Transgender athletes

[MigL]

INow has often said we agree on 99%, and disagree on 1%, yet we are very critical of each other's opinions; sometimes much more so than we are of extreme 'right' opinions.

This came to mind ...

And I like Elton John.

Edited May 25, 2022 by MigL

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

So what qualification standards do you suggest would be suitable and fair?  Your idea in my mind just encourages discrimination, basically you are saying - you can play in the with the top players, if you like cause you have shown that you have the skill sets to compete, but tough shit that you weigh 100 pounds less and stand 1' shorter. 

But if being 100 pounds heavier is a specified class division requirement, you aren't going to be competing there.

[beecee]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

Can you convince me why I’m mistaken without simply repeating yourself or dismissing me as a PC social justice warrior?

I don't need or see any reason for trying to convince you or anyone else of anything. My claim stands as is...that is segregation in body contact sports such as rugby league and rugby union, will remain as they are, and what is recommended by medical experts and professionals knowledgable in those games, at least from the age of 10 years. I don't see that changing any time soon, if ever, and more importantly, it is what is generally supported by the majority of reasonable folk.

Transgenders is another issue that hasn't been discussed a great deal, but what is known as per my previous link, is that such positions with say male-to-female- trans genders will be judged on any possible  physical advantages and/or performance advanatges in a particular circumstance and the proper advice will be sort and duly acted on.

I see that as progressive and wisely cautionary actions.

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

Sport is usually governed by a set of rules or customs, which serve to ensure fair competition, and allow consistent adjudication of the winner. 

Sportsmanship is an attitude that strives for fair play, courtesy toward teammates and opponents, ethical behaviour and integrity, and grace in victory or defeat

5 hours ago, MigL said:

Many participants in this thread have repeated themselves, as is likely to happen after 40 odd pages; to single out one person as repetitive is hypocritical.
And some in this, and similar threads, have been called way worse than 'Social Justice  Warrior', or 'PC Brigade'.

Just sayin'.

It seems its a mortal sin to go against our extreme PC brigade. 🤣

Certainly won't change my position or the facts as I have expressed throughout this thread, at least in Australia and with the body contact sports such as the two rugby codes.

Edited May 25, 2022 by beecee

[Phi for All]

8 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Your idea in my mind just encourages discrimination, basically you are saying - you can play in the with the top players, if you like cause you have shown that you have the skill sets to compete, but tough shit that you weigh 100 pounds less and stand 1' shorter. 

It's not just the skill sets to compete, it's whatever the category calls for. If you have the skills but don't meet other category factors, like height and weight, you can't try out for that category. You should always be able to play with "top players" within the group you compete against. 

And I'm convinced you and others know this is what I and others have been talking about, but you've purposely been misrepresenting it for 44 pages now. We're not that bad at explaining ourselves, but you always end up with some ridiculous image like that above as your argument.

[zapatos]

4 hours ago, beecee said:

It seems its a mortal sin to go against our extreme PC brigade. 🤣

 

Who exactly are you talking about?

[beecee]

6 hours ago, zapatos said:

Who exactly are you talking about?

Those proposing that sports such as rugby league and union, can be successfully and fairly played without the current segregation, as recommended by professional medics and others. 

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

Those proposing that sports such as rugby league and union, can be successfully and fairly played without the current segregation, as recommended by professional medics and others. 

Do you know anyone who is doing that? Can you give me a name?

[beecee]

7 hours ago, Phi for All said:

It's not just the skill sets to compete, it's whatever the category calls for. If you have the skills but don't meet other category factors, like height and weight, you can't try out for that category. You should always be able to play with "top players" within the group you compete against. 

And I'm asking for you to give me one example in the body contact sports such as the two rugby codes,  of women meeting all of those criteria and to be able to play at the same level and same competition as men. You would of course be refuting already accepted medical and professional advice anyway.

Otherwise your proposal is nothing but superfluous, and simply done to please the extreme PC brigade.

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Do you know anyone who is doing that? Can you give me a name?

Why do you need names?🙄 It's obviously here in black and white. Rugby league and union are body contact sports where segregation is necessary above the age of 10, as advised by professional medical experts, and previous observational evidence. Anyone proposing anything different is pushing shit uphill. It is mainly necessary because of the bruising heavy contact along with endurance, which by the decisions of the professional medics, sees the women's competition played at 5 minutes less per half then the men's.

7 hours ago, Phi for All said:

And I'm convinced you and others know this is what I and others have been talking about, but you've purposely been misrepresenting it for 44 pages now. We're not that bad at explaining ourselves, but you always end up with some ridiculous image like that above as your argument.

Just as I was previously misrepresented, due to my ommision of certain words in one post, that were expressed according to a number of other posts, making my position clear..

