Transgender athletes

[zapatos]

14 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

 The solution will be empirically-discovered as ideas are tried out over time.

This has been my position as well. If we choose to at least attempt to include transgender athletes, as for example they have done in the olympics, we will soon discover if inclusion will work. At one time it was believed unsafe for women to run marathons, or in general, to compete in any sport during menstruation. It was only by attempting to include women that we discovered women could withstand the dangers of competition. We can debate all we want, but we'll never know one way or the other if it is reasonable to allow transgender women to compete unless we actually make the attempt.

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

This has been my position as well. If we choose to at least attempt to include transgender athletes, as for example they have done in the olympics, we will soon discover if inclusion will work. At one time it was believed unsafe for women to run marathons, or in general, to compete in any sport during menstruation. It was only by attempting to include women that we discovered women could withstand the dangers of competition. We can debate all we want, but we'll never know one way or the other if it is reasonable to allow transgender women to compete unless we actually make the attempt.

I agree. Fact: trans-people exist. We need to accommodate them because they are not happy. Lots and lots of trials and participant feedback is the way forward, I think. We can theorize all we like, but only by trying things will we find out the real obstacles that need addressing and, hopefully, solutions. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’m not here to draw the lines. I’m here to remind you that it’s entirely possible to do so without any reference to sex and gender. 

Said another way, there is no reason transgendered individuals should be prevented from competing alongside the cisgendered folks already doing so. 

...unless they are too good, correct? Then you exclude them, but not because they are transgender, but because they are better than some arbitrary but hard to define level, and you can point to many other cis-gender women that have been excluded as well, while many cis-gender males are eligible?

I have np problem with this for recreational sports. It can still be quite healthy and competitive.

But it basically sets women's elite sports back about a hundred years, so I'm not for that as a replacement. I say experiment all you like, but leave elite XX sports as originally intended and exclude XY individuals.

And let any naturally high testosterone level athletes compete without insisting they reduce their testosterone levels through any unnatural means.

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

unless they are too good, correct?

What is it about my position supporting merit-based entry and classification systems across sports divisions that is so difficult for you to comprehend?

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

it basically sets women's elite sports back about a hundred years

You’ve repeated this rather often. I’m not convinced it’s either true or relevant. Can you convince me?

[zapatos]

25 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

it basically sets women's elite sports back about a hundred years,

But this statement assumes that there are no possible reasonable solutions to allowing trans women to compete at the elite level, right? If so, are you convinced that all possible solutions have been reviewed/attempted/whatever and found wanting?

[J.C.MacSwell]

29 minutes ago, iNow said:

What is it about my position supporting merit-based entry and classification systems across sports divisions that is so difficult for you to comprehend?

 

The part where you hand wave "merit". What exactly do you mean by that? Are you not excluding all those judged to have too much of an advantage? Or do you have some other criteria in mind  besides sports potential? Community service?

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

But this statement assumes that there are no possible reasonable solutions to allowing trans women to compete at the elite level, right? If so, are you convinced that all possible solutions have been reviewed/attempted/whatever and found wanting?

No. It assumes my interpretation of INow's "solution" that he assures me is incorrect and he will hopefully elaborate on.

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

No. It assumes my interpretation of INow's "solution" that he assures me is incorrect and he will hopefully elaborate on.

Okay. So maybe I'm misunderstanding you but when you say "...experiment all you like, but leave elite XX sports as originally intended and exclude XY individuals", it sounds like you are saying you've concluded that trans women should not compete with cis women. If that is what you are saying, why can't we experiment with it?

[J.C.MacSwell]

Don't get me wrong though. I do believe there is no likely way to include all transgender females in a healthy manner (no unhealthy encouragement of drugs) while being fair in a competitive sense (similar to what elite males enjoy) to cis-gender women.

 

14 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Okay. So maybe I'm misunderstanding you but when you say "...experiment all you like, but leave elite XX sports as originally intended and exclude XY individuals", it sounds like you are saying you've concluded that trans women should not compete with cis women. If that is what you are saying, why can't we experiment with it?

