Transgender athletes

[swansont]

“Semenya, who has always been legally identified as female” (from the provided link; emphasis added)

She isn’t transgender - as you note, she is intersex - but this is an example of the issue of only having two categories being part of the problem, why there is difficulty in classifying people, and underscores the issue of whether we are discussing sex or gender.

 

 

[mistermack]

Caster Semenya is a difficult case, the main problem being that she was misassigned as female at birth. 

You have to feel sorry for her, but in a way, that mistake brought problems, but also big opportunities for a lifestyle that she would never have had otherwise. 

Caster is 5α-Reductase 2 deficient, according to wiki, and it's "rare, affects only genetic males, and has a broad spectrum." 

Again according to wiki, " Semenya married her long-term partner, Violet Raseboya, in December 2015.[121][122][123] They revealed that Violet Raseboya gave birth to their daughter in 2020.[124]

Her test results were never made public, but the birth of the daughter is a bit of a confirmation of her genetic sex, and how they achieved the pregnancy is their own business. 

But all of the protests, when she was originally tested were just woke rubbish. See her on the track, covered in muscle and male body shape and features, that the reaction was "what is that man doing in that womens' race?" And of course, technically they were right. 

Maybe it wouldn't happen like that today, but anyway, she's done allright out of it. 

[swansont]

26 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Caster Semenya is a difficult case, the main problem being that she was misassigned as female at birth. 

You have to feel sorry for her, but in a way, that mistake brought problems, but also big opportunities for a lifestyle that she would never have had otherwise. 

Caster is 5α-Reductase 2 deficient, according to wiki, and it's "rare, affects only genetic males, and has a broad spectrum." 

Again according to wiki, " Semenya married her long-term partner, Violet Raseboya, in December 2015.[121][122][123] They revealed that Violet Raseboya gave birth to their daughter in 2020.[124]

Her test results were never made public, but the birth of the daughter is a bit of a confirmation of her genetic sex, and how they achieved the pregnancy is their own business. 

But all of the protests, when she was originally tested were just woke rubbish. See her on the track, covered in muscle and male body shape and features, that the reaction was "what is that man doing in that womens' race?" And of course, technically they were right. 

Maybe it wouldn't happen like that today, but anyway, she's done allright out of it. 

The governing body uses gender as the determining factor for which group one should be in, not sex. Her gender is female. According to the IAAF’s rules, she’s a woman, competing in women’s races. 

https://theconversation.com/ten-ethical-flaws-in-the-caster-semenya-decision-on-intersex-in-sport-116448

(sports used to use anatomical determination, which is presumably what the doctor used to assign her female at birth)

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 hours ago, swansont said:

“Semenya, who has always been legally identified as female” (from the provided link; emphasis added)

She isn’t transgender - as you note, she is intersex - but this is an example of the issue of only having two categories being part of the problem, why there is difficulty in classifying people, and underscores the issue of whether we are discussing sex or gender.

 

 

Agree. She is an example of an XY individual with advantage (but not to the typical extent)

It's certainly noteworthy that the competitive advantage is based on sex (as difficult as the classifying can be) and not on the choice of gender. The IOC was obviously on the wrong track when they abandoned sex in favour of gender identification after the 1996 Olympics.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

The governing body uses gender as the determining factor for which group one should be in, not sex. Her gender is female. According to the IAAF’s rules, she’s a woman, competing in women’s races. 

https://theconversation.com/ten-ethical-flaws-in-the-caster-semenya-decision-on-intersex-in-sport-116448

(sports used to use anatomical determination, which is presumably what the doctor used to assign her female at birth)

Very good article and agree with most of it, though I don't agree with #10 that advocates doping being allowed for athletes with lower testosterone than 5nmol/L.

[swansont]

43 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Agree. She is an example of an XY individual with advantage (but not to the typical extent)

What’s the evidence that she has an advantage? It’s not automatically the case.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/39/10/695.full.pdf

“Individuals with this condition have a 46XY genotype (the typical male chromosomal make up), but fail to develop male sex characteristics because their cells cannot respond to the circulating male hormone (testosterone) in their bodies. Although the presence of the Y chromosome makes these individuals genetically male, they are phenotypically female—that is, they have a female morphotype and physiology—and they are usually raised socially as females. The presence of the Y chromosome (and more importantly, circulating testosterone) confers no physical advantage on them.”

 

 

[iNow]

13 hours ago, Intoscience said:

So what is the definition between a man and a woman? 

Sure, I’ll guess! How about: Arbitrary?

If you dislike that answer, we could always choose instead something about “individuals exist along a spectrum,” maybe?