[CharonY]

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

And I'm asking for you to give me one example in the body contact sports such as the two rugby codes,  of women meeting all of those criteria and to be able to play at the same level and same competition as men. You would of course be refuting already accepted medical and professional advice anyway.

I think you are missing the core idea behind the suggestions. If we put in a set of metrics (just a random and likely bad example: lift strength at a given body mass) and use that to define leagues, then likely we will create a group that will almost entirely male. However, it would give an in for transgender athletes to be sorted due to their physiology (e.g. if after transition they maintain a stronger physique, they would qualify for that league, if their physique is much closer the the female average, they would qualify for the other). Again, it is not about finding criteria that would equalize female and male performance but about checking whether we can find criteria that correlate with performance and not entirely based on genitals. 

Moreover, if we can define those criteria specific to a sports, we may have also a better idea where mixed competition makes the most sense, rather than our gut feeling at what women are better at and what men are better at. 

[beecee]

I would also ask, why in hell would I misrepresent what I or you claim, considering that I am all for equal pay for men and women at the professional level of sport, and in all other areas of employment where the same job is being done?

[zapatos]

20 minutes ago, beecee said:

Why do you need names?

You made claim that seems dubious to me. I'm just curious if you actually know anyone who did that or not.

People who refuse to support their claims are generally dismissed as trolls.

Why is it that YOU won't tell us even one person who has done this?

[beecee]

6 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think you are missing the core idea behind the suggestions.

I don't. But thanks anyway for not misrepresenting me as occured by another yesterday. (although I admit to some fault in that)

https://www.playrugbyleague.com/media/1939/nrl-member-protection-policy-revised-27072015-002.pdf

page 10:

6.6.1 Gender identity discrimination and harassment Federal, state and territory anti-discrimination laws provide protection from discrimination against people on the basis of their gender identity. (See definition in Dictionary of terms).

The NRL is committed to providing a safe, fair and inclusive sporting environment where all individuals can contribute and participate. We will not tolerate any unlawful discrimination or harassment of a person who identifies as transgender or transsexual or who is thought to be transgender or transsexual. If a transgender or transsexual person feels he or she has been harassed or discriminated against by another person or organisation bound by this policy, he or she may make a complaint.

6.6.2 Participation in sport The NRL recognises that excluding people from participating in sporting events and activities because of their gender identity may have significant implications for their health, wellbeing and involvement in community life. We are committed to supporting participation in our sport on the basis of the gender with which a person identifies.

If issues of performance advantage arise, we will consider whether the established discrimination exceptions for participation in sport are relevant in the circumstances. Discrimination is unlawful unless an exception applies.

We also recognise that there is debate over whether a male-to-female transgender person obtains any physical advantage over other female participants. This debate is reflected in the divergent discrimination laws across the country. If issues of performance advantage arise, we will seek advice on the application of those laws in the particular circumstances.

The NRL is aware that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has established criteria for selection and participation in the Olympic Games. Where a transgender person intends to compete at an elite level, we will encourage them to obtain advice about the IOC’s criteria, which may differ from the position we have taken.

Drug testing procedures and prohibitions also apply to people who identify as transgender. A person receiving treatment involving a Prohibited Substance or Method, as described on the World AntiDoping Agency’s Prohibited List, should apply for a standard Therapeutic Use Exemption.

6.6.3. Intersex status Federal anti-discrimination law, and some state and territory anti-discrimination laws, provide protection from discrimination against a person on the basis of their intersex status. (See Dictionary of terms). The NRL is committed to providing a safe, fair and inclusive sporting environment where all people can contribute and participate. We will not tolerate any unlawful discrimination or harassment of a person because of their intersex status.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Considering the rarity of the situation and the fact that it really hasn't been considered for that long, I find the NRL rules as progressive and sensible.

16 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You made claim that seems dubious to me. I'm just curious if you actually know anyone who did that or not.

People who refuse to support their claims are generally dismissed as trolls.

Why is it that YOU won't tell us even one person who has done this?

Really? 🤔 I'm not that interested in what you actually believe or think, or imagine. 

Perhaps more to the point you should critique my position instead of playing one-upmanship and looking for argumentive points to boost your own ego....

That position for the umpteenth tie is "segregation in body contact sports such as rugby league and rugby union, will remain as they are, and what is recommended by medical experts and professionals knowledgable in those games, at least from the age of 10 years. I don't see that changing any time soon, if ever, and more importantly, it is what is generally supported by the majority of reasonable folk".

I see the position being put by some to cover all sports as extreme PC and pretentious at best. 

[iNow]

16 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Your idea in my mind just encourages discrimination, basically you are saying - you can play in the with the top players, if you like cause you have shown that you have the skill sets to compete, but tough shit that you weigh 100 pounds less and stand 1' shorter. 

