Transgender athletes

[swansont]

35 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Yes that could be in the mix, too.  Though sad to think the kind of men who are engaged in the ultimate test of cerebral fitness and getting their kicks above the waistline (I'm grabbing phrases from the musical, Chess - credit to Tim Rice) would sink so low.  Chess is not the first thing I think of when sexual harassment cultures come up.  

Science and engineering are pretty cerebral, too, and there are some well-known sexual predators throughout the various disciplines. And stories of coverups because universities didn’t want to deal with the publicity of the allegations.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

So, just let men play the women, so long as they claim female gender? There's a lot of money at stake, it would be well worth it. Wimbledon, US open, women's events won by second grade men claiming female gender? I don't think it would go down too well. 

Why the negative? Don't shoot the messenger.

Do you really believe this won't happen at all if (hopefully as) transgenders are better accepted over time?

If so Russian and French figure skating judges have some "beautiful" "waterfront" land they would like to sell you...

Note that Mistermack is not claiming true transgenders will do this.

Paraphrasing INow "Easy to cheap shots, hard to do the real work" (and no I'm not suggesting INow gave the negative)

 

Of course if this was allowed to happen (it won't be) without sound rule changes the money in female sports would sadly shrink. Shouts of "equal pay" would be drowned out by "where's the gate receipts".

But it won't happen because the hard work on the rules (and probably at least as much the financial considerations...greed for some) will prevent it or nip it in the bud.

Hint to Democrats: voters will accept the greed over the threat of the collapse of elite female sports. 

Am I overstating the concern? Yes, but only because the extremes won't get to make the rules...

cue Dim to reply with that youtube again...

(probably a few pages early for Vat to again add his astute observation on this thread)

Edited August 13, 2023 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Am I overstating the concern? Yes

Agreed

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

Agreed

...But only because they won't be making the rules for elite sports based on inclusion over competitive fairness and there is a strong trend toward more fully protecting athlete health also.

Since this thread started International sports bodies have certainly moved in the direction of my position. It's a shame their position on the intersex has been swept toward less inclusion and/or less health protection but it will be interesting to see what happens as Semenya's case is further resolved.

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

...But only because they won't be making the rules for elite sports based on inclusion over competitive fairness and there is a strong trend toward more fully protecting athlete health also.

Since this thread started International sports bodies have certainly moved in the direction of my position. It's a shame their position on the intersex has been swept toward less inclusion and/or less health protection but it will be interesting to see what happens as Semenya's case is further resolved.

And here we are again, back on page one, in a cloud of misogyny...

Transgender athletes just want a magic wand and a spell (expelliarmus seems appropriate), and then to just get on with their lives and play with whomever they like...

 "International sports bodies have certainly moved in the direction of my position."

No they haven't, they're just trying to maintain a political legitimacy to keep the sport financially viable; which leads us back to Cartman...

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

15 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 

 "International sports bodies have certainly moved in the direction of my position."

No they haven't, they're just trying to maintain a political legitimacy to keep the sport financially viable; which leads us back to Cartman...

Regardless of what may be motivating it, with regard to transgenders they certainly have:

https://www.skysports.com/more-sports/athletics/news/29175/12840994/world-athletics-excludes-transgender-women-from-womens-competition-lord-coe-confirms

 

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Regardless of what may be motivating it, with regard to transgenders they certainly have:

https://www.skysports.com/more-sports/athletics/news/29175/12840994/world-athletics-excludes-transgender-women-from-womens-competition-lord-coe-confirms

 

Oh, OK, Lord Coe confirms it; well he certainly has proved that he has no interest in money... where's the slap head emoji when I need it 😣

I'm guessing this will confuse @mistermack...

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Oh, OK, Lord Coe confirms it; well he certainly has proved that he has no interest in money... where's the slap head emoji when I need it 😣

 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Regardless of what may be motivating it, with regard to transgenders they certainly have:

Maybe you need to slap your head and try reading that again...

[Intoscience]

On 8/11/2023 at 3:30 PM, zapatos said:

Well, presumably because their brain is telling them they are distinct. Surely the brain is as much a part of a person's identity as are their dangly parts

Well there it is then, conclusive objective evidence.

