Transgender athletes

[iNow]

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

So there are more than 2 biological sexes?

Affirmative (even just within the intersex bucket, there are at least 4 different categories which brings us to a minimum value of 6 biological sexes), but we're talking about gender here anyway. 

 

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

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. 

Right, but you've just argued my point for me by accepting and acknowledging that it's a spectrum.

A spectrum, by definition, includes more than 2 binary choices, even when those 2 binary choices represent a plurality.

 

YOU: There are ONLY two colors. 

ME: That's clearly false. Look at this spectrum of wavelengths.

YOU: Well yeah, there's a spectrum I agree, but most colors are one of these two.

ME: Who cares? Your original point is self-evidently false. There are, even by your own admission, more than two colors. You should reconsider this part of your argument and move on. 

 

Another view: 

YOU: There are only two brands of cola: Coke and Pepsi

ME: Uhm... well, no. There's also Tab, Schweppes, Rite, Fanta, Corsica, RC, and about a thousand other local brands.

YOU: Yeah, but those don't sell as often, so like I said... there are ONLY two brands.

ME: Dufuq? That's not how categories work, bruh. How can you not see this?

Edited August 15, 2023 by iNow

[zapatos]

9 minutes ago, mistermack said:

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. 

Re-read the thread. We are trying to determine how/if to allow transgender athletes to compete. Everyone else is discussing whether or not testosterone levels are meaningful, or even safe to use. They are trying to decide if muscle mass can be measured, or if different sports would require different rules. 

You do not get to decide above all other opinions what constitutes a woman, and who should be allowed in the 'women's' category due to your definition. You don't get to end this debate because YOU decided what a woman is NOT.

 

[mistermack]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Affirmative (even just within the intersex bucket, there are at least 4 different categories which brings us to a minimum value of 6 biological sexes), but we're talking about gender here anyway. 

Can you supply a link to confirm that? 

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You do not get to decide above all other opinions what constitutes a woman, and who should be allowed in the 'women's' category due to your definition. You don't get to end this debate because YOU decided what a woman is NOT.

So you get to dodge the question? 

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Can you supply a link to confirm that? 

Of course I can: https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001669.htm

Now, will you update your flawed preconceptions, or carry on repeating inaccuracies? 

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, mistermack said:

So you get to dodge the question? 

As far as I can tell you only asked one question ("Can you refute that?"), and I did refute it. What question do you think I've dodged?

[mistermack]

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

Of course I can: https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001669.htm

That doesn't confirm what you said. 

7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

As far as I can tell you only asked one question ("Can you refute that?"), and I did refute it. What question do you think I've dodged?

"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. " 

[zapatos]

19 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. " 

That isn't a question. I still don't know what you are referring to.

[mistermack]

46 minutes ago, zapatos said:

That isn't a question. I still don't know what you are referring to.

That's clearly a bad-faith post. 

If you have to twist and squirm like a squirmy thing, rather than address the issue, then it's obvious you haven't got a valid argument. Again

[zapatos]

9 minutes ago, mistermack said:

That's clearly a bad-faith post. 

If you have to twist and squirm like a squirmy thing, rather than address the issue, then it's obvious you haven't got a valid argument. Again

Will you please just re-post the question you are accusing me of dodging?!?!

[iNow]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

That doesn't confirm what you said. 

Here again is what I said:

1 hour ago, iNow said:

even just within the intersex bucket, there are at least 4 different categories which brings us to a minimum value of 6 biological sexes

And here is what the citation I provided in response to your request for one said:

Quote

Intersex can be divided into 4 categories:

1. 46, XX intersex
2. 46, XY intersex
3. True gonadal intersex
4. Complex or undetermined intersex

To which you replied:

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

That doesn't confirm what you said.

So, this later quote from you seems especially appropriate as a reply... to you: 

15 minutes ago, mistermack said:

That's clearly a bad-faith post.

 

But once again... As I already said in the very first post of this absurd exchange with you (who has a mind made up and is clearly unwilling to change it):

1 hour ago, iNow said:

we're talking about gender here anyway

What does this mean? It means that all this talk about sex is irrelevant to the topic. 

Thanks for attending my TED Talk. 

[mistermack]

38 minutes ago, iNow said:

Here again is what I said:

2 hours ago, iNow said:

even just within the intersex bucket, there are at least 4 different categories which brings us to a minimum value of 6 biological sexes

You say categories, then magically transform that to 6 biological sexes. Magic isn't good enough, where's the citation for six biological sexes? 

40 minutes ago, iNow said:

What does this mean? It means that all this talk about sex is irrelevant to the topic. 

This is your latest dodge? Why don't you just bite the bullet and say how the XY male, brought up past puberty as a male, becomes a woman after a few snips and pills. Is it more magic? Or transubstantiation? 

Your tap dancing round the question is surely embarrassing? 

[iNow]

Yes. You totally pwned me. Golly. Gosh. And stuff. I'm so totally embarrassed. 

"When did you stop beating your wife?" >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

8 minutes ago, mistermack said:

You say categories, then magically transform that to 6 biological sexes

If not a "category," what is a "sex" in this context?

[mistermack]

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

If not a "category," what is a "sex" in this context?

Don't you know? That explains a lot.

Quote

Sex is the trait that determines whether a sexually reproducing organism produces male or female gametes.

First words of the article : Sex - Wikipedia   

[J.C.MacSwell]

13 hours ago, swansont said:

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...

No one is suggesting that everyone in each of the predominate categories are identical.

 

13 hours ago, swansont said:

... nor does it mean that there is no overlap between these categories if you consider more criteria.

Of course not. Despite men being taller than average, many women are taller than the average man. Not sure why you feel the need to point this out, given that everyone here understands that it is the top performances of each group that needs to be considered and for many sports there is such a persistent gap that World records are significantly different.

