Transgender athletes

[iNow]

I try not to limit my thoughts to such minuscule mostly irrelevant niches of society. 

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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

Unlike you, I believe solutions for inclusion are available. This isn’t logically hard, it’s just politics hard.  

[StringJunky]

6 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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

1% of the world population is 80 000 000. That's just under the population of Turkey.... I don't think that's insignificant. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

I try not to limit my thoughts to such minuscule mostly irrelevant niches of society. 

Unlike you, I believe solutions for inclusion are available. This isn’t logically hard, it’s just politics hard.  

Since that's an accusation that you can't substantiate outside of what you describe as an irrelevant niche, I'm going to report this as a personal attack.

[StringJunky]

6 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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

Strawman. You are making it a choice. Does bolding words (shouting) increase the veracity of your arguments?

I doubt anyone would want their penis removed and undergo invasive hormonal therapy because they arbitrarily made a choice. Like-wise trans-males.

And we go around in circles.

Edited July 23, 2023 by StringJunky

[J.C.MacSwell]

50 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Strawman. You are making it a choice. Does bolding words (shouting) increase the veracity of your arguments?

I doubt anyone would want their penis removed and undergo invasive hormonal therapy because they arbitrarily made a choice. Like-wise trans-males.

And we go around in circles.

Bolded for emphasis only. Making it clear that the act of making the choice had no known effect on Sports performance.

Obviously statistically gender males have a clear advantage. 

(FYI, most trans males don't have a penis)

 

[StringJunky]

Just now, J.C.MacSwell said:

Bolded for emphasis only. Making it clear that the act of making the choice had no known effect on Sports performance.

Obviously statistically gender males have a clear advantage. 

(FYI, most trans males don't have a penis)

 

I meant trans-males going through the same stress and invasive methods. 

[CharonY]

5 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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?

Your link, didn't you read it? They assert that:

Quote

As Joan Roughgarden, a biologist who identifies as a transgender person, put it: “[…]‘male’ means making small gametes, and ‘female’ means making large gametes. Period!”.^[36] Moreover, it is important to note that the fundamental definition of the biological sexes (based on gamete size) must be distinguished from any operational usage of the term, for example that based on chromosomes or genes, etc., because fundamental and operational definitions are not equivalent.

They elaborate on this, but the point is that:

Quote

 To quote Paul Griffiths again, the biological sex concept “has not been developed to assign a biological sex to every individual organism at any stage of its life”.^[33] In fact, it often fails to do so. This reflects biological reality, because biological sex is a process rather than a condition.

I.e. if biological sex is a process, we cannot use it to categorize individual persons as a whole throughout all the stages of their life. I.e. trying to apply it would mean to classify a menopausal woman to a different biological sex as she was before. Also the binary classification would exclude sterile/asexual individuals, which makes sense to a certain degree from an population evolutionary viewpoint. But it becomes useless on an individual level (remember in evolution we think about populations, not individuals). I.e. they assert that there are only two biological sexes in humans (large and small gametes), yet they also say that we cannot use it for the types of classification we try to do it here, at which point the authors point to the use of gender, instead.

Also important to note, the authors make not claims regarding other sexual features beyond gamete development, in fact, they assert they can change between species or even within species throughout their lifetime. 

 

 

 

 

[TheVat]

Good post: helpful.  Seems more useful when one goes with gender  based on descriptive criteria rather than causal ones - on observed phenotypic patterns rather than on the underlying causal process.  Those patterns are an ongoing interaction with the environment it seems.  And our present environment has gotten really strange, at this point in the Anthropocene.

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Since that's an accusation that you can't substantiate outside of what you describe as an irrelevant niche, I'm going to report this as a personal attack.

Ironically, it's just another observation, that you seem determined to protect the weak and feeble sex/gender from themselves, because you're stronger as a man...

I can't help but think that you're afraid of the competition, because the one woman (that we (by which I mean you) can agree on) cited in this thread, by you if memory serves, said, "bring it"...