There are 8 billion or so people who's brains tell them they are distinct, and guess what, they are, each has their own identity. 

It's just that some claim to be something that they physically are not. In most circumstances these people would be regarded as delusional.

My brain tells me that the Earth is flat, it looks flat so it must be, and you should accept this as fact. 

Inconsistent notions as per usual. 

   

19 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Transgender athletes just want a magic wand and a spell (expelliarmus seems appropriate), and then to just get on with their lives and play with whomever they like...

Unfortunately society doesn't operate this way (thank the good lord). 

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Maybe you need to slap your head and try reading that again...

What did I miss?

Lord Coe, only got to the top of the greasy pole because he was allowed to play in the first place, with his inherent advantage's...

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Unfortunately society doesn't operate this way (thank the good lord). 

It is very unfortunate that people who want too play against people that also want too play, are unable to do so because other people, not involved in the game (by which I mean not playing), maybe it's because they can't think of a way to make money out of it.

You both keep stamping your feet and claiming it's unfair with no actual evidence, WHY IS THAT?

If it's not a misogynistic bias, then what is it?

 

 

 

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by dimreepr

[Intoscience]

41 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What did I miss?

Lord Coe, only got to the top of the greasy pole because he was allowed to play in the first place, with his inherent advantage's...

It is very unfortunate that people who want too play against people that also want too play, are unable to do so because other people, not involved in the game (by which I mean not playing), maybe it's because they can't think of a way to make money out of it.

You both keep stamping your feet and claiming it's unfair with no actual evidence, WHY IS THAT?

If it's not a misogynistic bias, then what is it?

 

 

 

 

You have been provided with examples previously on this thread. 

If you want some data backed technical detail then here you go - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9331831/

On 8/11/2023 at 12:50 PM, swansont said:

That’s the wrong approach, though, if you investigate the distinctions between cis men and cis women. The investigation should be the distinctions between trans women and cis women.

That’s what one should investigate.

The investigations between trans women and cis women is ongoing. But it is clear that certain distinctions are fundamental and set at an early age, especially so during puberty. 

The question remains as to whether all the drug taking and therapy is enough (ignoring the health and moral issues) to biologically alter a male physiology enough so that it is much closer to that of a female, and whether those changes directly influence sporting performance accordingly.  At  recreational level who cares? In the words of dim "let them play together". But at elite level, were every tiny detail counts, then it's more important to ensure it's clear with no ambiguity. 

But first we have to all agree on what constitutes a male & female. Since this is the bench mark, yet people are reluctant to explain in a well defined detailed manner which indicates clearly and unequivocally the distinctions between the 2 sexes. 

If a man decides, feels, imagines in his brain that he is not a he but a she (not male but female) then we need to understand what she means by this and what the distinctions are.  

[iNow]

34 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

But first we have to all agree on what constitutes a male & female.

But we really cannot since the binary categorization is itself flawed. There is a spectrum. There are thresholds, but clearly there are more than two categories.

It's as if you're asking us to describe a rainbow using just white and black. We're never going to agree if that's your approach because your framing of the issue is fundamentally flawed. 

36 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

people are reluctant to explain in a well defined detailed manner which indicates clearly and unequivocally the distinctions between the 2 sexes

Because there are more than 2. 

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Inconsistent notions as per usual. 

Pot. Kettle. Black. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

But first we have to all agree on what constitutes a male & female. Since this is the bench mark, yet people are reluctant to explain in a well defined detailed manner which indicates clearly and unequivocally the distinctions between the 2 sexes. 

What you’re asking for doesn’t exist. I thought that this had been made clear.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

You have been provided with examples previously on this thread. 

If you want some data backed technical detail then here you go - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9331831/

Have you actually read this?

"Using testosterone levels as a basis for separating female and male elite athletes is arguably flawed."

[CharonY]

On 8/12/2023 at 4:07 PM, TheVat said:

Though sad to think the kind of men who are engaged in the ultimate test of cerebral fitness and getting their kicks above the waistline (I'm grabbing phrases from the musical, Chess - credit to Tim Rice) would sink so low.  Chess is not the first thing I think of when sexual harassment cultures come up. 