Why can't the threshold for qualification include something about weight and height where it's actually relevant? Why does sex have to play a role at all?

11 hours ago, beecee said:

I don't need or see any reason for trying to convince you or anyone else of anything.

Then you should consider no longer posting on sites like these, because it's not your blog. 

21 minutes ago, beecee said:

I'm not that interested in what you actually believe or think

See above.

[beecee]

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

Then you should consider no longer posting on sites like these, because it's not your blog. 

I'm not blogging, I offering thoughts and suggestions based on morals and the scientific method. Plus of course the question was already answerd thus....

Those proposing that sports such as rugby league and union, can be successfully and fairly played without the current segregation, as recommended by professional medics and others.

It's just a shame some prefer to play one upmanship and other games.

The segregation in rugby league and union, above the age of 10, have been deemed as necessary by professional medical advice and experience, and is sensible, fair and just. 

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

Why can't the threshold for qualification include something about weight and height where it's actually relevant? Why does sex have to play a role at all?

Because experience and medical advice have shown, that no woman will match men in a hard hitting, body contact sport/s such as rugby union and league in all of those categories you mentioned, along of course with the highly bruising contact...hence segregation above the age of 10. In other words, the suggestion is superfluous at best and simply unworkable at worst, for the reasons given.

This is beginning to be fun! Let's forget the two great rugby codes and look at the Olympic sports. Pole vaulting: Olympic record for men...6.03 mtrs: For women...5.05mtrs

Tennis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)#1998%3A_Karsten_Braasch_vs._the_Williams_sisters

"Battle of the Sexes" took place during the 1998 Australian Open[58] between Karsten Braasch and the Williams sisters. Venus and Serena Williams had claimed that they could beat any male player ranked outside the world's top 200, so Braasch, then ranked 203rd, challenged them both. Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple of bottles of ice cold lager".[59][58] The matches took place on court number 12 in Melbourne Park,[60] after Braasch had finished a round of golf and two shandies. He first took on Serena and after leading 5–0, beat her 6–1. Venus then walked on court and again Braasch was victorious, this time winning 6–2.[58] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance". He added that he had played like someone ranked 600th in order to keep the game "fun"[61] and that the big difference was that men can chase down shots much more easily and put spin on the ball that female players could not handle. The Williams sisters adjusted their claim to beating men outside the top 350.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Again, while I have concentrated on the body contact sports and rugby codes, the segregation in many other sports is necessary  and sensible, and that's why this silly elimination of segregation in many sports is nothing more then PC gone mad.

If we look at cricket, the fastest female bowler is recorded by Australian great Cathryn Fitzpatrick, at 120 km/h during an exhibition event at the MCG. Male fast bowlers are often around the 150 kms/hr mark.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 In other words, the suggestion of open slather and no segregation in sport, is superfluous and unnecessary at best and simply unworkable at worst, for the reasons given. In actual fact, such PC intervention, may lead to the elimination or reduction of current entertaining and necessary, women's sport. And I would hate to see that. Again, to repeat myself, before any smart arse attempts to "rail road me" I am all for equal pay for men and women in professional sport, as well as other comparitive endeavours and employment. 

 

Edited May 25, 2022 by beecee

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Because experience and medical advice have shown, that no woman will match men in a hard hitting, body contact sport/s such as rugby union and league in all of those categories you mentioned, along of course with the highly bruising contact...hence segregation above the age of 10. In other words, the suggestion is superfluous at best and simply unworkable at worst, for the reasons given.

In other words, if we split the league according to the factors you describe we will automatically segregate folks which will, for the most part, follow sex lines. So what is the issue with that then?

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

It's just a shame some prefer to play one upmanship and other games.

 

It's called holding you accountable for what you say, not "oneupmanship". Don't play the victim just because you are asked to support your claims on a discussion forum.

Edited May 25, 2022 by zapatos

[beecee]

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

It's called holding you accountable for what you say, not "oneupmanship". Don't play the victim just because you are asked to support your claims on a discussion forum.

It's actually you that needs to be held acountable, considering I answered your question. "Those proposing that sports such as rugby league and union, can be successfully and fairly played without the current segregation, as recommended by professional medics and others". 

You wanting, actually demanding names, is just as I said, your attempt at oneupmanship, nothing more, nothing less. You have my answer. Deal with it.

And of course my claims of segregation in the rugby codes are certainly supported by the professional medical advice sought by the NRL, and as referenced in the link I gave. So your own accountablity faulters yet again.

[iNow]

34 minutes ago, CharonY said:

In other words, if we split the league according to the factors you describe we will automatically segregate folks which will, for the most part, follow sex lines. So what is the issue with that then?