 

Edited July 24, 2023 by dimreepr

[J.C.MacSwell]

LOL Dim. You are so off base I can't even take offence to that.

[dimreepr]

19 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

LOL Dim. You are so off base I can't even take offence to that.

OK, correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument is that the current efforts to include trans athlete's is to artificially maintain a standard model of hormonal balance, and that's the wrong way...

I agree, but it's not a reason to stop them playing... 

[J.C.MacSwell]

23 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

OK, correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument is that the current efforts to include trans athlete's is to artificially maintain a standard model of hormonal balance, and that's the wrong way...

I agree, but it's not a reason to stop them playing... 

That's correct. Though I think they are slowly coming around to that conclusion they seem to be trying very little else.

The reason they want to stop them from playing is the obvious advantage they have over XX athletes. You can claim some of them don't and that's true but are they elite athletes? Certainly not in a manner they consider competitively fair.

Edited July 24, 2023 by J.C.MacSwell

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The reason they want to stop them from playing is the obvious advantage they have over XX athletes. You can claim some of them don't and that's true but are they elite athletes? Certainly not in a manner they consider competitively fair.

Nope, that's the excuse...

The reason is, different...

[J.C.MacSwell]

16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Nope, that's the excuse...

The reason is, different...

What's the reason?

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What's the reason?

An excuse that makes sense...

 

[mistermack]

If sex is not binary, then it makes sense to abolish women's sport, and just have one open category. How can you have a women's category, when there are no men or women, just a rainbow of humans.

Then, people with XX chromosomes could start their own competitions, exclusive to XXs.  

[iNow]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

How can you have a women's category, when there are no men or women, just a rainbow of humans.

With qualifications and merit based metrics for admission

 

 

As has been repeated for months and years across these various threads…

[StringJunky]

 

Quote

Endocrine profiles in 693 elite athletes in the post-competition setting

Summary
Objective
To measure a profile of hormones in a group of elite athletes. Increasing awareness of the widespread use of hormones as performance-enhancing agents focusses attention on what may be considered as normal in this unusual group.

Design
Blood samples were obtained from 813 volunteer elite athletes from a cross-section of 15 sporting categories. An endocrine profile was measured on a subset of 693.

Participants
Volunteer elite athletes. Samples were drawn within two hours of an event at a major national or international competition.

Measurements
Demographics and hormone profiles were obtained on 454 male and 239 female elite athletes.

Results
Hormone profiles showed significant differences in 19 of the 24 measured variables between sexes and between all of the 15 sporting disciplines in men and 11 out of 24 in women. 16·5% of men had low testosterone levels, whereas 13·7% of women had high levels with complete overlap between the sexes. Women had a lean body mass 85% that of men – sufficient to account for sex differences in performance. There were highly significant correlations between many of the measured hormones.

Conclusions
Hormone profiles from elite athletes differ from usual reference ranges. Individual results are dependent on a number of factors including age, gender and physique. Differences in profiles between sports suggest that an individual's profile may contribute to his/her proficiency in a particular sport. The IOC definition of a woman as one who has a ‘normal’ testosterone level is untenable.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cen.12445

 

Sex testing hurts more females that are outliers than transgender females.

Quote

Gender verification tests are difficult, expensive, and potentially inaccurate. Furthermore, these tests fail to exclude all potential impostors (eg, some 46,XX males), are discriminatory against women with disorders of sexual development, and have had shattering consequences for athletes who 'fail' a test ...

Gender verification has long been criticized by geneticists, endocrinologists, and others in the medical community. One major problem was unfairly excluding women who had a birth defect involving gonads and external genitalia (i.e., male pseudohermaphroditism). ...

A second problem is that only women, not men, were ever subjected to gender verification testing. Systematic follow-up was rare for athletes "failing" the test, often performed under very public circumstances. Follow-up was crucial because the subjects were not male impostors, but intersexed individuals.[77]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_verification_in_sports

This article is useful for reading the history of sex testing in sport. All it's done since the 40's is hurt female outliers. If one thinks this focus  helps women... think again. All because of the biblical/historical assertion that humans are binary.

