Transgender athletes

[mistermack]

What the world swimming authorities are saying is that going through puberty as a male bestows physical advantages that persist, long after a person has had reassignment treatment. So lowering testosterone does NOT magically remove the developmental advantages that a male has. Nor does other methods of handicapping that have been suggested. That's why their current specifications for entry in elite female competitions include the proviso that you can't have gone through puberty as a male. 

I still think it's the wrong argument. Even if you've had surgery and hormone treatment, it won't change a male into a female, so if you were once a male, you are still in that class. All males should be excluded from women's events. It's not discrimination, it's inclusion. Males are included in male events. 

[iNow]

46 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Even if you've had surgery and hormone treatment, it won't change a male into a female, so if you were once a male, you are still in that class.

This has been the way people viewed it in the past, but it’s a dying view. Folks like you who refuse to update simply won’t be around much longer for us to care. 

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

This has been the way people viewed it in the past, but it’s a dying view. Folks like you who refuse to update simply won’t be around much longer for us to care.

But what you are unaware of, is that as people get older, they tend to get less gullible with experience. So your dream of new attitudes is just a dream. Many of the people buying idealistic rubbish today will see through it tomorrow.

That, and the fact that reality doesn't change with attitudes. You can indulge wishful idealistic fantasies all you like, it doesn't change reality in the slightest. 

Personally, I'm not against changing attitudes, I'm against false facts. And the big false fact in this topic is that some cutting and stitching, and popping of pills, turns a male into a female. 

It can do a good job for a person who wants it, and help them with their life. That's absolutely fine. But it's a matter of presentation, not fact. 

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, mistermack said:

But your statement above contains it's own fatal flaw. Fair competition is a matter of opinion, not fact. If you found a way to level up the playing field with handicaps, then that's fine for a horse race held for the purpose of gambling. Without it, people might not enter the race, knowing that the other horses are better. And the same goes for sailing and bowling etc. 

But for human athletes, competing for elite status and prizes, it won't be long before the cry of "unfair" comes back. "Why should I be handicapped, surely this is discrimination" !!

Why is it that you think we don't have to worry about people crying "unfair" with any set of rules in all of sport except for rules having to do wth trans players? Are trans people different from anyone else when it comes to playing within the rules?

[mistermack]

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Why is it that you think we don't have to worry about people crying "unfair" with any set of rules in all of sport except for rules having to do wth trans players? Are trans people different from anyone else when it comes to playing within the rules?

Sorry, I've tried reading that three times, and I still can't make sense of what you're saying, or what I'm supposed to be "thinking". 

I'm arguing that trans people should play within the same rules. That's it in a nutshell. 

Edited July 30, 2023 by mistermack

[zapatos]

33 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Sorry, I've tried reading that three times, and I still can't make sense of what you're saying, or what I'm supposed to be "thinking". 

You said "But for human athletes, competing for elite status and prizes, it won't be long before the cry of "unfair" comes back. "Why should I be handicapped, surely this is discrimination" !!"

I thought you were saying if we tried to implement a rule that had to do with handicapping, trans people (the ones who have to limit testosterone for instance) would cry "unfair". Further I thought you were implying the "unfair" issue doesn't exist now. That is why I said you seemed to be thinking trans people would act differently to rules governing their sport than do cis people.

33 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I'm arguing that trans people should play within the same rules. That's it in a nutshell. 

Yes, they will play within the same rules of the game. And just like the keeper in a football match can use their hands inside the box but others are restricted on hand use, one of the rules of the game might be that trans people have a restriction that other players on the turf do not.

We already have rules regarding men in the Women's World Cup (not allowed), and rules regarding women in the Women's World Cup (allowed). It doesn't seem like such a stretch to add rules for trans women in the Women's World Cup (allowed with restrictions).

Edited July 30, 2023 by zapatos

[mistermack]

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

We already have rules regarding men in the Women's World Cup (not allowed), and rules regarding women in the Women's World Cup (allowed). It doesn't seem like such a stretch to add rules for trans women in the Women's World Cup (allowed with restrictions).

