if the shape analogy gave this perspective. Its very clear that the situation is not simple, since it seems medical studies and evidence is currently limited.

One of the battles is to get people to accept the scientific evidence we do have.

Namely that gender is not a simple two-category situation, and so one that's more complicated than dividing people into two groups based on what body parts you have, or what chromosomes you have.

 

As for another part of this, I don't think billion-dollar sports organizations need my input on how to run their business.  

[Intoscience]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

One of the battles is to get people to accept the scientific evidence we do have.

Namely that gender is not a simple two-category situation, and so one that's more complicated than dividing people into two groups based on what body parts you have, or what chromosomes you have.

 

As for another part of this, I don't think billion-dollar sports organizations need my input on how to run their business.  

I think one of the problems that may cause confusion with some people is the difference between gender identity and male/female biology. 

To be clear, I'm only interested in the physical performance differences between male and female biology, and whether or not those differences give a clear physical advantage of one over the other in the context of sporting performance. 

If there are no clear physical distinctions that prove to be advantageous for one over the other in this context then I see no problem.  

let's simplify it down just for arguments sake, 

Is it accepted that in general males hold a distinct physical advantage over females when it comes to strength & power? I believe this is most people's view, would you agree?

Is this distinction highlighted mostly in elite athletic sporting disciplines? The figures from sporting results clearly indicate that this is fact.

I believe these are 2 good arguments to warrant an investigation into whether its fair to cis gender females to allow transgender females (once male, possibly still retaining physical advantages)to compete in the same category. 

I've stated this a few times, I'm not an authority on this, I'm not a performance biologist. My only concern is that society and culture focusses so much on discrimination as though all discrimination is negative, when in fact some discrimination is positive and a requirement.

Discrimination:

1.  the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, sex, or disability.

2.  recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

I think one of the problems that may cause confusion with some people is the difference between gender identity and male/female biology. 

To be clear, I'm only interested in the physical performance differences between male and female biology, and whether or not those differences give a clear physical advantage of one over the other in the context of sporting performance. 

But we've established that this is more nuanced than "male/female biology" so such comparisons start to prove problematic.

(edit: part of the issue, in the US, at least, is the swath of people who have decided that it is as simple and two genders, because that's all that's acknowledged in the Bible, so any subtler detail recognized in biology is simply discarded)

 

Quote

If there are no clear physical distinctions that prove to be advantageous for one over the other in this context then I see no problem.  

Do you look at the entire spectrum of competitors, or only the edge cases? IOW, are we comparing a person who is (gender)-assigned-at-birth but is transgender with an olympic athlete, or me?

 

 

Quote

let's simplify it down just for arguments sake, 

Is it accepted that in general males hold a distinct physical advantage over females when it comes to strength & power? I believe this is most people's view, would you agree?

Is this distinction highlighted mostly in elite athletic sporting disciplines? The figures from sporting results clearly indicate that this is fact.

I don't disagree with either.

But we also recognize that someone who is 6' 8" probably has an advantage over most people of even above average height (say, 6'2") in basketball or volleyball and nobody is complaining about accommodations for short people.

 

Quote

I believe these are 2 good arguments to warrant an investigation into whether its fair to cis gender females to allow transgender females (once male, possibly still retaining physical advantages)to compete in the same category. 

I've stated this a few times, I'm not an authority on this, I'm not a performance biologist. My only concern is that society and culture focusses so much on discrimination as though all discrimination is negative, when in fact some discrimination is positive and a requirement.

Discrimination:

1.  the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, sex, or disability.

2.  recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.

Sex here does or could include gender. The realities I pointed out earlier mean this is more nuanced than a simple binary choice, and the courts have a say in what constitutes sex/gender in terms of discrimination. Do we make an exception for sports? If so, why?

 

[TheVat]

10 hours ago, iNow said:

It was about many things, one of which was rather overwhelming support from thousands of current female athletes competing in existing female leagues. The idea shared was of them rejecting the entire premise that they needed protection from do-gooders seeking to exclude transgendered females, or that it even mattered if the science showed transgendered females MIGHT benefit from some minuscule advantage. 

1. Overwhelming support is irrelevant to the biology question - it's a sociological factoid that has zero bearing on any data that may confirm or disconfirm a significant difference in physiological capacity between trans and cis players.   Thousands of athletes could support having trained poodles on stilts in the NBA -- that wouldn't be a compelling scientific case for poodle/human parity under the hoop.   

