Transgender athletes

[MigL]

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

And how has your original objection changed as a result of being exposed to other perspectives through disccussion? Do you still think the suggestions that have been made will harm cis women's participation in sports?

It would be nice to have women participating in this discussion to get their take on the matter. Especially any women in professional competitive sports. Unfortunately, they don't seem to frequent science forums ( any lurkers please speak up ).

As for my opinions, I can only think of two obvious examples where they may have; in weightlifting and swimming, so not a particularly big issue at the moment.
However, as it becomes more accepted ( there is still a degree of pushback from the public ) I can see more problems cropping up, and it would be wise if sporting bodies got ahead of these potential problems, keeping in mind that the public is the final arbitrer as it is spectator driven.
If the public perceives the situation as unfair, they stop watching, and that could diminish, or even,end some women's sports.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

If the public perceives the situation as unfair, they stop watching, and that could diminish, or even,end some women's sports.

how is that gender specific????

 

[MigL]

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm sure @beecee would profit from treatment/learning/teaching, even if he doesn't like it...

As I've said previously, Beecee is not the only one who's been repetitive in the last 47 pages.
Not sure about the treatment, but we could all benefit from learning/teaching.
That is what we're here for, the berating treatment I could have gotten by getting married.
( just kidding, all women love me )

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

how is that gender specific????

You gotta do a better job of keeping up 😃 .

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

As I've said previously, Beecee is not the only one who's been repetitive in the last 47 pages.

The difference is, the quality of the argument...

[swansont]

56 minutes ago, MigL said:

Would you mind if I quoted that next time the shoe is on the other foot, and some of us are the recipients of nasty labelling, direct or implied ?

Go ahead.

But as I had said, this assumes there is no substance being presented, i.e. the label is all there is.

[MigL]

'Quality' is sbjective perception.
Especially if you are part of the opposing argument.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

'Quality' is sbjective perception.
Especially if you are part of the opposing argument.

Now you're grasping at straw's...

[naitche]

I would think the majority ( maybe not all)  of sports still segregated by sex are segregated by choice of the women taking part, for a reason. 

Those women should be the ones to decide if the reasons for segregation are compromised by  the inclusion of trans women. Kind of patronizing for others to decide on their behalf.

I  see the solution being proposed as unworkable. It complicates qualification,  making it harder for everyone and seems too much like matching every one up perfectly and throwing a dice. It becomes chance, not skill/strength/endurance etc. A prize for every one, eventually. Not much for the spectator in that. Sport is lessened.

It would make much more sense, I think, to create open classes in those sports where the game/rules are adjusted to compensate for measurable sexual differences. Trans men would have an arena option too.

The sports expand and grow from there as they will, if every one who believes in equal participation, does.

My Trans niece said very recently, that  "of course I would have an unfair  physical advantage over women". She is about 5"4 and  'petite' as any of the earlier posted pictures tried to convey. Pretty sure she meant women of comparable physique.

 

[Peterkin]

21 minutes ago, naitche said:

I would think the majority ( maybe not all)  of sports still segregated by sex are segregated by choice of the women taking part, for a reason. 

Why would you think that? Is there a historical basis for this belief? What is the reason women chose this option when/if they had other options?

I'm not saying it's wrong; just that it's contrary to anecdotal testimony I've heard*. It also sounds vaguely like the seperate-but-equal arguments for racial segregation - the result was separation but no equality.     

*Anecdote very far from top elite professional world-class competition, though international. A young friend, who was eight years old at that pre-Covid time, was temporarily relocated to France with her parents. She loves hockey. They do have a Moustiques  (under 9) league, but there were not enough girls in the school district to make up a team and they wouldn't even let her try out for one of the boys' teams. So, tough. She missed two years of development, at a critical age, in the sport at which she excels. Because.... Vive la differance! 

[CharonY]

46 minutes ago, naitche said:

I would think the majority ( maybe not all)  of sports still segregated by sex are segregated by choice of the women taking part, for a reason. 

Those women should be the ones to decide if the reasons for segregation are compromised by  the inclusion of trans women. Kind of patronizing for others to decide on their behalf.