People are absolutely free to stretch the rules any way they please. By all means have two categories, men's football and women-and-transgender women's football. 

Start up your own league, and see how it goes. I have my doubts that it will take off, but good luck with it. But if the current women's league was compulsorily "stretched" in that way, I think an XX women's league would spring up and take over. The female athletes themselves don't seem very keen on competing with trans people. Firstly from a competitive standpoint, and secondly from an audience appeal standpoint.

Women's sport already struggles to draw spectators, compared to men's sport. (With a tiny number of exceptions.)  I think they have the potential to grow their attendance levels, but allowing trans people to compete with them would dent their audience, I believe. (although there could be a 'curiosity bounce' to start with)

[J.C.MacSwell]

10 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Stop using it to support your positions then.

I would have to look back, but you have put up a statistic whereby there was a very distinct delineation, with a clear gap between men and women's testosterone... 

I did say essentially that for normal ranges there was a clear gap, though not as an argument for testosterone controlling treatments

10 hours ago, StringJunky said:

like they they were so far apart they would never connect. 

I didn't say that, but it would be fair to infer that my understanding is that any overlap is slight and represents unusual conditions for either the female individuals, the male individuals or both.

I'll have to check your link as it seems to disagree with that but it won't change my position as my position was never based on that.

Here is where I think I first brought it up as questions for CY:

On 7/22/2023 at 9:56 PM, 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?

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

Page 70 where I further argued it was no continuum but a clear gap between normal male and female ranges

[zapatos]

35 minutes ago, mistermack said:

The female athletes themselves don't seem very keen on competing with trans people. Firstly from a competitive standpoint, and secondly from an audience appeal standpoint.

But competitively there would be no issue.

I also question whether the Women's World Cup would take a big hit just because a few players used to have a penis.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Here is a US government study: (can't seem to reduce font size after cutting and pasting but note bolding by me)

From https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30136295/

"Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this narrative review was to summarize available data on testosterone levels in normal, healthy adult males and females, to provide a physiologic reference framework to evaluate testosterone levels reported in males and females with conditions that elevate androgens, such as disorders of sex development (DSD), and to determine the separation or overlap of testosterone levels between normal and affected males and females.

Methods: A literature review was conducted for published papers, from peer reviewed journals, reporting testosterone levels in healthy males and females, males with 46XY DSD, and females with hyperandrogenism due to polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Papers were selected that had adequate characterization of participants, and description of the methodology for measurement of serum testosterone and reporting of results.

Results: In the healthy, normal males and females, there was a clear bimodal distribution of testosterone levels, with the lower end of the male range being four- to fivefold higher than the upper end of the female range(males 8.8-30.9 nmol/L, females 0.4-2.0 nmol/L). Individuals with 46XY DSD, specifically those with 5-alpha reductase deficiency, type 2 and androgen insensitivity syndrome testosterone levels that were within normal male range. Females with PCOS or congenital adrenal hyperplasia were above the normal female range but still below the normal male range.

Conclusions: Existing studies strongly support a bimodal distribution of serum testosterone levels in females compared to males. These data should be considered in the discussion of female competition eligibility in individuals with possible DSD or hyperandrogenism.

Keywords: ambiguous genitalia; androgen insensitivity; disorders of sexual development; hyperandrogenism; polycystic ovary syndrome; testosterone."

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

But what you are unaware of, is that as people get older, they tend to get less gullible with experience.

Well, talking about facts, that one is false, for example. Studies have shown that older folks are more likely to share fake news:

Quote

Misinformation causes serious harm, from sowing doubt in modern medicine to inciting violence. Older adults are especially susceptible – they shared the most fake news during the 2016 US election. The most intuitive explanation for this pattern blames cognitive deficits. While older adults forget where they learned information, fluency remains intact and decades of accumulated knowledge helps them evaluate claims. Thus, cognitive declines cannot fully explain older adults’ engagement with fake news. Late adulthood also involves social changes, including general trust, difficulty detecting lies, and less emphasis on accuracy when communicating. 