2.  "Minuscule advantage" assumes facts not in evidence and yet to be determined.   It is sophistry.   So are emotionally loaded phrases like the snarky "do-gooders."  

3.  There is no equivalence (or "similar in spirit") to the hideous stain of American slavery and subsequent Jim Crow regime to be found here.   Millions of people will not find themselves in shackles,  beaten,  tortured, worked to early death,  and hunted down by dogs,  if it turns out that a few women with male skeletons and fast-twitch muscle fibers and lungs find themselves in a different league than they hoped for.   These sorts of "similar" comments that bring in MLK and 400 years of brutal oppression are a bit insulting to people of color,  IMHO.  

I welcome replies,  but am basically done here.   

[iNow]

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

Overwhelming support is irrelevant to the biology question

Right, but this isn't a biology issue. It's a political one. 

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

"Minuscule advantage" assumes facts not in evidence and yet to be determined.   It is sophistry.   So are emotionally loaded phrases like the snarky "do-gooders." 

I'd find this more relevant if we were sitting right now in debate class or in a formal competition. Since we're not, I don't. 

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

There is no equivalence (or "similar in spirit") to the hideous stain of American slavery and subsequent Jim Crow regime to be found here. 

Let me repeat how I responded to you yesterday when you shared this same feedback when I made a different comparison since the same response applies:

 

On 7/28/2021 at 9:21 AM, iNow said:

Nobody is suggesting equivalency. The suggestion is of one of similarity. 

 

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

I welcome replies,  but am basically done here. 

I always love when people announce their exit from a thread. Okay, whatever... Just stop replying then.  

[Intoscience]

21 hours ago, swansont said:

But we've established that this is more nuanced than "male/female biology" so such comparisons start to prove problematic

But, we start with the premise of male/female because this is how we have evolved in evolution. 

21 hours ago, swansont said:

But we also recognize that someone who is 6' 8" probably has an advantage over most people of even above average height (say, 6'2") in basketball or volleyball and nobody is complaining about accommodations for short people

Yes the possible advantage of someone being taller in basket ball is recognised, and accepted. If it was raised that basket ball is discriminative to short people then maybe it should be investigated and accommodated. Maybe height categories?

My point is, if we want to be inclusive then we have to positively discriminate in order to categorise fairly. 

21 hours ago, swansont said:

Sex here does or could include gender. The realities I pointed out earlier mean this is more nuanced than a simple binary choice, and the courts have a say in what constitutes sex/gender in terms of discrimination. Do we make an exception for sports? If so, why?

I accept we have a binary system and this is based on generally accepted male/female biology and covers the vast majority.  But I'm not the one who's trying to shoehorn all genders into the 2 categories. I'm trying to positively discriminate between groups so that they can all be accommodated equally and fairly. I'm advocating that proper scientific studies may reveal that the current binary system requires amendment or expansion.

[swansont]

54 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

But, we start with the premise of male/female because this is how we have evolved in evolution. 

Do you really think there were no transgender or intersex individuals in the population by the time we evolved into modern humans? We have two categories because that's a decent first-order approximation, which works most of the time for most people, and doesn't require any nuance (which is beyond some of the population)

IOW, part of the reason we start with the premise of male/female is because it's easy. (It's not all that different from physics where we start with the idea of frictionless surfaces/no air resistance because it leads to problems we can solve exactly)

59 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Yes the possible advantage of someone being taller in basket ball is recognised, and accepted. If it was raised that basket ball is discriminative to short people then maybe it should be investigated and accommodated. Maybe height categories?

My point is, if we want to be inclusive then we have to positively discriminate in order to categorise fairly. 

Or we just deal with it and accept the fact that the really tall person might excel at the sport. Not everyone wins. As opposed to "we can't let this person compete because then this other person might not win"

 

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

I accept we have a binary system and this is based on generally accepted male/female biology and covers the vast majority.  But I'm not the one who's trying to shoehorn all genders into the 2 categories. I'm trying to positively discriminate between groups so that they can all be accommodated equally and fairly. I'm advocating that proper scientific studies may reveal that the current binary system requires amendment or expansion.

We already know from a biology standpoint that the binary system is wrong/incomplete. It's a matter of society, politics and economics (and probably other factors) that go into amending this

[MigL]

Sometimes, first order approximations are used because the rest of the terms are trivial in comparison ...

