Transgender athletes

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Bolding emphasis mine:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bies.202200173#:~:text=Biomedica

Quote

 

l 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.

I like the fact that you are citing a paper (I really appreciate it) and it is true that there are discussions on this area in the scientific community. I won't bemoan that this an essay, as this discussion likely has to be at least partially argued outside of a more data-driven discussion. Since the paper is still very fresh, there is not a lot of follow-up, but I will put in here one alternative view on it.:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.01.26.525769v2.abstract

 

Quote

‘Sex’ is often used to describe a suite of phenotypic and genotypic traits of an organism related to reproduction. However, these traits – gamete type, chromosomal inheritance, physiology, morphology, behavior, etc. – are not necessarily coupled, and the rhetorical collapse of variation into a single term elides much of the complexity inherent in sexual phenotypes. We argue that consideration of ‘sex’ as a constructed category operating at multiple biological levels opens up new avenues for inquiry in our study of biological variation. We apply this framework to three case studies that illustrate the diversity of sex variation, from decoupling sexual phenotypes to the evolutionary and ecological consequences of intrasexual polymorphisms. We argue that instead of assuming binary sex in these systems, some may be better categorized as multivariate and nonbinary. Finally, we conduct a meta-analysis of terms used to describe diversity in sexual phenotypes in the scientific literature to highlight how a multivariate model of sex can clarify, rather than cloud, studies of sexual diversity within and across species. We argue that such an expanded framework of ‘sex’ better equips us to understand evolutionary processes, and that as biologists it is incumbent upon us to push back against misunderstandings of the biology of sexual phenotypes that enact harm on marginalized communities.

The paper does provide a nice summary of the gamete-centric approach (apologies for the line counts). This is especially relavant as Goyman et al. argue about the scientific necessity of collapsing those terms. I.e. the base argument is not about what is "true" but what scientifically useful (an important distinction).

 

Quote

Operationally, the term ‘sex’ has two meanings - one, as a reproductive process that60
refers to the transmission of genetic information to the next generation, and another, as a61
categorical term that encompasses a broad collection of gametic, genetic, hormonal, anatomic,62
and behavioral traits (Gross 1996; Whitfield 2004; Engqvist and Taborsky 2016; Mank 2022).63
Whereas some biologists argue that gametes are the only meaningful sex categories (Goymann64
et al. 2023), we find several limitations to this gametic sex definition, particularly for ecologists65
and evolutionary biologists. First, gametes are rarely measured directly, with researchers66
instead relying on genetic and phenotypic proxies. Second, though biologists have drawn a67
direct connection between the evolution of gamete size and other sexual phenotypes (e.g.,68
Kalmus 1932), these traits (gametes, genotype, hormones, anatomy, behavior) are not69
universally coupled. Joan Roughgarden summarized this problem: “the biggest error in biology70
today is uncritically assuming that the gamete size binary implies a corresponding binary in71
body type, behavior, and life history” (2013). Finally, selection typically acts on phenotypic traits,72
and variation in these traits is the raw material of evolution Thus, if we want to understand the73
evolution of diversity, we need to expand, rather than collapse, our definition of sex beyond74
binary categorization.

 

A more philosophical/conceptional approach to this question can be found here: https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2023.86

And an evolutionary view that questions the strong link between gamete dimorphism and and assumption of sexes can be seen here: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2023.04.013

While the latter is not necessarily a reject of binary biological sex definitions as such, it questions some of the basic tenets that make a binary definition useful for biological sciences.

But again, to avoid any confusion, the discussion here (found JCM's link)  is rooted in a gamete-focused definition of sex (i.e. not karyotype, sex chromosomes etc.), which is often used in science, but less in common parlance. Here the definition is base on the size of gametes produced by a group  (e.g. small like sperm or large like an ovum). The papers I added discuss why even with this definition things are trickier than outlined in the essay.