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0963721420915872

 

Though some studies indicate that the inability to spot fake news tend to increase in the upper age bracket. 

Quote

Examination of chronological age effects further revealed that detection of fake news among older adults aged over 70 years depended on interactions between individual CISDA components and news content. Collectively, these findings suggest that age-related susceptibility to fake news may only be apparent in later stages of older adulthood, but vulnerabilities are context dependent. 

https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igab046.3489

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

But competitively there would be no issue.

I also question whether the Women's World Cup would take a big hit just because a few players used to have a penis.

Whether trans athletes are allowed to compete in the female category, or not, it has long been established that surgical treatments will not be a requirement.

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Whether trans athletes are allowed to compete in the female category, or not, it has long been established that surgical treatments will not be a requirement.

I was trying to use colorful language. I wasn't actually suggesting that as a requirement.

[J.C.MacSwell]

The IOC has just been much slower in realizing that requirements for drug treatment are similarly intrusive.

Just now, zapatos said:

I was trying to use colorful language. 

Okay...I guess you succeeded...

I would say you got a rise out of me...but that might seem a little inappropriate LOL.

...someone might tell me to cut it out....

[CharonY]

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Here is a US government study: (can't seem to reduce font size after cutting and pasting but note bolding by me)

From https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30136295/

"Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this narrative review was to summarize available data on testosterone levels in normal, healthy adult males and females, to provide a physiologic reference framework to evaluate testosterone levels reported in males and females with conditions that elevate androgens, such as disorders of sex development (DSD), and to determine the separation or overlap of testosterone levels between normal and affected males and females.

Methods: A literature review was conducted for published papers, from peer reviewed journals, reporting testosterone levels in healthy males and females, males with 46XY DSD, and females with hyperandrogenism due to polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Papers were selected that had adequate characterization of participants, and description of the methodology for measurement of serum testosterone and reporting of results.

Results: In the healthy, normal males and females, there was a clear bimodal distribution of testosterone levels, with the lower end of the male range being four- to fivefold higher than the upper end of the female range(males 8.8-30.9 nmol/L, females 0.4-2.0 nmol/L). Individuals with 46XY DSD, specifically those with 5-alpha reductase deficiency, type 2 and androgen insensitivity syndrome testosterone levels that were within normal male range. Females with PCOS or congenital adrenal hyperplasia were above the normal female range but still below the normal male range.

Conclusions: Existing studies strongly support a bimodal distribution of serum testosterone levels in females compared to males. These data should be considered in the discussion of female competition eligibility in individuals with possible DSD or hyperandrogenism.

Keywords: ambiguous genitalia; androgen insensitivity; disorders of sexual development; hyperandrogenism; polycystic ovary syndrome; testosterone."

I think it got lost in the thread, especially as we have been repeating the same things for quite a while now, but I have mentioned before that studies have shown different levels of separation (or lack thereof). This includes the Healy paper (SJ posted the abstract earlier), which was not included in the review you posted, for example. 

 

[iNow]

3 hours ago, mistermack said:

as people get older, they tend to get less gullible with experience

Yeah. In fact, it was just earlier today that my father in law (about your age) showed me how proud he was for clicking the security alert on his phone to save it from all the hacking. All he had to do was click that easy button inside the flashy window and voila! His hardware was now totally safe!

Thank goodness his age made him so much less gullible than an uninformed inexperienced man child like me. Maybe one day I’ll know as much about the world as you do, but until then I’ll have to make do with your kind shared wisdom and insightful little turd nuggets here. 

Edited July 31, 2023 by iNow

[mistermack]

46 minutes ago, iNow said:

Yeah. In fact, it was just earlier today that my father in law (about your age) showed me how proud he was for clicking the security alert on his phone to save it from all the hacking. All he had to do was click that easy button inside the flashy window and voila! His hardware was now totally safe!

