Transgender athletes

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

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. 

XY chromosome athletes account for every male athletics World Record, and every player on every major male Professional Sports team. Does your "subject matter" recognize that? Can you expect to integrate XY transgenders into female competitive sports without recognizing that, and without understanding the implications of that?

Tell me this. If a transgender female high school athlete breaks 10.49 in the 100m should it be considered a World Record?

Edited August 1, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[MigL]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

It’s about the category error people keep making by suggesting males are males and females are females based on XX and XY.

Who are these 'people'?

We have repeatedly stressed the performance differences in competitions, and the need to have categories which allow the largest number of people to compete as fairly as possible; including cis, and trans, women.
I don't think either JC, or I, have brought up XX/XY chromosonal differences.

How many times have you brought it up ?
 

[iNow]

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

XY chromosome athletes account for every male athletics World Record, and every player on every major male Professional Sports team

You keep repeating this as if we’re supposed to just accept it as true, but it’s not. You’ve been corrected and seem to be ignoring those corrections. 

There are girls and women who have XY chromosomes and there are boys and men who have XX chromosomes. There are also genes on chromosomes other than the X or Y that contribute to sex development. There are additional factors that render your position plainly false, but you refuse to see it. 
 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I don't think either JC, or I, have brought up XX/XY chromosonal differences.

Seriously, WTF are you talking about… he did it again in the post immediately preceding yours where you typed this. 

On 7/3/2021 at 12:50 PM, Holmes said:

What about males have XY chromosomes and females have XX?

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

On 7/3/2021 at 4:28 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

Very approximately half are xx and half xy. Claiming that as a "false dichotomy" for the purpose of allowing generally advantaged xy chromosome individuals to compete in the category of those with xx chromosomes counts

On 7/3/2021 at 7:25 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

whether some with XY chromosomes (where XY chromosomes have proven and demonstrable advantage at the highest levels of sport) in the category generally reserved for those with XX chromosomes

On 7/10/2021 at 11:08 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

Those with XX chromosomes clearly biologically female. Those with XY chromosomes clearly biologically male.

 

6 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

the distributions, and peaks, of athletic potential  for those with XX chromosomes fall short of those for XY chromosomes

 

Edited August 1, 2021 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

XY chromosome athletes account for every male athletics World Record, and every player on every major male Professional Sports team.

 

2 hours ago, iNow said:

You keep repeating this as if we’re supposed to just accept it as true, but it’s not.

You claim it's not true?

Name even 1 exception...

Previously you claimed a majority of women's sports organizations were in favour of including transgenders in female sports, with no caveats or restrictions, and you realized you couldn't support it.

This time your claim should be fairly easy to support...all it takes is one exception. 

Name one.

......................................................................................................................................................

For context (and I have no idea why you included the Holmes quote)

Bolding emphasis by me:

On 7/11/2021 at 12:56 AM, zapatos said:

There has been much talk surrounding this so just to be clear, for the sake of this discussion how are you defining biological males and biological females?

To which I answered (now adding the bolding):

On 7/11/2021 at 1:08 AM, J.C.MacSwell said:

Those with XX chromosomes clearly biologically female. Those with XY chromosomes clearly biologically male.

Those with atypical chromosomes not at all clear.

 

I had been using the terms biologically male and biologically female, as opposed to simply male or female where either could be confused with gender (when used to mean by identity or choice)

Edited August 2, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

57 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You claim it's not true?

Nice try. You made the claim. You support it. The onus is yours. 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

For context (and I have no idea why you included the Holmes quote)

Did you miss the very first sentence in MigLs post to which I replied? He said, 

“Who are these people?”

… in direct response to me referring to the people in this thread talking about XX and XY. 

It really shouldn’t be this hard, fellas. 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I had been using the terms biologically male and biologically female, as opposed to simply male or female 

And Charon and others already explained in biological terms why even this framing was problematic. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

28 minutes ago, iNow said:

Nice try. You made the claim. You support it. The onus is yours. 

I made the claim I made. It's not an extraordinary one.

