Transgender athletes

[iNow]

15 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think it highlights XY dominance in sport.

Great. Where's your evidence underlying this repeated claim that all of these dominant athletes are XY chromosomal?

[StringJunky]

Talking solely in terms of two sets of chromosomes is not describing things properly. For sport,I think we need a set of classes that  are not based on gender, and compiling pertinent parameters suitable  for each class.  I think it reflects the continuum nature of gender differentiation 

 

Edited August 2, 2021 by StringJunky

[iNow]

14 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Talking solely in terms of two sets of chromosomes is not describing things properly. For sport,I think we need a set of classes that  are not based on gender, and compiling pertinent parameters suitable  for each class.  I think it reflects the continuum nature of gender differentiation 

Agreed. This seems to me to be the only plausible solution which ensures the fairness in competition we all seem to desire 

[StringJunky]

21 minutes ago, iNow said:

Agreed. This seems to me to be the only plausible solution which ensures the fairness in competition we all seem to desire 

Yes. We are genetically hard-wired to to sub-classify ad infinitum everything when describing our experience, so this idea is a natural extension of how we actually behave. Unfortunately, tradition is the counterforce to things changing as quick as we'd like.

Edited August 3, 2021 by StringJunky

[MigL]

I guess you finally realized the unfairness of the situation, INow. 

The US national Women's Team got trounced, and could not compete, against the Canadian National Women's Team, at the Olympics, because we have a transgender, non-binary player named Quinn ( not their full birth name ).
They are the first transgendered, non-binary person to medal at the Olympics.

Where are the American transgendered, non-binary athletes ?
Don't ever accuse Canadians like JC, or I, of being non-inclusive, or transphobic.
😄 😄 😄

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

I guess you finally realized the unfairness of the situation, INow. 

The US national Women's Team got trounced, and could not compete, against the Canadian National Women's Team, at the Olympics, because we have a transgender, non-binary player named Quinn ( not their full birth name ).
They are the first transgendered, non-binary person to medal at the Olympics.

Where are the American transgendered, non-binary athletes ?
Don't ever accuse Canadians like JC, or I, of being non-inclusive, or transphobic.
😄 😄 😄

Not only that...but I'm sure we're a lot happier about it than Megan Rapinoe...😄

[iNow]

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

I guess you finally realized the unfairness of the situation, INow

I’ve seen far more unfairness on one side of this particular equation than I’d like.

The desire to move us all passed it into a better more inclusive future… and to recognize that fighting for those “poor oppressed cis-gendered athletes” is most charitably described as misguided… has motivated me throughout this discussion. 

Congrats on your team winning, and congrats to Quinn for overcoming the already overwhelming hurdles that come with making it to the Olympics… as well as the countless others she’s surely faced all throughout her life just for being herself as a transgendered human. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

I’ve seen far more unfairness on one side of this particular equation than I’d like.

The desire to move us all passed it into a better more inclusive future… and to recognize that fighting for those “poor oppressed cis-gendered athletes” is most charitably described as misguided… has motivated me throughout this discussion. 

Congrats on your team winning, and congrats to Quinn for overcoming the already overwhelming hurdles that come with making it to the Olympics… as well as the countless others she’s surely faced all throughout her life just for being herself as a transgendered human. 

Thanks for that INow. They identified as non-binary earlier this year.

[iNow]

14 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

They identified as non-binary earlier this year.

Publicly, anyway. I wonder how long before that they’d hid “in the closet” bc of the massive lack of acceptance and outright threats of violence so many face daily even today in our culture. 

Edited August 3, 2021 by iNow

[Intoscience]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

I’ve seen far more unfairness on one side of this particular equation than I’d like.

The desire to move us all passed it into a better more inclusive future… and to recognize that fighting for those “poor oppressed cis-gendered athletes” is most charitably described as misguided… has motivated me throughout this discussion. 

Congrats on your team winning, and congrats to Quinn for overcoming the already overwhelming hurdles that come with making it to the Olympics… as well as the countless others she’s surely faced all throughout her life just for being herself as a transgendered human. 

Again, you imply with little hints, that the few of us who are concerned about the fairness of transgender females competing along side cis-gender females, are transphobic. When on the contrary to this, we are actually concerned for fairness and equality for all groups so as not to negatively discriminate against anyone. Transgender and any other gender identity group should be recognised and treated fairly, as should any person regardless of colour, race, religion...

The focus of this discussion is about whether in order to achieve this for transgender females, do we need to, is it possible to, positively discriminate so that there won't be any negative discrimination. If there is a possibility that biologically a male has a clear advantage over a female in performance in sports (which results absolutely prove there is in many disciplines at the elite level) Is there a mechanism more accurate than chromosomes to determine the difference potential advantage/disadvantage between all groups that makes it clear that a person would then fall into either group? Because if not, then the current binary system requires revision to be more inclusive in a fair manner. 

What is the accepted mechanism which determines between a male and a female, then what is there in-between this and how do we, should we categorise, to be able to positively discriminate in order to achieve a desired fair outcome? 