Also, the definition is centered around an evolutionary view  (in terms of e.g. establishing and maintaining gamete dimorphism), sterile organisms are not present in this category. There is quite a bit to wade into scientifically, but it this actually shows that scientifically the distinction is not quite as trivial and straightforward as we have learned, especially when we want to find an universal (biological) system or model. 

[iNow]

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The athlete has to make a decision as to whether qualifying is worthwhile

And trans athletes should be allowed to make this decision, as well. 

[swansont]

2 hours 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.

Even this article acknowledges that there are a lot of biologists who consider sex to be a spectrum. It’s right there in the abstract, where they appeal to the slippery slope.

They are arguing, basically, that everybody else is wrong, despite the many details they admit to in the article.

“For example, in 2015, Nature published an article entitled “Sex redefined,” stating that the concept of two sexes is too simplistic and that sex is actually a graded spectrum”

But, hey, Nature is just some second- or third-rate journal.

[CharonY]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

Even this article acknowledges that there are a lot of biologists who consider sex to be a spectrum. It’s right there in the abstract, where they appeal to the slippery slope.

They are arguing, basically, that everybody else is wrong, despite the many details they admit to in the article.

“For example, in 2015, Nature published an article entitled “Sex redefined,” stating that the concept of two sexes is too simplistic and that sex is actually a graded spectrum”

But, hey, Nature is just some second- or third-rate journal.

I think the idea was to reframe into a gamete specific discussion, but then they kind of got selective and used a fair bit of handwaving without getting into the necessary weeds. The paper I linked picked up on those bits.

But I would still characterize the whole discussion as "what is useful" rather than "what is true" and perhaps ironically they claim anthropocentrism as the reason for this issue, but at the same time they use the same to form their argument and kind if try to simplify things down.

I.e. if an organism changes its sex it is clearly still a binary situation, either they produce ova or sperm. Yet developmental it is not necessarily a full switch. They say that beyond humans there are all kind of changes from being both, to switching between asexual and sexual reproduction or have no sexual reproduction at all. That is all true, but unclear why that would be an argument for binary states? 

They then further argue that sex can be a stage in life, and they say that 

Quote

This reflects biological reality, because biological sex is a process rather than a condition.

But it does not appear that the follow up on what it means to the definitions we use under these assumptions. 

I.e. a menopausal person would then be considered, well asexual, I suppose as they would never produce ova or sperm. They do acknowledge that these definitions therefore are not great to describe the human condition (i.e. applying those concepts would define things very differently, as in my example) but ultimately fail to support why then all things considered a binary definition would be useful.

 

[swansont]

8 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think the idea was to reframe into a gamete specific discussion, but then they kind of got selective and used a fair bit of handwaving without getting into the necessary weeds. The paper I linked picked up on those bits.

I was just about to add a comment about how the article was centered on reproduction, and yes, for humans, it’s binary situation. But we aren’t discussing that particular sport.

[CharonY]

Sorry, cross-posted, and added some more details. But overall I think that the authors attempted to simplify the model, which, in for all purposes has worked fairly well. But more recent research focusing on aspects of sexual selection and evolution of sex has put some dampers on prior assumptions. I am no expert in this field, so I cannot interpret the whole situation accurately, but depending on how good the data and experiments are, (some of which are at least mentioned in the paper I linked above), there might be a broader rethinking needed.

But that is nature of science, the more details we get, the more we chisel on grand old concepts.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

And trans athletes should be allowed to make this decision, as well. 

I would argue that intersex athletes should not be allowed to make that decision either, but where practical some, on a case by case basis, be accommodated in some other manner (even at elite levels) such as we discussed quite some time ago in this thread.

When I was competing (up to early nineties) I had quite a list of drugs, both over the counter and prescription, that I was not allowed to take. These were considered both unhealthy (long term) and performance enhancing (or could potentially mask other drugs that were) but to the degree they are only taken (or extra taken) to qualify I don't see any difference in principle.

In any case having an XY athlete have to reduce testosterone to 2.5 nmol/l is pretty onerous even if it's on the extreme high range of those with XX. It all but excludes them, and is an unfair and unhealthy target...should not be used for any level of sports IMO.