But here's a start: https://www.mlb.com/news/women-break-barriers-in-baseball-history

(note: some current executives, coaches and trainers and some stories of players from minor leagues)

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

Manon Rhéaume (born February 24, 1972) is a retired Canadian ice hockey goaltender. An Olympic silver medalist, she achieved a number of historic firsts during her career, including becoming the first woman to play in any of the major North American pro-sports leagues.^[1]

(note: She played in a preseason exhibition game)

 

You made the one you did. Should be an easy one to support if true. But it's not true, so you can't.

But rather than waste your time trying to find the exception to prove your claim, since none exists, why not contemplate the implications of my claim being true...since it is.

XY chromosome athletes dominate male sports. With no restrictions, they would dominate female sports as well.

So what are the restrictions going to be to prevent this, or is it simply okay to allow it to happen?

Can you even answer this?

6 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

Tell me this. If a transgender female high school athlete breaks 10.49 in the 100m should it be considered a World Record?

 

Edited August 2, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

23 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I made the claim I made. It's not an extraordinary one.

Your links don’t actually show that:

“XY chromosome athletes account for every male athletics World Record, and every player on every major male Professional Sports team”

It actually IS a rather extraordinary claim since it’s almost certain no evidence in support of such an extreme stance even possibly exists. 

Hint: You’d need genetic records for all athletes 

Edited August 2, 2021 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Your links don’t show that:

“XY chromosome athletes account for every male athletics World Record, and every player on every major male Professional Sports team”

It actually IS rather extraordinary since it’s almost certain no evidence in support of such a man extreme stance even exists. 

Not a very extraordinary claim if it just takes one example to disprove it...yet you can't find one.

[iNow]

You’ve been here long enough to know that’s not how it works. Please argue in good faith. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

You’ve been here long enough to know that’s not how it works. Please argue in good faith. 

I haven't proven it as fact. How about I add a qualifier?

“XY chromosome athletes account for every male athletics World Record, and every player on every major male Professional Sports team. There are no known exceptions"

Now how about you rethink your stance that the statement is untrue, and the implications that it almost certainly is true.

[MigL]

Sorry, you are right INow.
I shouldn't have included JC, but I have certainly never brought up chromosonal differences as a metric.
After all,, a pre-pubescent girl is just as strong and fast as a pre-pubescent boy; it is the hormones that become active with puberty that differentiates their later physical prowess in athletic competition.
( remember when USSR girl gymnasts were given puberty delaying drugs so as to give them an advantage in strength to body mass ratio ? ) 

I will allow JC to make his own arguments with respect to chromosonal differences.

[iNow]

57 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Now how about you rethink your stance that the statement is untrue

Why rethink it? I’m correct. You’re not. You cannot say (as you have now several times) that 100% of males who’ve ever competed in male sports were competing with XY chromosomes. That’s an interesting opinion, but your source is your rectum. 

Edited August 2, 2021 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

23 minutes ago, iNow said:

Why rethink it? I’m correct. You’re not. You cannot say (as you have now several times) that 100% of males who’ve ever competed in male sports were competing with XY chromosomes. That’s an interesting opinion, but your source is your rectum. 

Do you understand the meaning of the word untrue?

If I make a statement that is almost certainly true, with no known evidence that it has any exceptions...you can claim it's unproven...but you don't get to claim it's untrue.

You need to back up that claim...and you can't.

What reason do you have to believe there is even one exception, never mind making such a claim?

What scientific evidence even points in that direction?

Edited August 2, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

5 hours ago, iNow said:

There are girls and women who have XY chromosomes and there are boys and men who have XX chromosomes. There are also genes on chromosomes other than the X or Y that contribute to sex development. There are additional factors that render your position plainly false, but you refuse to see it. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

One set of cells carried two X chromosomes, the complement that typically makes a person female; the other had an X and a Y. Halfway through her fifth decade and pregnant with her third child, the woman learned for the first time that a large part of her body was chromosomally male. “That's kind of science-fiction material for someone who just came in for an amniocentesis,” says James.

Sex can be much more complicated than it at first seems. According to the simple scenario, the presence or absence of a Y chromosome is what counts: with it, you are male, and without it, you are female. But doctors have long known that some people straddle the boundary—their sex chromosomes say one thing, but their gonads (ovaries or testes) or sexual anatomy say another. Parents of children with these kinds of conditions—known as intersex conditions, or differences or disorders of sex development (DSDs)—often face difficult decisions about whether to bring up their child as a boy or a girl. Some researchers now say that as many as 1 person in 100 has some form of DSD.