A bit off topic, but fairly recently there have been many allegations against (male) elite players and chess coaches. A chess champion took the lead and apparently it opened up investigations regarding wide spread harassment and sexual misconduct in chess. I think the idea that cerebral folks are somehow above such behaviours should get tossed onto the pile of bad stereotypes (heck, open sexual harassment in the science community was fairly common for a long time, only to be replaced by covert, and only now may it actually see consequences).

[Intoscience]

17 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Have you actually read this?

"Using testosterone levels as a basis for separating female and male elite athletes is arguably flawed."

Yes, I have read it and have I at any point argued that testosterone levels should/shouldn't be used? I'm arguing that there is more to it than just using drugs and therapy to "change" a biological male into a female.  

18 hours ago, iNow said:

Because there are more than 2.

So there are more than 2 biological sexes? There may well be anomalies, but in general there are male & females. 

You can apply a spectrum to any number of things, frame it how you want to.  

17 hours ago, swansont said:

What you’re asking for doesn’t exist. I thought that this had been made clear.

So if there is no distinction why do people want to change their identity? Why do people want to go through the suffering and endure surgery & drug treatment? 

If a person is willing to go through this then they clearly have an end game in mind. They can clearly make the distinction between how they were born and what they would like to change about that. 

There must exist a distinction or else there would be no differences and nothing to change. 

For a person wanting to change from male to female there must by logic be a distinction, else by logic there is nothing to change. 

18 hours ago, iNow said:

But we really cannot since the binary categorization is itself flawed. There is a spectrum. There are thresholds, but clearly there are more than two categories.

It's as if you're asking us to describe a rainbow using just white and black. We're never going to agree if that's your approach because your framing of the issue is fundamentally flawed.

But there is because at either end of the spectrum sits a start and an end, by definition these two are distinctively different. You can call them what you like but in this context we use the terms male & female. 

Your analogy is flawed, you can model black to white as a spectrum of ever changing shades and at some point along the spectrum you get a middle point grey which is neither closer to black nor white, each side there sits a group. One group of shades are closer to black than white and the other side of the group are closer to white than black. 

In biology we can do the same, only that close to 50% of people sit very tightly group to the male end and close to 50% of people sit very tightly grouped to the female end, as the 2 groups merge near centre then this small minority would be regarded as anomalies since the vast majority sit tight up to either end. 

If you wish to remodel this so that you spread out the groups or even overlap then sure that is easy to do. You can model it in any way that suits your arguments.   

Edited August 15, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[dimreepr]

29 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Yes, I have read it and have I at any point argued that testosterone levels should/shouldn't be used? I'm arguing that there is more to it than just using drugs and therapy to "change" a biological male into a female.  

So there are more than 2 biological sexes? There may well be anomalies, but in general there are male & females. 

You can apply a spectrum to any number of things, frame it how you want to.  

So if there is no distinction why do people want to change their identity? Why do people want to go through the suffering and endure surgery & drug treatment? 

If a person is willing to go through this then they clearly have an end game in mind. They can clearly make the distinction between how they were born and what they would like to change about that. 

There must exist a distinction or else there would be no differences and nothing to change. 

For a person wanting to change from male to female there must by logic be a distinction, else by logic there is nothing to change. 

But there is because at either end of the spectrum sits a start and an end, by definition these two are distinctively different. You can call them what you like but in this context we use the terms male & female. 

Your analogy is flawed, you can model black to white as a spectrum of ever changing shades and at some point along the spectrum you get a middle point grey which is neither closer to black nor white, each side there sits a group. One group of shades are closer to black than white and the other side of the group are closer to white than black. 

In biology we can do the same, only that close to 50% of people sit very tightly group to the male end and close to 50% of people sit very tightly grouped to the female end, as the 2 groups merge near centre then this small minority would be regarded as anomalies since the vast majority sit tight up to either end. 

If you wish to remodel this so that you spread out the groups or even overlap then sure that is easy to do. You can model it in any way that suits your arguments.   

This clip sums up my response...

 

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

So if there is no distinction why do people want to change their identity? Why do people want to go through the suffering and endure surgery & drug treatment? 