 

 

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

any case having an XY athlete have to reduce testosterone to 2.5 nmol/l is pretty onerous even if it's on the extreme high range of those with XX. It all but excludes them, and is an unfair and unhealthy target...should not be used for any level of sports IMO.

And what if, in close consultation with their doctors and family and for reasons wholly and entirely unrelated to athletic competition, they’d already reduced their testosterone in this manner?

If their hormone levels were ALREADY WITHIN the allowed thresholds for female sport, and have been for years and years, would you still persist in advocating for this blanket ban against even offering them the chance to qualify for participation?

5 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

most of us are one, and only one sex.

And yet even here within the sexes we see a spectrum. Think of the difference between Dolf Lungren and Martin Short or the difference between Janet Reno and Scarlett Johansen, for example. 

It does no harm to the beauty of the rainbow understanding more precisely how it actually functions. Human sex and gender is no different in that regard. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

And what if, in close consultation with their doctors and family and for reasons wholly and entirely unrelated to athletic competition, they’d already reduced their testosterone in this manner?

If their hormone levels were ALREADY WITHIN the allowed thresholds for female sport, and have been for years and years, would you still persist in advocating for this blanket ban against even offering them the chance to qualify for participation?

Assuming "for years and years" includes prior to puberty that might be very similar to some intersex athletes, so on a case by case basis I can see giving them the same consideration.

[iNow]

Well that’s progress then. Enjoy your night bud ✌🏼

[J.C.MacSwell]

 

54 minutes ago, iNow said:

Well that’s progress then. Enjoy your night bud ✌🏼

Having said that, remember that I don't agree with forcing or enticing intersex athletes to take any drug treatments they otherwise have no interest in taking. You enjoy yours also.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Sorry, cross-posted, and added some more details. But overall I think that the authors attempted to simplify the model, which, in for all purposes has worked fairly well. But more recent research focusing on aspects of sexual selection and evolution of sex has put some dampers on prior assumptions. I am no expert in this field, so I cannot interpret the whole situation accurately, but depending on how good the data and experiments are, (some of which are at least mentioned in the paper I linked above), there might be a broader rethinking needed.

But that is nature of science, the more details we get, the more we chisel on grand old concepts.

I certainly don't think this is just all about testosterone levels but here is a question:

If human biological sex is a continuum, why is there such a huge gap between the testosterone level ranges of XY vs XX individuals?

And a follow up would be...why is it so difficult for XY individuals to reduce their testosterone levels to that of XX levels?

Edited July 23, 2023 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I don't agree with forcing or enticing intersex athletes to take any drug treatments they otherwise have no interest in taking.

We are allies in this, as well. 

[CharonY]

5 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

Having said that, remember that I don't agree with forcing or enticing intersex athletes to take any drug treatments they otherwise have no interest in taking. You enjoy yours also.

I certainly don't think this is just all about testosterone levels but here is a question:

If human biological sex is a continuum, why is there such a huge gap between the testosterone level ranges of XY vs XX individuals?

And a follow up would be...why is it so difficult for XY individuals to reduce their testosterone levels to that of XX levels?

If we look at this individual dimension and ignore e.g. the fact that individuals can react very differently to the same hormonal levels). Problem is data is scarce for the few that do not fit the binary definition. That being said, there are profiles in athletes and some indicate overlap between male and demale athletes in the extremes.

https://doi.org/10.1111/cen.12445. However other cohorts show less overlap and there was one study with longitudinal showing overlaps when one considers the fluctuations through life but I think.

But that is only part of the issue. The other is that folks have different sensitivity to hormones. In the extreme case e.g. insensitivity to testosterone leads to development of female features. In sports they tried to implement a testosterone threshold, but now several women have run afoul of it without any drugs (just genetics).

And finally, because bodies react differently there is still no clear correlation between testosterone level and performance. Athlete surveys don't show that top performers have the highest levels, and there seem to differences between disciplines (power lifters were among the lowest in testosterone in the male group, iirc).