Hmm… no. You’re right. That’s probably arbitrary, too. May I perhaps come back to you on this another time?

Human categories and labels with their context dependence and evolution over time is annoying sometimes, we agree. 

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Agree. She is an example of an XY individual with advantage (but not to the typical extent)

What is a “typical extent” in context of this alleged advantage?

If something is “typical,” then surely large numbers are involved. Yet you’ve been asked several times for evidence and examples and she’s still the only one you’ve cited AFAICT. 

[Intoscience]

19 hours ago, Phi for All said:

You mean difference? Not what I'm talking about right now.

I'm focused on who decides what it means to be a man for you. Is it you, or do you let others dictate what it means for you? And if you decide what being a man is for you, don't you think others deserve the same respect?

Ok that's fine, but if your difference is arbitrary (as iNow suggested) then why bother with a definition at all? Because if we cannot agree on what the differences are whether personal to the individual or in general then how do we categorise and should we even bother? 

Therefore all the sporting categories may as well be abandoned. In which case you will just end up with a minority group of people totally dominating all sporting disciplines.  

If you are happy with that and feel this shouldn't be an issue then fine. I just don't agree. 

I'm asking if a person born with male genes decides they are now identifying as a women then how do they define what makes them a woman and if this is an individual choice based on their perception of what a man is and what a woman is then does that align with the general consensus of the difference between a man or a woman? Is there a general definition which separates the 2 sexes -XY & XX? 

There seems to be two arguments one of biological sex and one of personal gender identification. I just can't see how the 2 can be consolidated to form a general consensus that allows for fair ruling in sports.  

6 hours ago, iNow said:

Sure, I’ll guess! How about: Arbitrary?

If you dislike that answer, we could always choose instead something about “individuals exist along a spectrum,” maybe?

Hmm… no. You’re right. That’s probably arbitrary, too. May I perhaps come back to you on this another time?

Human categories and labels with their context dependence and evolution over time is annoying sometimes, we agree.

If the definitions are going to be arbitrary then how can you set fair rules?

[J.C.MacSwell]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

What’s the evidence that she has an advantage? It’s not automatically the case.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/39/10/695.full.pdf

“Individuals with this condition have a 46XY genotype (the typical male chromosomal make up), but fail to develop male sex characteristics because their cells cannot respond to the circulating male hormone (testosterone) in their bodies. Although the presence of the Y chromosome makes these individuals genetically male, they are phenotypically female—that is, they have a female morphotype and physiology—and they are usually raised socially as females. The presence of the Y chromosome (and more importantly, circulating testosterone) confers no physical advantage on them.”

 

 

The best evidence is that she is very fast and very successful. But of course you are correct that for any one individual it is somewhere between extremely difficult and impossible to ever ascertain it accurately.

Which is why I claim your suggested methods of inclusion will never be competitively fair...in the context I did my best to describe competitively fair.

That said, I am not against reasonable and best attempts to include some intersex athletes....but as per the opinion given in your link, I don't think this should be seen as any reason to include transgender females...that being a separate issue.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

Ok that's fine, but if your difference is arbitrary (as iNow suggested) then why bother with a definition at all? Because if we cannot agree on what the differences are whether personal to the individual or in general then how do we categorise and should we even bother? 

A definiton is also arbitrary, as are the rules of the game; I don't know what the problem is, nobody's suggesting that we let a twelve yo girl take on a professional heavy weight male in a boxing ring.

Just let the people who think their female enough to have surgery, play with other females in the appropriate category; it's not going to destroy the sport if the occasional trans person wins a game, jeez; it's not like the floodgates will open, for all the cheating 'men' who will pretend to be trans by sticking their tackle between the leg's. But if it does then employ a border force sargeant to do the strip searches, problem solved...

[Intoscience]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I don't think this should be seen as any reason to include transgender females...that being a separate issue.

The argument appears to be based on gender identification rather than biological sex (XX/XY chromosomes).

In that your inclusion into categories should be aligned with your personal (arbitrary) gender identification. Which makes no sense to me, since how can we have distinctively fair categories which allow for inclusion without some form of discrimination based on clear definitions?  

15 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

nobody's suggesting that we let a twelve yo girl take on a professional heavy weight male in a boxing ring.

Why not? what if the heavy weight boxer decides to identify as a twelve year old girl? If there is no limit to what a person can identify as and such they would be in their rights to enter the category which aligns with the identification of their own choosing, so how can we stop it happening? 