As long as it's safe, and most of it is, there is nothing wrong with including trans women in competition against anyone.

The issue is the current necessity of discluding them for most elite women's sport. There are good reasons not to allow them to compete. So I agree with much of the current intent to stop their inclusion. I just don't agree with some of the methods which I think are contrary to clean sport, and not good for the trans athletes, or the intersex in particular, some of whom should be allowed to compete IMO. (with no more obligation to alter there natural chemistry than any other athlete)

 

Edited July 10, 2023 by J.C.MacSwell

[zapatos]

13 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

As long as it's safe, and most of it is, there is nothing wrong with including trans women in competition against anyone.

The issue is the current necessity of discluding them for most elite women's sport. There are good reasons not to allow them to compete. So I agree with much of the current intent to stop their inclusion. I just don't agree with some of the methods which I think are contrary to clean sport, and not good for the trans athletes, or the intersex in particular.

Okay, thanks for clarifying. Yours seems to me to be a reasoned position. Not that you were looking for my seal of approval but I wanted you to know what I thought. 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

"merit". What exactly do you mean by that? Are you not excluding all those judged to have too much of an advantage?

How is this any different than it already is today? The better players elevate to the next level. We don’t let Labron James play on the junior varsity basketball team, either. So what?

You continue operating on this fallacious premise that all trans athletes are massive Hulked out she monsters who can bench press dump trunks. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

How is this any different than it already is today? The better players elevate to the next level. We don’t let Labron James play on the junior varsity basketball team, either. So what?

 

Today we don't generally exclude XX females from elite women's sports, as long as they follow the same set of rules as everyone else (no banned substances or similar attempts to gain unnatural advantages) regardless of how good or exceptional they may be.

I say generally, because they do put some restrictions on intersex XX athletes. (I understand why some might want to exclude them, or not (closer to my position on some intersex athletes), but I don't see this as any reason to include any XY athletes (some mixed chromosome examples notwithstanding)

30 minutes ago, iNow said:

You continue operating on this fallacious premise that all trans athletes are massive Hulked out she monsters who can bench press dump trunks. 

Where have I suggested anything of the sort? And since you won't find anything...what compels you to say that?

[dimreepr]

14 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If gender doesn't enter the equation there are many, many XY individuals that can compete favourably with the very few few most elite XX individuals. Drawing the line of any merit based approach is problematic...get it right and by sheer numbers you will see an XY individual on top of the podium most of the time...get it wrong and it's almost a certainty.

Unless of course you re-decide to include gender as part of the criteria...and hope to limit those with XY chromosomes to just a "handful" by some arbitrary means.

Elite sport's is essentially a beauty contest, it will shuffle itself, from miss/mr Stroud all the way to mr/miss World.

My brother was entered into a miss Stroud contest (true story), he didn't win he came 3rd, I think it was honorary. 🤒

Every man/woman/person made rule is arbitrary and sport is nothing more than entertainment...

I can understand why a woman (I can't understand why we're fixated on the female side of the argument, it goes both ways) elite athlete is complaining, because HER pay day is threatened; I can't understand why a @J.C.MacSwell is complaining, what's the threat to you?

Edited July 10, 2023 by dimreepr

[StringJunky]

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I can understand why a woman (I can't understand why we're fixated on the female side of the argument, it goes both ways) elite athlete is complaining, because HER pay day is threatened; I can't understand why a @J.C.MacSwell is complaining, what's the threat to you?

Because he's concerned about the effect on elite women's sport... a valid concern. How much it matters, is what is being discussed. You can't just say MYOB.

Edited July 10, 2023 by StringJunky

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

Because he's concerned about the effect on elite women's sport... a valid concern.

What effect and how, and to whom is it concerning?

Other than JC

 

[StringJunky]

Just now, dimreepr said:

What effect and how, and to whom is it concerning?

Lots of people... Janine Rowling (H. Potter) for one well-known one. All the feminists that are complaining that all their hard work is being 'usurped' by 'men'.