 

[swansont]

10 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I certainly don't think this is just all about testosterone levels but here is a question:

If human biological sex is a continuum, why is there such a huge gap between the testosterone level ranges of XY vs XX individuals?

What does the testosterone range have to do with sex being a continuum?

The fact that there is a range supports the notion that there is a spectrum.

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

What does the testosterone range have to do with sex being a continuum?

The fact that there is a range supports the notion that there is a spectrum.

Particular and discernable medical conditions (that very very few have) aside, the XX and XY ranges don't overlap...in fact there is quite a huge gap between them.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

What does the testosterone range have to do with sex being a continuum?

The fact that there is a range supports the notion that there is a spectrum.

There are 2 very separate ranges with clearly no continuum between them.

Biology as a science is far from perfect but for the purposes of say, World Athletics for protecting elite female sports in a healthy manner (even while trying to accommodate transgender athletes where practical) ...the binary model (though not perfect) is useful...where any attempt at a continuum model (with a clear divide between XX and XY ranges) is far from it.

That said, allowing transgender females to compete if they can get in the female range and maintain it, threatens the health of the transgender athletes that wish to avoid exclusion more than it threatens elite female sports. Is that what you are in favour of?

7 hours ago, CharonY said:

And finally, because bodies react differently there is still no clear correlation between testosterone level and performance. Athlete surveys don't show that top performers have the highest levels, and there seem to differences between disciplines (power lifters were among the lowest in testosterone in the male group, iirc).

 

There is however, a very very clear correlation between the top performers in the XX range and the top performers in the XY range in the vast majority of sports.

Edited July 23, 2023 by J.C.MacSwell

[StringJunky]

56 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Particular and discernable medical conditions (that very very few have) aside, the XX and XY ranges don't overlap...in fact there is quite a huge gap between them.

There are 2 very separate ranges with clearly no continuum between them.

Biology as a science is far from perfect but for the purposes of say, World Athletics for protecting elite female sports in a healthy manner (even while trying to accommodate transgender athletes where practical) ...the binary model (though not perfect) is useful...where any attempt at a continuum model (with a clear divide between XX and XY ranges) is far from it.

That said, allowing transgender females to compete if they can get in the female range and maintain it, threatens the health of the transgender athletes that wish to avoid exclusion more than it threatens elite female sports. Is that what you are in favour of?

There is however, a very very clear correlation between the top performers in the XX range and the top performers in the XY range in the vast majority of sports.

As swansont said earlier:

Quote

f 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]

Right (except it's 99+ %) and is a good argument why XX athletes should get there own elite category. 

Choice of gender has no known effect on sports performance while chromosomes do.

[iNow]

47 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Choice of gender has no known effect on sports performance while chromosomes do.

And tell me again when you “chose” to be classified as male?

[swansont]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Particular and discernable medical conditions (that very very few have) aside, the XX and XY ranges don't overlap...in fact there is quite a huge gap between them.

And it’s not the only variable. It doesn’t include how efficiently the body utilizes the testosterone, for one.

[J.C.MacSwell]

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

And it’s not the only variable. It doesn’t include how efficiently the body utilizes the testosterone, for one.

Agree. As I said from the beginning of this thread:

 

On 3/20/2021 at 8:01 AM, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

I think it is very important to encourage transgenders in sports, but I think it will be very difficult to fairly include trans women fairly at elite levels for many sports, possibly most sports. It's simply not just about testosterone, even if testosterone levels are a significant factor. 

 

2 hours ago, iNow said:

And tell me again when you “chose” to be classified as male?

Your point is what exactly? 

You've mentioned a few times that you want 6o be on the right side of history on this. What part of this social and drug experimentation in the name of inclusion do you like so far?

All you've come up with so far is to expand the problem by including any XY athletes that fit around the performance level of elite women, regardless of their gender.

But at least you recognize that gender is not, or should not be, the issue.