Edited July 25, 2023 by StringJunky

[Intoscience]

15 hours ago, iNow said:

With qualifications and merit based metrics for admission

Go ahead then if you have an answer for this, i'm all ears. 

On 7/22/2023 at 12:50 PM, dimreepr said:

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"... 🙄

And?

If I really wanted to be bald I'd cut my hair off. 

On 7/22/2023 at 1:39 PM, iNow said:

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

No argument there

On 7/22/2023 at 1:39 PM, iNow said:

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.

Interesting that you use this logic when suits but quickly dismiss it when it doesn't.

It's also logical that if a any person identifying as they choose and are free with no restriction, then all restrictions are irrelevant.  

On 7/22/2023 at 2:08 PM, swansont said:

Alternatively, it could be

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

B. "Fine.”

Regarded as? 

I want to be regarded as a dog, doesn't mean I am one. That was my point. 

A person is free to be identified as they choose to be, I have no issue with that. I,am to respect that and even use the appropriate (chosen) pronouns when engaging with a person. However, I'm not prepared to be forced into believing something which i know not to be true, and worse being persecuted for doing so. 

Can someone please define what a woman is? What a female is...?

And non of this bullshit diverting tactic of "oh well, a woman is a gender label and its fluid, so that each person has their own definition of what a woman is and they are all correct even though they don't match up".  

[StringJunky]

34 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Can someone please define what a woman is? What a female is...?

And non of this bullshit diverting tactic of "oh well, a woman is a gender label and its fluid, so that each person has their own definition of what a woman is and they are all correct even though they don't match up".  

There isn't an all-encompassing objective definition. It's an arbitrary category that humans made up to suit their purposes. It all started with genitalia, then it has got more nuanced with increasing knowledge.

Edited July 25, 2023 by StringJunky

[dimreepr]

53 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

And?

If I really wanted to be bald I'd cut my hair off. 

And, I agree.

54 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Can someone please define what a woman is? What a female is...?

And non of this bullshit diverting tactic of "oh well, a woman is a gender label and its fluid, so that each person has their own definition of what a woman is and they are all correct even though they don't match up". 

Let me get this straight, you want us to define what a woman is, but without the necessary language to do so; hmmm, tricky... 🤔

58 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

However, I'm not prepared to be forced into believing something which i know not to be true,

what exactly is it that you know to be true?

If it's what I think it is, that men are naturally stronger than women; then answer me this, can you lift more than a female (by your definition) olympic weightlifter?

[StringJunky]

57 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If it's what I think it is, that men are naturally stronger than women; then answer me this, can you lift more than a female (by your definition) olympic weightlifter?

If he can't, then, by his definition, he's a woman.

Edited July 25, 2023 by StringJunky

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Sex testing hurts more females that are outliers than transgender females.

This article is useful for reading the history of sex testing in sport. All it's done since the 40's is hurt female outliers. If one thinks this focus  helps women... think again. All because of the biblical/historical assertion that humans are binary.

By outlier females you mean intersex females?

 

50 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

If he can't, then, by his definition, he's a woman.

Citation?

Where did he give a definition where you can honestly conclude that?

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

By outlier females you mean intersex females?

 

Citation?

Where did he give a definition where you can honestly conclude that?

It's clear for all too see, your bias is driving your thinking, and all I can honestly conclude is, the reason for that is, you fear they/women might beat you in a fight; then your no man at all... 🙄

But I'm an optimistic person, so please explain how I'm wrong in my thinking...

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

If he can't, then, by his definition, he's a woman.

Ask him... 🧐

[J.C.MacSwell]

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's clear for all too see, your bias is driving your thinking, and all I can honestly conclude is, the reason for that is, you fear they/women might beat you in a fight; then your no man at all... 🙄

But I'm an optimistic person, so please explain how I'm wrong in my thinking...

Ask him... 🧐

You're wrong in your thinking that such statements and questions belong in this thread.