Yes obviously the athletes should be part of the conversation, no doubt about that. That does include transgender athletes. And rather unfortunately quite a few of the laws and rulings do not include consultations with said athletes which, as you said, is patronizing. Note that discussions on this board are purely speculative as AFAIK no one here has ruling power for any sports. It should also add that there is also the issue that sometimes a women's league is desired as women have less support in certain sports due to certain performance assumptions (which we discussed in context of jockeys).

 

48 minutes ago, naitche said:

I  see the solution being proposed as unworkable. It complicates qualification,  making it harder for everyone and seems too much like matching every one up perfectly and throwing a dice. It becomes chance, not skill/strength/endurance etc. A prize for every one, eventually. Not much for the spectator in that. Sport is lessened.

That is not what was proposed, from what I can see.

49 minutes ago, naitche said:

It would make much more sense, I think, to create open classes in those sports where the game/rules are adjusted to compensate for measurable sexual differences. Trans men would have an arena option too.

I think that (or some variation of it) seems to be  what most advocating to integrate transgender athletes are basically proposing. I should add that the differences should not be sexual, but performance traits relevant for a given sports that are likely to be sex-associated. 

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

*Anecdote very far from top elite professional world-class competition, though international. A young friend, who was eight years old at that pre-Covid time, was temporarily relocated to France with her parents. She loves hockey. They do have a Moustiques  (under 9) league, but there were not enough girls in the school district to make up a team and they wouldn't even let her try out for one of the boys' teams. So, tough. She missed two years of development, at a critical age, in the sport at which she excels. Because.... Vive la differance! 

My son wrestled competitively in high school. He would occasionally match up against a young woman, and while I never saw a girl win a tournament they certainly had their share of wins. Just like most of the guys.

But it wasn't just girls wrestling. Anyone who wanted to could wrestle. Some of the toughest opponents were the wrestlers who were amputees (legs). Since you wrestle based on weight class, the wrestler with no legs had the upper body strength to wrestle several weight classes higher. Once he got a hold of you it was a very tough battle.

[Intoscience]

On 5/25/2022 at 7:57 AM, StringJunky said:

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

Yeah but a woman (in general) at an equivalent weight as a male (in general) even if both athletic in build, is most likely to still be weaker and often slower. That's the thing with male and female forms, the way that fat and muscle is distributed and then called into action when required.  

23 hours 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?

How about say a sport like tennis? McEnroe was slated for his remark around Serena Williams.

She even agreed that competing against men she would struggle to break the top 400 ceded players. So based on your system, no female would ever be regarded as an elite player. yet she is regarded as the best female player of all time and she certainly exhibits, strength, speed, aggression, skills and she isn't no dainty little lady and is probably capable of beating on most average men. 

Seems like a step backward to me. 

Edited May 26, 2022 by Intoscience

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

Why even use gender, indeed. If someone demonstrates the ability to compete, why indeed do we bother questioning how they identify. That's exactly right. 

Dear competitor. You qualify. I don't care about your sexuality. Good luck and enjoy the game.

It shocks me a bit this is so controversial to so very many of you. 

You do mean (for physical sports where XY individuals dominate):

"if someone "demonstrates the inability to compete at the top male level" do you not?

Surely you are not filtering them out from competition at any level, correct? You're just removing the Tier 1 competitors from competing in Tier 2, to allow the Tier 2 competitors a chance to compete?

 

7 hours ago, iNow said:

Why even use gender, indeed. If someone demonstrates the ability to compete, why indeed do we bother questioning how they identify. That's exactly right. 

Dear competitor. You qualify. I don't care about your sexuality. Good luck and enjoy the game.

It shocks me a bit this is so controversial to so very many of you. 

Okay. So how is this going to work assuming you have a reasonable method of doing the filtering (which clearly you don't, even conceptually, without assuming best efforts in a trial...the potential reward for best effort being exclusion from Tier 2...a disincentive for anyone wanting to compete in that category)

But let's say you have some reasonable method to do this...where are you going to draw your line dividing Tier 1 and Tier 2?