[J.C.MacSwell]

With XY individuals vastly outnumbering XX individuals at and around current elite women's level, how long would it take to ask why this level is elite at all and why does this category exist?

That folks, outlines the threat to elite women's sports when XY athletes are included, or included with some vague self refereed gender categorization...unless of course onerous levels of testosterone targets with associated health risks are imposed.

Edited July 23, 2023 by J.C.MacSwell

[CharonY]

5 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

There is however, a very very clear correlation between the top performers in the XX range and the top performers in the XY range in the vast majority of sports.

Yes, but that makes it a singular factor like testosterone rather dubious. And again, we are switching between elite sports (which is part of OP) and the biology a fair bit through the thread a fair bit. And as your link actually argues, the biological concept of sex (regardless whether one agrees with the author's definition or not) is not really helpful or applicable to human questions (such as sports).

And for the latter, the key element is still more information. Studies are indicating that testosterone as sole indicator is too weak to assess risks, for example. Clearly in sports like boxing better indicators appear to be weight, and muscle mass, for example. And if there are better indicators, it would be time to ditch traditional but inferior methods. Some of the papers measuring testosterone levels among athletes are arguing that precisely.  For example:

Quote

We have shown that despite differences in mean testosterone level between genders, there is complete overlap of the range of concentrations seen. This shows that the recent decision of the IOC and IAAF to limit participation in elite events to women with a ‘normal’ serum testosterone is unsustainable. We have also shown that the approximate 10-kg deficit in LBM seen in elite female athletes most likely accounts for differences in performance seen between the sexes rather than the hypothesis put forward by the IOC/ IAAF that it is due to testosterone. The differences in demographic and hormonal profiles seen between sports imply that in addition to specific physical attributes (e.g. height and basketball), there may be specific hormonal profiles that favour individuals excelling in a particular sport

There was a recent paper suggesting that testosterone might have been a factor in male performance (or something to that effect) but then they issued a correction and stated that they actually do not have the data to suggest that (as they did not measure other data such as LBM (lean body mass) as the paper above.

As suggest previously, depending on the types of sports it might be worthwhile to look at a) demographic input and b) potential indicators for class formation (e.g. using LBM or other factors as appropriate). 

Demographics can be important as some sports may have large differences in term of participation. Different groups are then sometimes created not because of performance differences, but to strengthen participation. 

Trans folks are more likely to cross categories that way, but at least they would not be fundamentally excluded based on assumptions. I.e. there is a need for evidence-based inclusion strategies rather than assuming things and then go from there. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

13 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Yes, but that makes it a singular factor like testosterone rather dubious.

Thank you. Two years in, I'm finally getting my point across....Any attempt at levelling the XY vs XX playing field based on testosterone alone is all but certain to fail...while placing onerous and unnatural testosterone targets on a vulnerable group.

23 minutes ago, CharonY said:

 And as your link actually argues, the biological concept of sex (regardless whether one agrees with the author's definition or not) is not really helpful or applicable to human questions (such as sports).

 

Which link and where in it? I certainly would not agree with that. What part of high school XY athletes out performing XX National Teams needs to be misunderstood not to realize that's incorrect?

[iNow]

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What part of this social and drug experimentation in the name of inclusion do you like so far?

Mostly the part where across nearly every relevant metric (improved health, improved self confidence, improved social and economic conditions, reduced suicidality, etc.) those who receive gender reassignment treatments fare FAR better in both the short and the long term than those who don’t (or those who suffer in silence or who fear doing what they feel is right due to risk of public outcry and backlash). 

[J.C.MacSwell]

17 minutes ago, iNow said:

Mostly the part where across nearly every relevant metric (improved health, improved self confidence, improved social and economic conditions, reduced suicidality, etc.) those who receive gender reassignment treatments fare FAR better in both the short and the long term than those who don’t (or those who suffer in silence or who fear doing what they feel is right due to risk of public outcry and backlash). 

Apologies for not being clear.

What part of of this social and drug experimentation in the name of inclusion in elite female sports do you like so far?