[dimreepr]

It's the same argument every year on "Strictly come dancing", he/she is going to win and they're a truely shit dancer, how is that fair to the dancers with a bit of talent.

 

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

Lots of people... Janine Rowling (H. Potter) for one well-known one. All the feminists that are complaining that all their hard work is being 'usurped' by 'men'.

Well then they're wrong, because these people are women.

[mistermack]

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Well then they're wrong, because these people are women.

If that's the case, they will have no trouble proving it. And I don't think that self-identifying is going to count as proof.

[dimreepr]

Just now, mistermack said:

If that's the case, they will have no trouble proving it. And I don't think that self-identifying is going to count as proof.

What proof did you have in mind?

They can't have children "which is no-ones fault, not even the Romans", is that the measure of a woman? 

If so, I don't know how I'm going to tell my mum that she's turned into a man... 🙄

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

What proof did you have in mind?

If I was a woman, and they asked for proof, I would just give them a dna sample.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

If so, I don't know how I'm going to tell my mum that she's turned into a man... 🙄

She'd still be a woman. That's rather the point. 

[iNow]

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

All the feminists that are complaining that all their hard work is being 'usurped' by 'men'.

Which is why I reference acceptance (more specifically, the lack of acceptance) as part of the problem. These trans individuals are not accurately described as "men." Continuing to use the wrong labels for them is a form of prejudice.

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

She'd still be a woman. That's rather the point. 

Like this, for example. Refusal to accept them. 

12 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Where have I suggested anything of the sort?

In fairness to you, this is my own interpretation of your comments and not something you've explicitly stated. However, it's embedded in nearly every comment you make.

You continue talking about how unfair it would be for a person born with XY chromosomes to compete in elite sports previously populated solely with those born with XX chromosomes. The suggestion is that the trans person born XY is somehow physically stronger, faster, etc. Multiple examples have been provided that this is not generally the case, yet you continue pursuing this line of argumentation.

I am trying to summarize all of this by saying "not all trans athletes born XY are physically more capable than those born XX."

Some might be, but not all... and your posts thus far don't seem to include that important nuance or acknowledgement. It's been suggested in this and nearly every other trans-related thread in which you've participated.... this idea that the trans athlete is a hulking brute who will dominate and hurt the poor defenseless lady folk. 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

If I was a woman, and they asked for proof, I would just give them a dna sample.

How would that be proof? And (as I asked previously) what does make one a woman?  Do you have a comprehensive set of criteria? Something that’s more accurate and precise than middle-school biology.

[TheVat]

A lot of the arguments against XY participation seem to me structurally similar to someone arguing against Swedish-American girls in sports.  Those girls are big-boned and strong, it's really an unfair advantage and they're going to break the delicate bones of the other girls.  I'm sure there are anecdotes.  I'm sure we could have sixty pages of homing in on detailed analysis of Swedish girls, and there would be many anecdotes about brutish Swedish girls annihilating other girls on playing fields and the awful spectre of driving out non-Swedes from elite sports and Olympics.  

Just saying there is a reason regulars withdraw from this thread.  Just not worth it to watch the endless reycling of arguments and parading of anecdotes.  

Skoal!

 

[StringJunky]

17 hours ago, iNow said:

You’ve repeated this rather often. I’m not convinced it’s either true or relevant. Can you convince me?

62.7659874% of statistics are made up.

[mistermack]

30 minutes ago, swansont said:

How would that be proof?

If my sex chromosomes were xx, that would prove I was female. I would say that that's accurate and precise. 

There is an extremely rare syndrome called XX male syndrome, but barring that very very rare occurrence, I would say that an xx result would be good enough proof. 

44 minutes ago, swansont said:

And (as I asked previously) what does make one a woman?

First question, are you female? (see above)

Second question, do you have Swyer syndrome? (also extremely rare)

Yes to either of those makes you a woman, as far as I can tell. 

But it's easier to say what doesn't make you a woman, and that is performing gender re-assignment treatment on a genetically normal XY male. 

[swansont]

So I guess it’s the middle-school biology answer.