Let's use the 100m as an example. Should we use the current women's 100m record? Or is that too fast? Let's say it's 10.xx seconds, with the xx chosen to allow elite females to compete, so you won't explicitly exclude the top current 10, 20, 40? females. How many more XY individuals would also be in this range? How would XY individuals not dominate this second tier, as well as the top tier? Is that okay if they do? (Let's not complicate things at this point, and consider also if they deserve equal pay)

[Intoscience]

On 5/25/2022 at 2:26 PM, 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 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.

Your are correct of course, I do, and I'm sure others also agree that in some disciplines a system like this would work just fine. 

However the difference between male and female competitors extends beyond just skill sets, weight and height etc...

Tell me how would iNow's system set the criteria for sports like tennis? 

Also, and I will chuck this one in there because I have experienced just this attitude only today at work. Some women don't not want to be forced into competing against men, they are proud of their sex and would like to maintain an equally accepted but separate category, where they can compete against each other on what they feel is a fair playing field. 

I think there are many more factors other than skill, weight, height strength... that play a part in performance overall between males and females. At the elite level where every little thing makes a big difference then those small differences can have a huge impact on performance, recognition and finances.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Intoscience
spelling

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

And what of sports at the younger levels like schools? Elementary school age... Middle school age... high school age... junior varsity, even varsity?

Currently their is a market at the elite female level in soccer, even though a good high school boys team could beat the World Champions.

 

7 hours ago, iNow said:

There's no market there, no viewership metric that's relevant... so what then?

With no market, clearly viewership is not driving the compensation. There will be nothing like the potential for $500,000/year incomes and any compensation should reflect that. 

[beecee]

7 hours ago, swansont said:

Not a fan of this style.

It's lazy, for starters, to tag things with a label. Almost like you don't have an argument and have to rely on the flash of name-calling.

It also implies that it's fashion, like someone is going along with the crowd, and not that the position is sincerely held.  

"Particularly and sadly on a science forum."  Oh, the irony. How about substantive discussion instead of name-calling?

Let's first touch on my extreme PC accusation. It exists and that's a fact. I previously in another thread brought up an incident of a council in Sydney wanting to do away with "merry christmas"greetings and install "happy holidays" you know, because it may offend some.Then we have what I was "chastised" for in another forum, re casual banter and calling strangers I was interacting with "love". Yet that situation has been shown to be the extreme PC near every day of my life, particularly on the occasion when I called an ambulance to my wife who was suffering a bad bout of asthma, and they were addressing her as sweety, love, and telling me "don't worry love, she'll be OK" And of course then we have this current issue. I'm not going to answer all posts, as obviously my replies would not be up to the educational standards that some of my peers here have. And I won't repeat my past arguments anymore, despite some never being addressed, particularly my main argument re the NRL and their segregation policies under expert medical and scientific advice. And of course the women themselves. I'm rather confident that most in my society are happy with the status quo, with obviously a  few feminazis screaming their arse off.

The other point you raise re laziness might have some merit. I certainly am sometimes too lazy to go back checking on what ssomeone has said or may have said, but on the bright side, my memory is still pretty good for an old bastard.

You are also correct re your implication that I may be hinting at some simply following the crowd. I'm rather sure of that in fact, at least with two or three here.

Re name calling, that's an interesting point. But something to consider may be that I am more to the point, rather then beating about the bush, making half baked insinuations, that are directed in my direction.

On your insinuation in my direction re "substansive discussion", let me say that unlike most of you folk here, I didn't go to uni, and understand my debating style and ability is probably not to the high degree that others may have. That doesn't make me wrong though. One of the best debaters around, but obviously also an extreme right wing patsy and opportunist is this Jordon Peterson character, who would probably make mince meat out of me in any debate no matter how substantially correct I was.

Being a science forum though, I was expecting more along the lines of the scientific method, and the huge differences between the hard and soft sciences, and the difficulties in measuring such "qualities" as toughness, durabilty, strength and all those other factors I have mentioned, that make sex segregation in some sport, as highly necessary for the general protection of generally lighter frame females. The transgender question is answered in a pleasing cautionary way in the rules of the NRL which I dare not post again!