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Yes the possible advantage of someone being taller in basket ball is recognised, and accepted. If it was raised that basket ball is discriminative to short people then maybe it should be investigated and accommodated. Maybe height categories?

If basketball players could increase their height through medical means, I'm sure there would be rules put in place, to 'discriminate' against them.
But if they are born tall ( or a woman ), you cannot do so.

Can we please stop with the peg/hole, basketball, or 'Mike Tyson has a sex change' analogies ?
None of them reflect the fact that including transwomen in the women's competitive sports categories discriminates against ciswomen.
The alternate, transmen, competing in men's categories, does not.
( but it may relegate the transmen competitors to the back of the pack )

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 7/30/2021 at 8:42 AM, swansont said:

We already know from a biology standpoint that the binary system is wrong/incomplete.

All of biology is incomplete. Some of biology is more incomplete than other parts of it. While improving all the time it still seems the binary sex classification system is one of the more useful tools used. How does one defend Evolution from being considered wrong/incomplete without the use of it?

For humans, based on standard biology science currently, it is at least 99% accurate, is it not? And while the overlaps may vary from sport to sport, the distributions, and peaks, of athletic potential  for those with XX chromosomes fall short of those for XY chromosomes, often markedly and most often very clearly.

For elite level competitive female sports the under 1%, the intersex, has long been problematic as to how to classify them and/or how to handicap or exclude them. But this is under 1%, which biology considers intersex. Presumably a similar under 1% in other mammals would also provide classification difficulties for biologists. (yet Biology doesn't consider interviewing any of the 99+ % to help in the classifications)

Further to, and mostly separate to that, drugs have been a problem in elite level sports, including deciding on fair use for medical reasons.

Despite those problems elite level competitive female sports has come a long way. Despite the problems the presence of intersex athletes presents, and despite the problems of drug use in sports.

Now many want to further include some non intersex athletes, potentially any of the biologically male half of the 99+%, to traditionally female only sports, both competitive and recreational. Some even claim this does not threaten female sports often citing the problems of including intersex athletes, as if they are the same thing, or as if they won't add to the problems otherwise already faced. Some claim the problem isn't sufficient to address ("just let them play"). Some believe that scientists or other experts can make it fair, even while arguing the limits of scientists on the subject.

On 7/30/2021 at 8:42 AM, swansont said:

It's a matter of society, politics and economics (and probably other factors) that go into amending this

If you want to include XY chromosome transgenders in female sports to support their acceptance in society what rules do you propose to use? Testosterone targets well above that of typical female range? Unhealthy targets within typical female range? Something else that you think both transgender and cisgender female competitors will be comfortable with.

If you want to include XY chromosome transgenders in female sports how do you define them? Do you simply let them define themselves? What questions do you ask that they ask of themselves? What experience do they fall back on other than their own, and only their own, while none have shared that experience? How do you ask them to differentiate themselves from, say, a gay male with XY chromosomes, with no known biological disadvantage, that also only has his own experience and judgement to fall back on?

 

 

On 7/30/2021 at 2:11 PM, MigL said:

 

Can we please stop with the peg/hole, basketball, or 'Mike Tyson has a sex change' analogies ?
 

One more bad analogy...😛...

...Ben...no let's call him Bert Johnson, identifies himself as a "Supermale" and has increased his testosterone levels under doctors orders for the sake of his overall health, both mental and physical or some combination there of. He was already a fast runner, and now runs even faster His Doctor thinks that's great, and like Bert also and wants him to compete at the Olympic level...who is anyone to deny him his place at the track? (his Doctor points out that his testosterone is merely twice normal levels, much less of an advantage than the 3+ times normal levels that current transgenders are allowed over typical females, and Bert retains no other advantages over his male counterparts)

Not that anything like that would every happen. (I have to add that as I know someone would be on me about it faster than anyone could say "East German Swimmer", or "why doesn't the Russian flag get played at the Olympics, or their anthem played when Russian athletes win?) 

 

[iNow]

As has been shared already and repeatedly, this isn’t about the incompleteness of biology. It’s about the category error people keep making by suggesting males are males and females are females based on XX and XY. For reasons already repeatedly cited, that’s inaccurate, simplistic, and demonstrates an ignorance of the subject matter. 

Edited August 1, 2021 by iNow