If there is a clear set of biological genders not just a binary set, then should sporting competition recognise this and expand the categories to match? 

The other part of this discussion is on sexual identity over sexual biology. Does a transgender female who is born a male (assuming we have clearly defined this) retain the physical advantages?

The last thing I want is people rejecting achievements of people because of their gender identity due to the system being outdated.   

Edited August 3, 2021 by Intoscience
spelling

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Again, you imply with little hints, that the few of us who are concerned about the fairness of transgender females competing along side cis-gender females, are transphobic. When on the contrary to this, we are actually concerned for fairness and equality for all groups so as not to negatively discriminate against anyone. Transgender and any other gender identity group should be recognised and treated fairly, as should any person regardless of colour, race, religion...

The focus of this discussion is about whether in order to achieve this for transgender females, do we need to, is it possible to, positively discriminate so that there won't be any negative discrimination. If there is a possibility that biologically a male has a clear advantage over a female in performance in sports (which results absolutely prove there is in many disciplines at the elite level) Is there a mechanism more accurate than chromosomes to determine the difference potential advantage/disadvantage between all groups that makes it clear that a person would then fall into either group? Because if not, then the current binary system requires revision to be more inclusive in a fair manner. 

What is the accepted mechanism which determines between a male and a female, then what is there in-between this and how do we, should we categorise, to be able to positively discriminate in order to achieve a desired fair outcome? 

If there is a clear set of biological genders not just a binary set, then should sporting competition recognise this and expand the categories to match? 

The other part of this discussion is on sexual identity over sexual biology. Does a transgender female who is born a male (assuming we have clearly defined this) retain the physical advantages?

The last thing I want is people rejecting achievements of people because of their gender identity due to the system being outdated.   

I wonder how many, and how loud, the cries of unfair would be made, if money wasn't part of the equation. 

The Olympics' has lost it's moral imperative, now that no-one can claim to be an amateur...

The bottom line is, IT'S CALLED A GAME and everyone should be allowed to play, whatever shape peg they have.

 

[Intoscience]

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I wonder how many, and how loud, the cries of unfair would be made, if money wasn't part of the equation. 

The Olympics' has lost it's moral imperative, now that no-one can claim to be an amateur...

The bottom line is, IT'S CALLED A GAME and everyone should be allowed to play, whatever shape peg they have.

 

You are quite right implying that money plays a big part in shaping the system, we see this in everything not just sports. It's important though and I have pointed this out to you before. There is a big difference between playing a round of golf at your local club in an amateur event compared to playing in a tournament as a professional trying to earn a living. Getting cheated out of winning a tin pot trophy at your local club is no comparison to getting cheated out of your earnings which you work hard to earn and require to live on. 

So has I keep implying, at the elitist level where small differences can have large impacts, its important that those small differences are managed as fair as possible. 

Let them just play, its only a game... if we took that attitude with everything in life there would be anarchy. 

Everyone should be included, everyone should be treated fairly, everyone should be treated equally in success and failure. We, like most animals evolved to be competitive to survive, its coded in our genes. Supress this natural instinct and you will create behavioural issues in society. Fair competition is healthy for society, unlike animals we have the intelligence and are civilised enough to collectively survive at the same time as encourage personal competitiveness within that collective without detriment and ensure a balanced healthy society.   

[dimreepr]

50 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

You are quite right implying that money plays a big part in shaping the system, we see this in everything not just sports. It's important though and I have pointed this out to you before. There is a big difference between playing a round of golf at your local club in an amateur event compared to playing in a tournament as a professional trying to earn a living. Getting cheated out of winning a tin pot trophy at your local club is no comparison to getting cheated out of your earnings which you work hard to earn and require to live on.

Then it's no longer a game, it's a profession a job, something we do to make a living; is it fair to exclude anyone from making a living??? 

50 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Fair competition is healthy for society, unlike animals we have the intelligence and are civilised enough to collectively survive at the same time as encourage personal competitiveness within that collective without detriment and ensure a balanced healthy society.

Fair competition???

I wonder if there's a correlation between wealth and the number of meddles won, the data would seem to support that hypothesis... 

Edited August 3, 2021 by dimreepr

[iNow]

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Again, you imply with little hints, that the few of us who are concerned about the fairness of transgender females competing along side cis-gender females, are transphobic

No, just focused on the wrong thing IMO. Misguided, as it were. 

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Because if not, then the current binary system requires revision to be more inclusive in a fair manner

Precisely

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Getting cheated out of winning a tin pot trophy at your local club is no comparison to getting cheated out of your earnings which you work hard to earn and require to live on.

Implicit in this is the suggestion that transgendered females are "cheating" by competing against cis-gendered females. This may be indicative of an unconscious transphobia, or it may not... Just highlighting that we often struggle to see our own biases. 

[MigL]

5 hours ago, iNow said:

This may be indicative of an unconscious transphobia, or it may not... Just highlighting that we often struggle to see our own biases. 

Are you perhaps struggling to see your own bias against differing opinions 😄 😄

[iNow]

Perhaps, but that doesn’t render moot any of my points. 