That sounds more like inbreeding than old age. I've heard it's a mid-west thing.

[iNow]

If nothing else, these exchanges here have all been quite helpful in further illuminating, for any of those who remain opposed to trans inclusion, the company they’re keeping and the type of allies they have standing behind/beside them. 

Edited July 31, 2023 by iNow

[StringJunky]

5 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I did say essentially that for normal ranges there was a clear gap, though not as an argument for testosterone controlling treatments

I didn't say that, but it would be fair to infer that my understanding is that any overlap is slight and represents unusual conditions for either the female individuals, the male individuals or both.

I'll have to check your link as it seems to disagree with that but it won't change my position as my position was never based on that.

Here is where I think I first brought it up as questions for CY:

Page 70 where I further argued it was no continuum but a clear gap between normal male and female ranges

Cheers for clarifying that. The problem at hand here is the use of 'normal' and the arbitrary application of limits... in my view.

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

Well, talking about facts, that one is false, for example. Studies have shown that older folks are more likely to share fake news:

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0963721420915872

 

Though some studies indicate that the inability to spot fake news tend to increase in the upper age bracket. 

https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igab046.3489

 

I would say older people become more intractable in their views. Some thing, as I enter my seventh decade, I'm self-aware of. Some subjects, like my taste in 70's blues/rock are intractable, but it doesn't matter in the wide scheme of things. Things like this subject will see one in the flow, following progress, or off it as an irrelevance.

One becomes a static, living example of a certain period in time, just as my great grandad was an example of the Victorian age, and his kids Edwardian and Georgian. My grandad thought that fighting the second world war was a waste of time, with the way that English society had deteriorated since then. He died in 2005. And so it goes on.

Edited July 31, 2023 by StringJunky

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Cheers for clarifying that. The problem at hand here is the use of 'normal' 

It is a term I tend to avoid in contexts such as this one. I often say "no one has ever accused me of being normal" or claim "I'm the only normal person I know" when it comes up in some conversations.

13 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

...and the arbitrary application of limits...

Right. And when you see round numbers used like 2.5, 5.0 and 10.0 nmol/L in rules you can tell right away it's not just science behind it. It's practically an admission that they really aren't sure what they're doing.

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, mistermack said:

I prefer Ricky Gervais's take on it, keeping it real : 

You've taken that out of context, like you do with all of your excuses; you've obviously missed the part where he explains why he's not being transphobic and that there will be a certain amount of irony in the following joke's... 😉 

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You've taken that out of context, like you do with all of your excuses; you've obviously missed the part where he explains why he's not being transphobic and that there will be a certain amount of irony in the following joke's... 😉 

I think you might have missed the part where Mistermack has explained that he's not transphobic either. His unwillingness to bend to pressure to accept changes to the meaning of some words from there historically accepted context doesn't change that, nor should he be obligated to IMO.

Just my $0.02, overpriced as it may be.

[StringJunky]

11 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think you might have missed the part where Mistermack has explained that he's not transphobic either. His unwillingness to bend to pressure to accept changes to the meaning of some words from there historically accepted context doesn't change that, nor should he be obligated to IMO.

Just my $0.02, overpriced as it may be.

That's entirely up to him, society will just keep evolving, regardless. Newly emerging citizens will absorb and embody any new definitions without the baggage of soon-to-be archaic binary concepts.

Edited July 31, 2023 by StringJunky

[J.C.MacSwell]

29 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

That's entirely up to him, society will just keep evolving, regardless.

In the near term, we will continue to adapt, but not much evolving will take place. Regardless of changes in language those who we historically considered of a particular biological sex, will continue to be so, difficulties in ascertaining that for a small subset of individuals due to the limitations of the science of biology notwithstanding.

(adding just to be fair...I do know your use of the term evolving was correct in the context intended...just hoping to make a related point)

Edited July 31, 2023 by J.C.MacSwell

[dimreepr]

39 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think you might have missed the part where Mistermack has explained that he's not transphobic either.

Well, he didn't explain it very well... 😉