I’m also curious to know. 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

The segregation in rugby league and union, above the age of 10, have been deemed as necessary by professional medical advice and experience, and is sensible, fair and just

Segregating based on size, strength, and ability clearly makes sense. Tell me again why we can’t do that while ignoring how someone urinates?

[beecee]

45 minutes ago, CharonY said:

In other words, if we split the league according to the factors you describe we will automatically segregate folks which will, for the most part, follow sex lines. So what is the issue with that then?

??? The rugby codes are already rightly segregated and have mostly always been, from the age of 10, as per medical advice. I have no issue with that and find their rules and methodologies regarding transgenders, wise, cautionary and acceptable.

The only issue I have is the argument regarding open slather and desegregation based on sex, in all sports, as PC gone mad, unworkable, and actually working against women's participation in sport in general.

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’m also curious to know. 

See above...or to repeat myself again,  the suggestion of open slather and no segregation in sport, is superfluous and unnecessary at best and simply unworkable at worst, for the reasons given. In actual fact, such PC intervention, may lead to the elimination or reduction of current entertaining and necessary, women's sport. 

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

Segregating based on size, strength, and ability clearly makes sense. Tell me again why we can’t do that while ignoring how someone urinates?

It's already done, but according to sex. *sheesh* Let me again repeat myself for what I now see as some being purposely obtuse. In the body contact sports like the rugby codes, no female will match the size, strength, ability, toughness and heavy knocks endured, as happens in the men's code.

I have posted video of professional men's and womens NRL games already, and the differences are as clear as dog balls. The men's game is harder, faster, more violent, more aggressive then the women's by many factors.

It's a real shame that on a science forum, some see the need to blindly adhere to and follow extreme PC demands.

Edited May 25, 2022 by beecee

[iNow]

Your response confuses me because I know you’re not being intentionally obtuse. 

[geordief]

@iNow Suppose one did segregate along purely physical  lines would there be an argument for running competitions in parallel  that were segregated on traditional lines and finding out which setup was more satisfactory?

 

Also,in Rugby (other other types of sport) different sizes  and builds apply to different  parts of the same  team. (some are runners ,some are grunters and some are fielders/catchers)

Would each part of the team have its own physical  standards so  that it would be open to anyone regardless of sexual attributes?

[iNow]

I’m saying remove sexual attributes from your selection criteria and include trans people as a result. All the other same qualifications and prerequisites need not shift in any way whatsoever. 

[CharonY]

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

??? The rugby codes are already rightly segregated and have mostly always been, from the age of 10, as per medical advice. I have no issue with that and find their rules and methodologies regarding transgenders, wise, cautionary and acceptable.

The only issue I have is the argument regarding open slather and desegregation based on sex, in all sports, as PC gone mad, unworkable, and actually working against women's participation in sport in general.

Ok, that confirms that you indeed do not get follow the gist of the argument. I am trying one more time and then I suggest that we give up on that as it does not seem to go anywhere.

The argument of segregation is based on the fact that boys at some point become stronger than girls. Agreed? From there it follows that there is a physiological difference, and let us just call it strength to make it simple. After all if there is a difference, we should be able to measure by whatever means (otherwise there would be no difference).

So let's say at girls have an average strength of 5 going up to 7, whereas boys have an average of 8 going up to 10. So let's say individuals with a strength of 8 or above are too dangerous to put together with folks with, say, more than two levels of difference.

So let's say then that we put a threshold of 8 for the higher league. As no woman might reach it, it will be only men. However, men who do not reach that threshold (and therefore would be at similar risk of injury as women), would also not qualify. Conversely, transgender and potentially some other rare women who cross that threshold would then compete in that league, which would minimize risk of injury.

 

[geordief]

29 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’m saying remove sexual attributes from your selection criteria and include trans people as a result. All the other same qualifications and prerequisites need not shift in any way whatsoever. 

So you would have some fairly thuggish males battering some  slightly  built females?

(I know this happens anyway between males but  would that be acceptable for a 20 stone man mountain to injure a slightly built female in the course of a rugby match?)

 

I don't know if you saw the video of Boris Johnson "running  through" a young school child in a game of rugby for the photographers.

 

Found it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5NN5S9sPFM

Not really very edifying.

Edited May 26, 2022 by geordief

[zapatos]

42 minutes ago, beecee said:

It's actually you that needs to be held acountable, considering I answered your question. "Those proposing that sports such as rugby league and union, can be successfully and fairly played without the current segregation, as recommended by professional medics and others". 

 

They don't exist. You are making up stories because it fits your world view and allows you to pontificate from on high.

7 minutes ago, geordief said:

So you would have some fairly thuggish males battering some  slightly  built females?

 

Are you suggesting a slightly built female is likely to make the National Rugby Team?