[Intoscience]

16 hours ago, iNow said:

Implicit in this is the suggestion that transgendered females are "cheating" by competing against cis-gendered females. This may be indicative of an unconscious transphobia, or it may not... Just highlighting that we often struggle to see our own biases. 

No, in my opinion - cheating means, an intent to gain an unfair advantage by knowingly breaking the rules.

What I'm saying is, the rules/categories may require amendment to accommodate transgender groups in a way that their inclusion in competition is not "deemed" as cheating. Whether they have the intent or not is down to individual choice and should not be considered as a given for the whole.

As a transgender person (if I was), I would be quite offended if I were to be included in competition only to be branded a cheat just because of my gender identity.  This is why I keep proclaiming "fair for all". I would also, as a cis-gender be some what upset if I lost out to someone who had a clearly large advantage that was not conducive to the category I was in. (e.g. if I was a boxer in the light weight division and a heavy weight boxer was permitted to fight in the same division). 

Its not about being phobic in any manner, its about positive discrimination to allow inclusion and fairness for all.    

19 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Then it's no longer a game, it's a profession a job, something we do to make a living; is it fair to exclude anyone from making a living??? 

Fair competition???

I wonder if there's a correlation between wealth and the number of meddles won, the data would seem to support that hypothesis... 

Yes, some people are fortunate enough to make their chosen sport their career, I don't see the relevance? We all have to earn a living, some of us have to take what we can, some are lucky and some are just talented at what they do and can exploit this.

Yes, fair competition, we are intelligent and civilised enough to consider the whole. This means we are in a position to encourage "fair competition" for all.  

Along with money and power comes corruption, so I'm sure it is inevitable in sports also. 

 

[dimreepr]

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Yes, some people are fortunate enough to make their chosen sport their career, I don't see the relevance? We all have to earn a living, some of us have to take what we can, some are lucky and some are just talented at what they do and can exploit this.

Yes, fair competition, we are intelligent and civilised enough to consider the whole. This means we are in a position to encourage "fair competition" for all.  

Along with money and power comes corruption, so I'm sure it is inevitable in sports also. 

Of course it's relevant, for instance:

Is it fair, that I was born in relative poverty, in a broken home with indifferent parents?

Is it fair, that the one thing I am good at and enjoy (javelin), I wasn't good enough to overcome the fact that I don't know the right people, who could invest in the chance that I could make it my career?

Is it fair, that I am good enough to make it my career, dispite my disadvantages, but I was born the wrong gender?

Is it fair, that those who have all the advantages of life and have the career of their choice, can also decide who can play with them?

Winning a siver meddle, won't get your funding cut...

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

What I'm saying is, the rules/categories may require amendment to accommodate transgender groups in a way that their inclusion in competition is not "deemed" as cheating.

It's not cheating to change gender, but it is "deemed" as cheating by those they beat...

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Its not about being phobic in any manner, its about positive discrimination to allow inclusion and fairness for all.    

INow is talking about hidden bias, being phobic, in this context, is just a word used to avoid looking for, or obviscate, the possibility.   

Edited August 4, 2021 by dimreepr

[MigL]

It seems some of us don't know the difference between 'equality of opportunity' and 'equality of outcome'.

Everyone should have the former.
Not everyone gets the latter.

Edited August 4, 2021 by MigL

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

It seems some of us don't know the difference between 'equality of opportunity' and 'equality of outcome'.

Please explain the difference...

 

[MigL]

I shouldn't have to...

But essentially, society ( and sporting bodies ) should provide for equal opportunity for all, which means cis females should be able to compete against people of similar capabilities ( which we have been saying all along ); not cis men, or trans females who have the capabilities of cis men.

Once that is provided by society, you, personally have to make the extra effort to excel and come in first in the competition.

Equality of outcome is a pipe dream; if everyone gets gold, even the person who strolls to the finish line in the 100m race, that is not competition.

But it might be the 'game' you keep referring to.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

Equality of outcome is a pipe dream; if everyone gets gold, even the person who strolls to the finish line in the 100m race, that is not competition.

you'll still get funding for silver...

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

shouldn't have to...

Just indulge me...

[iNow]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

It seems some of us don't know the difference between 'equality of opportunity' and 'equality of outcome'.

Everyone should have the former.
Not everyone gets the latter.

Which of us do you believe does not know this difference?

Is it that you have perceived me as arguing for equality of outcome?

If so, then I've failed miserably to accurately convey my thoughts on this topic. It's about equity (whether we choose to address the symptom or the system remains to be seen), but it is not about equality.

 

44 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Just indulge me...

He already did, did he not?

[MigL]

Being directly under Dim's post, I would assume you'd understand it was meant for him.

I think we're all arguing for the same thing INow, but different ways to acheive it.
You seem fixated on the rights of the small underbrush in the forest to get access to sunlight, and want to cut down neighboring trees to give them that access, thereby disadvantaging the neighboring trees.
I want to see the underbrush re-planted in an open field, so that the underbrush AND the neighboring trees are not disadvantaged.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

He already did, did he not?

Where's the one where they all get to play?

Edited August 4, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell