Transgender athletes

[StringJunky]

27 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Just as Richard Dawkins said, it's a question of semantics

If you ignore the 1-2%, chromosome-defined sex works, but that's not representative of reality in the actual phenotypes that are out there. Shall we just arbitrarily ignore the 1-2%  and say they don't count because they twist too many knickers? Let's be honest.

The more I think about this and understand paths of evolution, the less tenable binary states become. Hundreds of pregnant male seahorses were released this week to boost their numbers. I don't think nature gives a monkey's. The states that proliferate genetically in any given environment are the ones that hang around. There is clearly room in the human genome for these types of variations in human expression.

Why must gender expression be irrevocably fixed to chromosomes, when, clearly, there is all manner of variations in nature? Are humans exempt from the forces that create these variations?

Edited July 21, 2023 by StringJunky

[swansont]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

I'll take that as a no, then.  

It wasn’t a yes or no question 

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

As far as I'm concerned, a "woman" is an adult human of the female sex. 
Other people seem to be arguing that a woman is an adult human of the female gender. 
I don't agree with that, because it means I can change from man to woman, just by self-identifying as a woman. 
That doesn't match the reality that I observe. 

 

EVEN IF we go with the simplistic biology-for-beginners definition based on chromosomes, there’s the underlying question, noted a few posts back by The Vat, of the more complicated genetics - that there are genetic differences between these nominal categories of men and women, and differences between cis- and transgender people. Studies have shown this*. But that doesn’t come up because of the refusal to engage in any actual science discussion and instead relying on “as far as I’m concerned” and “this doesn’t match the reality that I observe” which sidesteps the science. 

* for example, see
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200205084203.htm

 

[StringJunky]

Quote

As a clinical geneticist, Paul James is accustomed to discussing some of the most delicate issues with his patients. But in early 2010, he found himself having a particularly awkward conversation about sex.

A 46-year-old pregnant woman had visited his clinic at the Royal Melbourne Hospital in Australia to hear the results of an amniocentesis test to screen her baby's chromosomes for abnormalities. The baby was fine—but follow-up tests had revealed something astonishing about the mother. Her body was built of cells from two individuals, probably from twin embryos that had merged in her own mother's womb. And there was more. One set of cells carried two X chromosomes, the complement that typically makes a person female; the other had an X and a Y. Halfway through her fifth decade and pregnant with her third child, the woman learned for the first time that a large part of her body was chromosomally male. “That's kind of science-fiction material for someone who just came in for an amniocentesis,” says James.

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

The permutations are endless... if one looks. Only at sufficient distance and resolution is a rainbow composed of seven visible and distinct colours.

Edited July 21, 2023 by StringJunky

[Intoscience]

If a person wants to be identified as a woman then we need to know by what definition do they mean a "woman"? If that person is free to define a woman by personal choice then what does this mean in terms of identity? How are we to reconcile this ambiguity so that we are all clear on what a woman or man is? If sex is non binary and gender is non binary but labels and categories are then what are we to do? 

In sporting events (since this thread was about this, and being in the biology section as pointed out to me just now. There is clearly a difference in the majority between men and women. there is also one major difference that separates men and women. Women are evolved to have the mechanism to grow offspring, and give birth men are not. 

By this definition does a man wanting to become a woman mean they want those mechanisms? The men that go to the extremes of having surgery to change their genitalia are striving for something. They obviously have a clear definition of what a woman is, what the differences are...they have some definition that goes along with the general consensus of what the differences are between a man and a woman. They want to be labelled as a woman but we are told that the definition of what a woman is is fluid? Then you have those people who prefer to be identified as "other". Fine, identify as you so wish, but in life where there are categories in place to protect rights so how do we reconcile the additional identity profiles with the majority identity profiles such that all are included and all rights go unaffected? 

Interestingly I was reading somewhere recently that prior to around 2017 ish the definition of a transgender woman was a man who wants to identify as and feel like a woman. Then there was a shift where the definition took a slightly differing aspect, the definition became  - a transgender woman is a real woman.  To understand what this means logically we need to define what a "real woman" is. Now we are told a woman is what ever you define it as, its just a label. 

A. "I want to be a woman"

B. "Fine, what is a woman?"

A. "What ever I chose it to be"

B. "OK, but my definition of a woman is a person of female sex"

A. "That's not what a woman is, a woman is a gender label, and sex is non binary"

B. "OK, explain to me your definition of a woman, a female, and a person who was evolved to have the mechanism to give birth?"

A. "My definition of a woman is what ever I chose it to be"

B. "OK, so you want to be identified as a woman, what does this mean to you, what do you mean by gender label?"

I think there is much confusion and too much unnecessary complexity which has no positive impact on society and/or the people affected.  

  

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

If a person wants to be identified as a woman then we need to know by what definition do they mean a "woman"? If that person is free to define a woman by personal choice then what does this mean in terms of identity? How are we to reconcile this ambiguity so that we are all clear on what a woman or man is? If sex is non binary and gender is non binary but labels and categories are then what are we to do? 

I can't believe I have to say this but, "if they have had their dick/tits cut off, then you can be fairly certain that they mean it"... 🙄

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

In sporting events (since this thread was about this, and being in the biology section as pointed out to me just now. There is clearly a difference in the majority between men and women. there is also one major difference that separates men and women. Women are evolved to have the mechanism to grow offspring, and give birth men are not. 

And???

Worm's have evolved to swim in shit; if only there was a category for that... 

Edited July 22, 2023 by dimreepr

[iNow]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

If sex is non binary and gender is non binary but labels and categories are then what are we to do? 

Evolve and update our outdated approaches as we continue to learn more about the true nature of reality.

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

there is also one major difference that separates men and women. Women are evolved to have the mechanism to grow offspring, and give birth men are not. 

By this definition…

Also by this definition, infertile women and post menopausal women wouldn’t qualify as women in your world. That’s rather absurd IMO, and succinctly demonstrates the paucity of this stance.

I suspect that’s not at all what you intended with this, but it IS the most logical next step when pursuing such an approach.

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

 "I want to be AM a woman"

There. FTFY

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I think there is much confusion and too much unnecessary complexity which has no positive impact on society and/or the people affected.  

Once more, and as already previously shared, just because something isn’t a problem for you personally does NOT mean it isn’t a problem for others or that it’s not something which would positively impact those great many others who are sharing and contributing to this society alongside us. 

Edited July 22, 2023 by iNow

[mistermack]

18 hours ago, StringJunky said:

If you ignore the 1-2%, chromosome-defined sex works,

What 1-2% ? Who are they and where did the numbers come from? And what do you mean by "works" ? 

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

A. "I want to be a woman"

B. "Fine, what is a woman?"

A. "What ever I chose it to be"

B. "OK, but my definition of a woman is a person of female sex"

A. "That's not what a woman is, a woman is a gender label, and sex is non binary"

B. "OK, explain to me your definition of a woman, a female, and a person who was evolved to have the mechanism to give birth?"

A. "My definition of a woman is what ever I chose it to be"

B. "OK, so you want to be identified as a woman, what does this mean to you, what do you mean by gender label?"

Alternatively, it could be

A. "I want to be regarded as a woman"

B. "Fine.”

 

 

[mistermack]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Alternatively, it could be

A. "I want to be regarded as a woman"

B. "Fine.”

C. "Go ahead, take the gold medal for weightlifting. And sprinting. And swimming. And . . . . . . . etc. Who wanted womens sport anyway?

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, mistermack said:

What 1-2% ? Who are they and where did the numbers come from?

 

“It is estimated that up to 1.7 percent of the population has an intersex trait”

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/key-issues-facing-people-intersex-traits/#:~:text=It is estimated that up,identifiable sexual or reproductive variations.

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, mistermack said:

What 1-2% ? Who are they and where did the numbers come from? And what do you mean by "works" ? 

The 1-2% who actually understand the topic; but thanks for trying...

[mistermack]

Just now, swansont said:

“It is estimated that up to 1.7 percent of the population has an intersex trait”

That's a carefully worded nothingness. Let's see the definition and what's included in "intersex trait". 

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

That's a carefully worded nothingness. Let's see the definition and what's included in "intersex trait". 

I'm starting to think that you've put me on your ignore list, that would be ironic...

[mistermack]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm starting to think that you've put me on your ignore list, that would be ironic...

If I had one, you'd be very welcome.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

If I had one, you'd be very welcome.

No doubt, you seem singularly opposed to a gender you don't understand; BTW thanks for the neg, it brought a genuine smile to my face...

26 minutes ago, mistermack said:

C. "Go ahead, take the gold medal for weightlifting. And sprinting. And swimming. And . . . . . . . etc. Who wanted womens sport anyway?

OK, so let me get this straight, you're a man that intuitively knows what women are thinking and your conclusion is, they're afraid of men...

Come on Reg "what did the Roman's, ever, do for us?"???

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

What 1-2% ? Who are they and where did the numbers come from? And what do you mean by "works" ? 

We are on page 69 and you are asking that question? By 'works' I meant: With sufficient ignorance, wilful or not, binary gender and sex looks correct... just like rainbows appear to have 7 discrete colours from a distance. Hint: it's a continuum.

I think you've put blinkers on.

Everybody: When the beginning of a conversation has been forgotten, I think it's time to wrap up the thread. Do we want to go around in circles?

Edited July 22, 2023 by StringJunky

[swansont]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

C. "Go ahead, take the gold medal for weightlifting. And sprinting. And swimming. And . . . . . . . etc. Who wanted womens sport anyway?

We won’t care, because they will all have married their dogs. 

[TheVat]

35 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Everybody: When the beginning of a conversation has been forgotten, I think it's time to wrap up the thread. 

👍

[mistermack]

51 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

just like rainbows

Exactly. I heard that red is now self-identifying as indigo. And yellow has got the blues. 😪

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Alternatively, it could be

A. "I want to be regarded as a woman"

B. "Fine.”

 

[StringJunky]

...and to the bottom of the barrel we arrive.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

I heard that red is now self-identifying as indigo.

While your intent was to be dismissive, your example does little more than further refute your own position on this topic. 

You’ve been falsely claiming that sex as a hard binary trait and that counter examples should all be ignored, while others are accurately stating that it exists along a spectrum. 

Well, you know what else exists along a spectrum? Color, including individual colors like Red which is defined as having a wavelength anywhere in the range of 620nm to 750nm. 

To make it plain, your stance in this thread is akin to arguing that “only 647nm is red, and no other wavelengths! Not even 648nm or 646nm!! Why? Because I said so. So there! Nanner nanner boo boo. Stick your head in doo doo.”

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 7/17/2023 at 10:21 PM, iNow said:

This feels too easy. No, I don’t favor detrimental drug treatments.

 

First off, thanks for the reply. I think most here would agree with this, though of course many drugs have side effects and the risk/reward needs to be weighed.

 

On 7/17/2023 at 10:21 PM, iNow said:

I do, however, favor regimens designed in partnership with parents and doctors to support trans individuals in more healthily realizing their true selves in a more wholistic and empathetic manner. 

I am skeptical though certainly no expert on this, in fact far far from it, but agree in principle. On an individual basis I'm not sure if there can be better advise, though of course the best results are limited by the choices of the individuals involved.

On 7/17/2023 at 10:21 PM, iNow said:

As to whether or not that treatment confers some competitive advantage depends entirely IMO on 1) the nature, frequency, and intensity of the treatment, and 2) in the specific sport and the nature of the class/division being sought within that sport (i.e. the details matter here and I prefer avoiding broad all encompassing generalizations).

Generally speaking (for trans females) the treatments confer a distinct competitive disadvantage (regardless of whether they are considered healthy overall for the individual), the main exception being if they help meet some arbitrary testosterone target that enables qualifying to compete in female events rather than male events.

Treatments that go further to meet unrealized testosterone targets are generally assumed to give further competitive disadvantage, and are generally suspected to be unhealthy in many cases. The athlete has to make a decision as to whether qualifying is worthwhile, and there health providers/doctors are stepping outside their mandate if they assist with that. World Athletics now recognizes that, or so it seems, with regard to trans female athletes, but doesn't recognize that, or so it seems (they recognize it but leave it to the athlete to meet increasingly stringent testosterone targets), for intersex athletes and those that transgendered prior to puberty (Tanner stage 2 or 12 years of age, whichever comes first) that wish to compete in the female category.

 

27 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

You’ve been falsely claiming that sex as a hard binary trait and that counter examples should all be ignored, while others are accurately stating that it exists along a spectrum. 

 

For 98+% of mankind, that's not accurate. Gender is one thing, sexual orientation is another, but most of us are one, and only one sex. There is absolutely no reason to include transgenders based on that reasoning. There are a number of debatable other reasons...but not that one.

Life isn't binary. We can categorize most life into plants and animals...but the fact that there are fungi as well doesn't mean you can categorize your pet hamster as a cherry tree. Similarly the fact that intersex athletes exist does not mean those with XY advantages should participate in elite XX sport...if they are to be included it needs to be for a different reason, or set of reasons.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

For 98+% of mankind, that's not accurate. Gender is one thing, sexual orientation is another, but most of us are one, and only one sex. There is absolutely no reason to include transgenders based on that reasoning. There are a number of debatable other reasons...but not that one.

This is circular reasoning. Most of us are one sex if you only have already limited the options to two. We’re back to biology-for-beginners, ignoring the more nuanced picture.

“Sex refers to a set of factors that determine whether an individual is considered biologically female, male, or intersex. These factors include chromosomes, genes, internal and external sex organs, hormones, and secondary sex characteristics (such as breasts for females or facial hair for males).”

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sa-visual/visualizing-sex-as-a-spectrum/

If you limit it to chromosomes, you have two options that cover ~98%. If you include genes and hormones, etc, you have a spectrum.

[J.C.MacSwell]

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

This is circular reasoning. Most of us are one sex if you only have already limited the options to two. We’re back to biology-for-beginners, ignoring the more nuanced picture.

“Sex refers to a set of factors that determine whether an individual is considered biologically female, male, or intersex. These factors include chromosomes, genes, internal and external sex organs, hormones, and secondary sex characteristics (such as breasts for females or facial hair for males).”

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sa-visual/visualizing-sex-as-a-spectrum/

If you limit it to chromosomes, you have two options that cover ~98%. If you include genes and hormones, etc, you have a spectrum.

Bolding emphasis mine:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bies.202200173#:~:text=Biomedical and social scientists are,rather than a binary trait.

"Biological sex is binary, even though there is a rainbow of sex roles

Abstract

Biomedical and social scientists are increasingly calling the biological sex into question, arguing that sex is a graded spectrum rather than a binary trait. Leading science journals have been adopting this relativist view, thereby opposing fundamental biological facts. While we fully endorse efforts to create a more inclusive environment for gender-diverse people, this does not require denying biological sex. On the contrary, the rejection of biological sex seems to be based on a lack of knowledge about evolution and it champions species chauvinism, inasmuch as it imposes human identity notions on millions of other species. We argue that the biological definition of the sexes remains central to recognising the diversity of life. Humans with their unique combination of biological sex and gender are different from non-human animals and plants in this respect. Denying the concept of biological sex, for whatever cause, ultimately erodes scientific progress and may open the flood gates to “alternative truths.”"

Essentially, human sex is binary, with a very limited grey area.

47 minutes ago, swansont said:

If you limit it to chromosomes, you have two options that cover ~98%. If you include genes and hormones, etc, you have a spectrum.

99+%. Most with intersex traits are still XX or XY.

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Bolding emphasis mine:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bies.202200173#:~:text=Biomedical and social scientists are,rather than a binary trait.

"Biological sex is binary, even though there is a rainbow of sex roles

Abstract

Biomedical and social scientists are increasingly calling the biological sex into question, arguing that sex is a graded spectrum rather than a binary trait. Leading science journals have been adopting this relativist view, thereby opposing fundamental biological facts. While we fully endorse efforts to create a more inclusive environment for gender-diverse people, this does not require denying biological sex. On the contrary, the rejection of biological sex seems to be based on a lack of knowledge about evolution and it champions species chauvinism, inasmuch as it imposes human identity notions on millions of other species. We argue that the biological definition of the sexes remains central to recognising the diversity of life. Humans with their unique combination of biological sex and gender are different from non-human animals and plants in this respect. Denying the concept of biological sex, for whatever cause, ultimately erodes scientific progress and may open the flood gates to “alternative truths.”"

Essentially, human sex is binary, with a very limited grey area.

99+%. Most with intersex traits are still XX or XY.

One cannot ignore the outliers because it's inconvenient to supporting binary positions. That would be tampering with the data and actively pursuing confirmation bias as a strategy.

Edited July 22, 2023 by StringJunky