When genetics is taken into consideration, the boundary between the sexes becomes even blurrier. Scientists have identified many of the genes involved in the main forms of DSD, and have uncovered variations in these genes that have subtle effects on a person's anatomical or physiological sex. What's more, new technologies in DNA sequencing and cell biology are revealing that almost everyone is, to varying degrees, a patchwork of genetically distinct cells, some with a sex that might not match that of the rest of their body. Some studies even suggest that the sex of each cell drives its behaviour, through a complicated network of molecular interactions. “I think there's much greater diversity within male or female, and there is certainly an area of overlap where some people can't easily define themselves within the binary structure,” says John Achermann, who studies sex development and endocrinology at University College London's Institute of Child Health.

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

 

How does that in any way suggest that those that dominate male sports are not exclusively XY chromosome?

Intersex athletes are not a threat to male athletics or professional sports...there is no evidence to suggest they could potentially dominate them...and there is no evidence to suggest they can even be competitive at top levels. 

[iNow]

16 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How does that in any way suggest that those that dominate male sports are not exclusively XY chromosome?

Again, that was your claim, not mine. When I asked you for evidence, you replied instead with a deflective question to me… asking about what scientific information would give me any pause or reason to doubt that “every male athlete ever was XY.” 

I kindly shared my reasons as a good faith reply… even though you asked merely to evade the actual request to you to defend your assertion with anything more than appeals to “common sense.”

And now you’re asking me why the article I shared in support of MY position fails to offer evidence in support of the claims YOU'RE here making and which I’m challenging. Good stuff, mate. Really… Can’t script this type of comedic gold. 

Edited August 2, 2021 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

Again, that was your claim, not mine. When I asked you for evidence, you replied instead with a reflective question to me about what scientific information would give me reason to doubt that “every male athlete ever was XY.” I kindly shared my reasons as a good faith reply… even though you asked merely to evade the actual request to you to defend your assertion with anything more than appeals to “common sense.”

Mine was that “XY chromosome athletes account for every male athletics World Record, and every player on every major male Professional Sports team”

You claimed it was untrue.

These are different claims.

I'm pretty sure I didn't make the second one, and while I have provided some evidence for inferring that the first is true, you've provided none whatsoever toward the second.

...and I certainly said nothing close to "every male athlete ever was XY".

Edited August 2, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

You shared “evidence” of females breaking barriers in sports, including hockey… okay.  

And now you seriously can’t understand why I refuse to accept your false inference fallacy suggesting that XY chromosomes were present in:

”every male athletics World Record, and every player on every major male Professional Sports team”

…Or that this is somehow sufficient reason to bar all those 7 total transgendered females from ever competing against cis-gendered females in sports with arbitrary human invented rules?

[iNow]

4 hours ago, MigL said:

Sorry, you are right INow.

Please don’t ever apologize to me unless you’ve wronged me or those I love. You were genuinely mistaken, but I was not wronged by your post and that’s not what happened here ✌️

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

You shared “evidence” of females breaking barriers in sports, including hockey… okay.  

And now you seriously can’t understand why I refuse to accept your false inference fallacy suggesting that XY chromosomes were present in:

”every male athletics World Record, and every player on every major male Professional Sports team”

…Or that this is somehow sufficient reason to bar all those 7 total transgendered females from ever competing against cis-gendered females in sports with arbitrary human invented rules?

You can't claim it's a false inference without evidence the inference is false.

 

You are claiming it's wrong because I can't prove it...that is a false inference.

[iNow]

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You are claiming it's wrong because I can't prove it...that is a false inference.

I am sharing with you that you can't possibly know what you are claiming to know, and asking you to support it with evidence. You've thus far done nothing more than evade and attempt to shift the burden of proof to me. 

[swansont]

14 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Now how about you rethink your stance that the statement is untrue, and the implications that it almost certainly is true.

It looks to me like iNow has properly clarified their position on this, and I agree with the assessment that you should know how this works.