You are using an extreme made up scenario to counter my arguments exactly which I'm criticised of doing in return -

Usain Bolt transgenders and comes out of retirement to compete in elite women's sprints, he/she would dominate every discipline from 60mtr to possibly 800mtrs go on to exceed every world record by a massive margin and would win 99% + of every race he/she chose to participate in. No one would be physically harmed so no argument there.  But many elite cisgender women could be profoundly mentally affected and would be denied the opportunity to achieve their dream of becoming a champion.  So where is the inclusion and equality in that scenario?

Like I said - inconsistencies are the root cause of all these types of arguments. 

Edited July 12, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[dimreepr]

48 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

The argument appears to be based on gender identification rather than biological sex (XX/XY chromosomes).

In that your inclusion into categories should be aligned with your personal (arbitrary) gender identification. Which makes no sense to me, since how can we have distinctively fair categories which allow for inclusion without some form of discrimination based on clear definitions?  

Why not? what if the heavy weight boxer decides to identify as a twelve year old girl? If there is no limit to what a person can identify as and such they would be in their rights to enter the category which aligns with the identification of their own choosing, so how can we stop it happening? 

You are using an extreme made up scenario to counter my arguments exactly which I'm criticised of doing in return -

Usain Bolt transgenders and comes out of retirement to compete in elite women's sprints, he/she would dominate every discipline from 60mtr to possibly 800mtrs go on to exceed every world record by a massive margin and would win 99% + of every race he/she chose to participate in. No one would be physically harmed so no argument there.  But many elite cisgender women could be profoundly mentally affected and would be denied the opportunity to achieve their dream of becoming a champion.  So where is the inclusion and equality in that scenario?

Like I said - inconsistencies are the root cause of all these types of arguments. 

Has anyone bothered to ask a woman about this?

I have yet to meet a competitive woman that wouldn't happily take on a man...

At anything... 🤒

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Ok that's fine, but if your difference is arbitrary (as iNow suggested) then why bother with a definition at all? Because if we cannot agree on what the differences are whether personal to the individual or in general then how do we categorise and should we even bother? 

Therefore all the sporting categories may as well be abandoned. In which case you will just end up with a minority group of people totally dominating all sporting disciplines.  

If you are happy with that and feel this shouldn't be an issue then fine. I just don't agree. 

I'm asking if a person born with male genes decides they are now identifying as a women then how do they define what makes them a woman and if this is an individual choice based on their perception of what a man is and what a woman is then does that align with the general consensus of the difference between a man or a woman? Is there a general definition which separates the 2 sexes -XY & XX?

So the "general consensus" is what you go by to determine what being a man is for you? You let society tell you how you feel about your gender identity? I think many people do, so you aren't alone. 

It just seems baaaaaaad to me.

[iNow]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Therefore all the sporting categories may as well be abandoned.

Or, at the VERY least updated ever so slightly so as to stop needlessly excluding this already marginalized, ostracized, and too frequently victimized community of trans folks. 

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Is there a general definition which separates the 2 sexes -XY & XX? 

Not really, since there are way more than 2 sexes (which is really an overly simplified childish binary that doesn't accurately map on to the world in which we actually exist). 

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

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

If the definitions are going to be arbitrary then how can you set fair rules?

I've been recommending merit / skills based qualification systems for some time now. The plumbing we use to urinate need not enter the equation. 

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

what if the heavy weight boxer decides to identify as a twelve year old girl?

Isn't this moot if we focus on skill and merit as primary?

Edited July 12, 2023 by iNow

[zapatos]

26 minutes ago, iNow said:

I've been recommending merit / skills based qualification systems for some time now. The plumbing we use to urinate need not enter the equation.

While I believe this method would theoretically work I'm not sure it is practical. Male/Female is a simple demarcation and it is one that is pounded into people's brains, especially females, from early childhood. Men take advantage of women in many ways starting at a very early age. In elite sports women (mostly) get to break away from the influence of men and compete on a more or less level playing field. I cannot imagine that women (or most men) would accept giving up that precious space.

Sports organizations are trying to figure out a way to let trans women compete in women's sports. Meghan Rapinoe has even spoken out in favor of trans inclusion. IMO it seems much more likely we can find a reasonable, "acceptable" solution by keeping the men/women categories and including trans players into those categories by using well thought out, discussed, scientifically based, sport specific, tested and proven rules. As a side advantage, it essentially provides confirmation that trans women are WOMEN since that is the category they would compete in.

Quote

"I'm 100% supportive of trans inclusion," she told TIME. "People do not know very much about it. We're missing almost everything. Frankly, I think what a lot of people know is versions of the right's talking points because they're very loud. They're very consistent, and they're relentless.