In finalising my contribution to this thread, again I am doubling down on my position, as so far no one has shown me, or agued against the medical and scientific advice under which the NRL and union hierarchy have acted on. 

And as one or two other wise souls have mentioned after a quick look through some of the posts, the public and the women directly involved in sport is the final arbiter, and I am again rather confident that the public and those women in this scenario will stick rightly with the status quo, including the rare transgender argument.

Finally to a couple of others that imo have seen this debate for what it is with regards to a few cases, thanks for the support, but don't be too concerned, I am big enough and ugly enough to understand where some are coming from and why. In that regard, I am beholding to no one (except the Mrs and young bloke) and will continue to express my position that I see as being left of centre, without any extremes of politics  either left or right, and despite some of the rather pretentious "feel good" religious like unworkable philosophical situations that some have championed in this and other threads. 

PS: . SWANSONT: I chose your post to directly answer on spec, and none of the situations I have raised, necessarilly apply to you personally.

 

Edited May 26, 2022 by beecee

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

For one or two it's about a slight pay cut, for the rest I can only imagine it's their ego's; the bias I've been taught, is that women are the weaker sex; so I'll be humiliated, in front of all my peers, if I step into the ring and get my arse kicked, by a lady; that's unthinkable and therefore, via dubious logic, it's unworkable...

Who though, would feel humiliated running 10.6 flat on the World stage at the Tier 2 Olympic Final (previously raced as the Olympic Women's Final)...even if a seemingly random 1, or perhaps 2, non XY individuals happened to make it to that final.

And if the random 1 or perhaps 2 crossed the line ahead of you...it says alot about your peers if they look down on you. You might have also have barely qualified for Tier 1 in the 400 (so no realistic chance to make the Olympics), but done the sensible thing and followed the money...Aunt Sarah does need that operation...and you live in a country without universal health care. (I know you do live in a country that has it...I'm just talking about a very fast runner theoretical you...who might have a sister that's a better runner and more dedicated, but alas lacks the XY advantages)

(you will be happy to know Dim, that though you crossed the line 4th in this fictitious scenario, you were given the Gold medal after the judges checked the recorded wind speed and found it to be neutral...and therefore DSQ'd the competitors ahead of you for running under 10.xx...an impossible result for a true Tier 2 athlete)

Edited May 26, 2022 by J.C.MacSwell

[TheVat]

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

My son wrestled competitively in high school. He would occasionally match up against a young woman....

 

Damn.  I just went to the wrong high school!

[iNow]

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

But let's say you have some reasonable method to do this...where are you going to draw your line dividing Tier 1 and Tier 2?

Let's use the 100m as an example.

You’re essentially asking me to personally define every category threshold for every division of every sport. If I answer for one, you’ll ask me to answer for another ad infinitum.  I’m not going to waste my time with that. 

Right now, trans kids are being excluded, and laws are being written to exclude them. I’m seeking ways to allow them to compete while minimizing impact to existing sports structures and systems. 

I wish people like you who are passionate and knowledgeable about sports would choose to be an ally in the fight and help achieve that. 

[beecee]

29 minutes ago, iNow said:

Right now, trans kids are being excluded, and laws are being written to exclude them. I’m seeking ways to allow them to compete while minimizing impact to existing sports structures and systems.  

Not where I come from. While there are criteria as there should be they are not excluded. I suggest that you, (please don't take it personally, I'm speaking collectively 🙄) get some back bone, much as your President ascribed to after your latest massacre, primrilly  due to of course to the  ease of obtaining aussault weapons and your general weird gun laws...or lack thereof. Why potentially drive women away from sport in general, because of another stupid potential American law. The majority of women, (damn! I repeat myself) in my country are satisfied with the status quo and the efforts to keep them from playing against the males in top grade professional rugby, who are  generally far more  aggressive, tougher, faster, with the ability to absorb hard hits and the probable resultant injuries. While of course probably able to hold there own in darts, etc.

Edited May 27, 2022 by beecee

[iNow]

12 minutes ago, beecee said:

Not where I come from.

Good for you. I guess this doesn’t matter for the kids growing up elsewhere then.