It's not that the claim is untrue, it's that it's invalid without evidence to support it (which is why the inference - not the conclusion - is deemed false). And it's your burden to support the claim.

[iNow]

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You can't claim it's a false inference

I can, and I do. In fact, I am rejecting your current discussion track on at least 4 distinct fronts:

1. You are making a claim that you cannot possibly support. There isn’t DNA evidence available for all of the populations you’re asserting had 100% XY chromosomes. Absent that evidence, you’re sharing little more than comforting fictions, not empirical facts.

2. As I and others have already shared repeatedly here, intersex humans are far more common that you seem to think (possibly 1 in 100 people). Remarkably often, within the same one individual, different genes will be XY while others  XX. The human overall may outwardly express as male or female, but they rather regularly don’t have 100% XY nor 100% XX chromosomes across all of the cells in their body. It’s a mix  

3. EVEN IF your claim is true (extraordinarily unlikely IMO), historical precedent is NOT a valid reason to reject modern changes. Just because “it’s always been this way” doesn’t mean it always must be this same way in the future. See also: Allowing blacks to compete in athletics or helmets in football.

4. This entire line of reasoning is irrelevant to the point you seem to be trying to argue. EVEN IF all winners in past male athletics had XY chromosomes, that has no bearing whatsoever on whether we should allow or disallow transgendered females with XY chromosomes from competing against cis-gendered females in female athletics moving forward. You may as well be saying I can’t have steak for dinner tonight because I had hamburger last night. It’s nonsequitur. 

[StringJunky]

Transgender Laurel Hubbard NZ didn't beat the top cis-girls in the weightlifting in Tokyo.

Edited August 2, 2021 by StringJunky

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

I can, and I do. In fact, I am rejecting your current discussion track on at least 4 distinct fronts:

1. You are making a claim that you cannot possibly support. There isn’t DNA evidence available for all of the populations you’re asserting had 100% XY chromosomes. Absent that evidence, you’re sharing little more than comforting fictions, not empirical facts.

...and having realized this lack of available evidence (despite believing the validity of the statement) I qualified it to:

“XY chromosome athletes account for every male athletics World Record, and every player on every major male Professional Sports team. There are no known exceptions".

But note that I didn't say "100% XY chromosomes"

3 hours ago, iNow said:

 

2. As I and others have already shared repeatedly here, intersex humans are far more common that you seem to think (possibly 1 in 100 people).

Is your "possibly 1 in 100 people" far more common than my "under 1%"? 

3 hours ago, iNow said:

 

3. EVEN IF your claim is true (extraordinarily unlikely IMO), historical precedent is NOT a valid reason to reject modern changes. 

Right. Nor is it a valid reason to accept them either. It certainly does have a lot of momentum behind it though, and that's in part why it's important not to set any bad ones.

3 hours ago, iNow said:

 

4. This entire line of reasoning is irrelevant to the point you seem to be trying to argue. EVEN IF all winners in past male athletics had XY chromosomes, that has no bearing whatsoever on whether we should allow or disallow transgendered females with XY chromosomes from competing against cis-gendered females in female athletics moving forward. You may as well be saying I can’t have steak for dinner tonight because I had hamburger last night. It’s nonsequitur. 

I think it highlights XY dominance in sport. A cautionary point on any loosely restricted inclusion of XY chromosome athletes in competitive female sports.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

It looks to me like iNow has properly clarified their position on this, and I agree with the assessment that you should know how this works.

 

How about "It seems very likely that XY chromosome athletes account for every male athletics World Record, and every player on every major male Professional Sports team, and not much evidence of concern, or optimism, that that may change anytime soon."

4 hours ago, swansont said:

It looks to me like iNow has properly clarified their position on this, and I agree with the assessment that you should know how this works.

It's not that the claim is untrue, it's that it's invalid without evidence to support it (which is why the inference - not the conclusion - is deemed false). And it's your burden to support the claim.

INow claimed it was untrue. Since you posted he does seem to have changed it to "extremely unlikely" though provided no evidence to support his thinking.

 

50 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Transgender Laurel Hubbard NZ didn't beat the top cis-girls in the weightlifting in Tokyo.

For a 43 year old former non elite male weightlifter forced to meet testosterone targets, she did well just getting there.