No comprehensive definition is a far cry from no distinction.

That’s a helluva strawman

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

32 minutes ago, swansont said:

No comprehensive definition is a far cry from no distinction.

Exactly. The science of biology isn't quite as useless and some have implied here. Biologists reading the thread might want to take heart and drag their degrees back out of the waste basket. Creationists reading it and rubbing their hands with glee while reading some of the arguments for transgender inclusion should not get as emboldened as the arguments might suggest.

The science of biology is sufficient to divide 99+% of humanity into biologically male or female and the existence of the less than 1% remaining does not change that.

...nor does any "spectrum", of secondary sex characteristics that includes the 99+%.

[dimreepr]

26 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Exactly. The science of biology isn't quite as useless and some have implied here. Biologists reading the thread might want to take heart and drag their degrees back out of the waste basket. Creationists reading it and rubbing their hands with glee while reading some of the arguments for transgender inclusion should not get as emboldened as the arguments might suggest.

The science of biology is sufficient to divide 99+% of humanity into biologically male or female and the existence of the less than 1% remaining does not change that.

...nor does any "spectrum", of secondary sex characteristics that includes the 99+%.

Oh FFS, just answer the question, why do you care?

The reason I care is, what if I found myself in a situation where I wouldn't be allowed to play in a game that disallows my webed feet...

Over to you... 🧐

[J.C.MacSwell]

51 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Oh FFS, just answer the question, why do you care?

The reason I care is, what if I found myself in a situation where I wouldn't be allowed to play in a game that disallows my webed feet...

Over to you... 🧐

FFS I've told you many times. Others have explained it as well.

Stop gaslighting the thread and try explaining how you think transgender inclusion can work successfully in elite competitively fair and healthy female sports...if you can think of any practical way it can be done. So far no one has for most sports.

Edited August 15, 2023 by J.C.MacSwell

[swansont]

43 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Exactly. The science of biology isn't quite as useless and some have implied here. Biologists reading the thread might want to take heart and drag their degrees back out of the waste basket. Creationists reading it and rubbing their hands with glee while reading some of the arguments for transgender inclusion should not get as emboldened as the arguments might suggest.

The science of biology is sufficient to divide 99+% of humanity into biologically male or female and the existence of the less than 1% remaining does not change that.

...nor does any "spectrum", of secondary sex characteristics that includes the 99+%.

By the same token, the fact that you can fit ~99% into two categories, based on some limited set of criteria, does not mean that everyone in a category is identical, nor does it mean that there is no overlap between these categories if you consider more criteria.

Further, the admission that less than 1% aren’t covered by this (erroneous though that number is*) belies the argument that there are huge numbers of transgender individuals waiting to descend on athletics, if only some circumstances would change. You can’t have both be true. Either their numbers are small, or they are not.

* less than 1% considering themselves to be transgender does not mean that this is the percentage of people who have characteristics from the other category. It only means that having such characteristics is not compelling enough to feel as if they are mislabeled.

[mistermack]

People keep making this thoroughly flawed argument, that because you can't give a catagoric 100% all encompassing definition of "male" or "female", then those catagories are somehow less than real.

The flaw with that argument is that while it's hard to nail down what IS a woman, it's very easy to nail down what ISN'T. And it's what ISN'T that's important in the question of men who transition gender being allowed to compete against women.

I've posted this ages ago, and didn't get much response, so here goes again.

What ISN'T a woman, is a human with XY sex chromosome configuration, who has grown up past puberty as a male, and has since had some surgery and drugs. 

Can anybody refute that?

[zapatos]

46 minutes ago, mistermack said:

What ISN'T a woman, is a human with XY sex chromosome configuration, who has grown up past puberty as a male, and has since had some surgery and drugs. 

Can anybody refute that?

Sure, I'll refute that.

And the reason I can do so is because it is made up. Any of us can make up any definition we wish. Which makes this a distraction. The "definition" is not the issue. The issue is how/if we allow people to compete in the existing categories.

[mistermack]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

The "definition" is not the issue. The issue is how/if we allow people to compete in the existing categories.

When you have women's sport, as distinct form men's sport, then what qualifies as a woman IS the issue. You can't wish it away.