"At the highest level, there is regulation. In collegiate sports, there is regulation. And at the Olympic and professional level. It's not like it's a free-for-all where everyone's just doing whatever."

https://www.si.com/fannation/soccer/futbol/news/megan-rapinoe-on-transgender-participation-in-sports

[iNow]

58 minutes ago, zapatos said:

IMO it seems much more likely we can find a reasonable, "acceptable" solution by keeping the men/women categories and including trans players into those categories by using well thought out, discussed, scientifically based, sport specific, tested and proven rules.

This is exactly my opinion too, with maybe some need to flex on the "tested and proven" component. After all, how the hell do we test and prove if we never even allow it in the first place?

I'm arguing the extreme example when saying we need not worry about how someone urinates (standing or sitting or both). Sports rules are TOTALLY arbitrary. It's sort of the nature of sports.

"Pick up this thing and throw it there, but not this way and it's illegal to do it this other way. The person who gets more of these other things wins, but not if they XYZ..." We could equally say you're only allowed to play if you're a brunette... arbitrary. 

Since the rules are arbitrary, they CAN be updated, SHOULD be updated, and the need only remains to discuss how BEST to do so.

I'm all for more testing and proving... but cannot abide REFUSING and/or BANNING.

 

Edited July 12, 2023 by iNow

[zapatos]

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

This is exactly my opinion too, with maybe some need to flex on the "tested and proven" component. After all, how the hell do we test and prove if we never even allow it in the first place?

 

My 'testing and proven' comment had to do with what is already in play. We give it our best shot and if it needs adjusting we do so. We're unlikely to get everything correct right out of the gate so we need to adjust as appropriate. Sort of like the Olympics have been doing. I'm happy they were not so afraid of making a mistake that they wouldn't try at all. Instead they've made adjustments as they've learned and gained experience.

And this is par for the course. EVERY sport has rule changes as new questions arise and more knowledge is gained. Pitcher's mounds rise and fall, how to define a 'catch' in American football seems to change every year, what type of swimsuits are allowed, and whether or not you can have artificial legs. I don't know why adjusting rules now that we have more and more trans women creates such an undue amount of angst in people. We've been making adjustments since sports began.

[mistermack]

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

I'm all for more testing and proving... but cannot abide REFUSING and/or BANNING.

What the hell? That's a ridiculous position. Men HAVE to be refused entry to womens events, otherwise there will be no womens sport. So womens sport, by definition and the force of reality, depends on refusing and banning men. Otherwise, you might just as well have one open category, that any sex can compete it. 

And if you start allowing males who have had gender reassignment  treatment into womens races, you won't get spectators. People expect to see women in womens races. They want to know who is the fastest woman, and who is the fastest man. etc etc.

There might be a bit of voyeurism to start with, but in a while, it will turn the public off. Any time a transgender woman wins, it will be put down to her being a genetic male. And the other female competitors won't be attracted to take part in a race where ex-men are competing. 

The people in charge have already worked this out, and that's why they are taking the current stance. Although there's no guarantee that that position will hold, but it should. 

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

And if you start allowing males who have had gender reassignment  treatment into womens races, you won't get spectators. 

 

I believe you are projecting.

[mistermack]

Just now, zapatos said:

I believe you are projecting.

Opining about what might happen? Sure

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Opining about what might happen? Sure

Okay. You made it sound like you were opining about what WOULD happen.

[mistermack]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Okay. You made it sound like you were opining about what WOULD happen.

Next time I get headlice, you can come round and pick their egg cases.

[zapatos]

12 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Next time I get headlice, you can come round and pick their egg cases.

What is wrong with you? You've been on this site long enough to know that details matter. Why don't you join in with the rest of us instead of insisting your sloppy debate style is acceptable?

Edited July 12, 2023 by zapatos

[StringJunky]

18 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Next time I get headlice, you can come round and pick their egg cases.

The devil is in the details... using broad brushes hides them.

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

your sloppy debate style

I made a considered post keeping to the thread subject, and instead of addressing the points made, you pick nits, about the wording of a phrase. Your debating style is constantly parrotting  "citation" and this kind of pointless and unfathomable nitpicking which might mean something to you, but it's hardly enhancing the debate.

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

The devil is in the details... using broad brushes hides them.

You can NOT be serious!   (Wimbledon on the box)

What is this huge and vital difference, between "opining what might happen" and "opining what will happen" ?

Because to me they are the same thing, and certainly not worth a post.

[Phi for All]

36 minutes ago, mistermack said:

What is this huge and vital difference, between "opining what might happen" and "opining what will happen" ?

The first is your opinion, and we can ignore it or relate to it as we will.

The  second is you magically knowing what's actually going to happen, but not providing a shred of evidence meant to persuade us. So, duh, you get a great deal of pushback from people who put a high value on rigorous, reasoned arguments. 

And you've been doing this to us for a long time.