12 minutes ago, beecee said:

I suggest that you, (please don't take it personally, I'm speaking collectively 🙄) get some back bone

You’re gonna need to be more specific. 

[beecee]

40 minutes ago, iNow said:

You’re essentially asking me to personally define every category threshold for every division of every sport.

My apologies for previous post. I was going to drop out of this thread, as I have made my case. Just gave myself an uppercut!!!

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Good for you. I guess this doesn’t matter for the kids growing up elsewhere then.

My point is stopping that particular piece of legislation. Not much I can do from down under. Remember the great spaghetti monster helps those that help themselves!

 

Ooops!!! Gives self another uppercut!!!

[iNow]

49 minutes ago, beecee said:

My point is stopping that particular piece of legislation.

What do you suggest? I’m ONE resident in ONE state with tens of millions of other residents within a country of 50 states. At least 18 of those states have already passed laws preventing trans kids from playing sports, and bills are moving through legislatures of other GOP led states now. 

I’ve got backbone in spades. So, I will ask again… what do you suggest? How do I “stop that ‘particular piece of legislation’?”

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

You’re essentially asking me to personally define every category threshold for every division of every sport. If I answer for one, you’ll ask me to answer for another ad infinitum.  I’m not going to waste my time with that. 

Right now, trans kids are being excluded, and laws are being written to exclude them. I’m seeking ways to allow them to compete while minimizing impact to existing sports structures and systems. 

I wish people like you who are passionate and knowledgeable about sports would choose to be an ally in the fight and help achieve that. 

No. Not at all. Conceptually only. Or choose your own example of a sport with a XY advantage where XX individuals also want to compete at what they would consider their highest level.

I think we both (and certainly CY would as well, but he hasn't replied to me since I questioned his conceptualized solution) realize the potential performance curves of XY individuals, XX individuals, and other individuals, will be different in every sport, and that in the vast majority of physical sports with a well known XY advantage there will be significantly more (many times more) XY athletes capable of competing at the level coinciding with what is currently considered elite XX performance.

And I think you further know that defining those curves with reasonable accuracy will be problematic.

Yet somehow you think eliminating the female category and replacing it with a second tier otherwise open category based on choosing some cut off point will lead to an acceptable outcome. (for any group other than the sub-elite XY individuals that will no doubt dominate the category)

I want to know why you think that is likely or even plausible; Why you think you have conceptualized a solution that others can't see. I don't need to know details at this point, and I don't need to know why it's important that society becomes less discriminatory...which I think everyone here agrees with.

 

[dimreepr]

14 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Who though, would feel humiliated running 10.6 flat on the World stage at the Tier 2 Olympic Final (previously raced as the Olympic Women's Final)...even if a seemingly random 1, or perhaps 2, non XY individuals happened to make it to that final.

And if the random 1 or perhaps 2 crossed the line ahead of you...it says alot about your peers if they look down on you. You might have also have barely qualified for Tier 1 in the 400 (so no realistic chance to make the Olympics), but done the sensible thing and followed the money...Aunt Sarah does need that operation...and you live in a country without universal health care. (I know you do live in a country that has it...I'm just talking about a very fast runner theoretical you...who might have a sister that's a better runner and more dedicated, but alas lacks the XY advantages)

(you will be happy to know Dim, that though you crossed the line 4th in this fictitious scenario, you were given the Gold medal after the judges checked the recorded wind speed and found it to be neutral...and therefore DSQ'd the competitors ahead of you for running under 10.xx...an impossible result for a true Tier 2 athlete)

Firstly, no one in this thread is a professional athlete AFAIK so no direct interest in who comes first, so why shout unfair?

Secondly, this is an absurd argument:

Every athlete knows the rules of the game they play and everyone here knows the rules are arbitrary, so why shout unfair?

In @beecee example rugby; why stop a women playing in a male team, if a. she wants too b. she's good enough and tough enough?

Thirdly, I don't care if my peers disapprove, that's why I'm fighting in this corner. 😉

Please explain how this question is not fundamentally about bias, specifically the cultural bias that women are the weaker sex?

 

Edited May 27, 2022 by dimreepr