 

13 hours ago, swansont said:

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.

The less than 1% refers to the intersex, most of whom do not transgender.

Less than 1% of humanity is intersex.

Most transgenders, the vast majority, have natural biologies that the science of biology can readily categorize as male or female. Most make up part of the 99+%, and the more athletic ones could dominate some female sports if not burdened by any medical interventions. 

When I say burdened I am referring to their potential for sports performance...it could be advantageous (or not in some cases) for their well being, depending on the competence of their medical care providers and fit of their medical treatments. These would of course be tailored to the individual and protocols would differ...making any group comparisons fairly useless for accurately assessing effect on sports performance for the purpose of any handicapping individuals for inclusion in a different group.

11 hours ago, iNow said:

Affirmative (even just within the intersex bucket, there are at least 4 different categories which brings us to a minimum value of 6 biological sexes), but we're talking about gender here anyway. 

We are talking about biological sex with regard to the significant gap in sports potentials of the top biological males vs biological females.

No similar gap is known to persist in the same manner for genders.

Bruce Jenner could have become Caitlyn Jenner back in 1976. This would not have changed his/her potential in the decathlon without medical intervention. Obviously this potential could readily be changed by medical intervention, positively or negatively.

 

Edited August 16, 2023 by J.C.MacSwell

[Intoscience]

15 hours ago, iNow said:

Of course I can: https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001669.htm

Now, will you update your flawed preconceptions, or carry on repeating inaccuracies? 

That article describes  "abnormalities" resulting in various types of intersex. It describes possible causes for and refers to each condition. 

"Intersex is a group of conditions in which there is a discrepancy between the external genitals and the internal genitals (the testes and ovaries)."

14 hours ago, iNow said:

What does this mean? It means that all this talk about sex is irrelevant to the topic

Hmmm, it's very important! Since male & female sports are segregated based on sex. But a minority group want to claim otherwise. They want to claim qualification by personal gender identity. The 2 often get conflated when there is a clear distinction between them when a person is transitioning. 

20 hours ago, swansont said:

No comprehensive definition is a far cry from no distinction.

That’s a helluva strawman

 

Why? to make a clear and concise distinction between 2 things then surely you first need a comprehensive definition of each? 

My argument is and as always been that there is a clear biological  distinction between a male & female (especially so post puberty) and that at the elite level sports that distinction can have a profound difference on performance ability. 

I'm still waiting for someone to refute this when all the evidence is there to see. If this was not the case then the men's & women's records would align. But this is not the case, in the vast majority of disciplines the men out perform the women by what (at elite level) is regarded a massive margin. 

This is a science forum we use verified data to come up with a sound conclusion. If the data changes we adjust our conclusion. As yet no elite biological woman has broken any of the elite men's records. 

For this reason there requires a solution to include all participants in a fair manner which pits each competitor against others with similar performance ability.  The governing bodies already do this by categorisation based on physical attributes, which includes biological sex. There is a very clear (based on evidence) that males (in general) out perform females in athletic disciplines, at the elite level this is more profound and evident. 

But then in comes the curved ball - what about people who identify as a certain gender, but biologically do not qualify for that gender group? 

Well its unfair to dis-clude them altogether because that's not fair on them! but in the same token it's unfair to include them in the group with which they identify because that is unfair on the group.

So what's it to be? 

Edited August 16, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Why? to make a clear and concise distinction between 2 things then surely you first need a comprehensive definition of each? 

The argument was “no distinction” not “clear and concise distinction”

Clearly one can make distinctions, as we can observe it happening in this thread. And nobody is arguing that there is no distinction, since AFAICT nobody is arguing that men and women are identical. The argument is that there are more than two categories, not less.

 

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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.

Oh come on, this isn't a playground; be honest and point to a post where you, or anyone else, have answered my fundamental question.

I can't be bothered with this thread until you, or anyone else, answer my, very simple, fucking question; until you do, I'll be over nyah...

 

[swansont]

8 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Not sure why you feel the need to point this out, given that everyone here understands that it is the top performances of each group that needs to be considered and for many sports there is such a persistent gap that World records are significantly different.

People have insisted that sex is not a spectrum. There can’t be an overlap of sexual characteristics if there’s no spectrum. 

8 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The less than 1% refers to the intersex, most of whom do not transgender.

Less than 1% of humanity is intersex.

Most transgenders, the vast majority, have natural biologies that the science of biology can readily categorize as male or female. Most make up part of the 99+%, and the more athletic ones could dominate some female sports if not burdened by any medical interventions. 

Less than 1% also identify as transgender. And only are readily categorized if you only recognize a subset of the sexual characteristics, i.e. you look at the most visible differences but ignore secondary ones. But that leads us into the circular reasoning that plagues this discussion, that there are two categories because we’ve postulated that there are two categories. 

[mistermack]

Richard Dawkins put it so well, as usual. It's like he's been reading this thread : 

Richard Dawkins blasts 'paranoid hypersensitive' trans activists as he outlines attempts to silence him (msn.com) 

[TheVat]

29 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Richard Dawkins put it so well, as usual. It's like he's been reading this thread : 

Richard Dawkins blasts 'paranoid hypersensitive' trans activists as he outlines attempts to silence him (msn.com) 

I am wondering how your thread experience has paralleled Dawkins's. You seem to be going strong, I can see no evidence you've been silenced.  I'm not saying Dawkins, Rowling et al haven't experienced attempts to gag them, and I oppose using ideological correctness to stifle free discourse, but this is a biology thread so I would see the only restriction here as that one must show some fealty to facts regarding phenotypic expression.  The fact I've gleaned, from the start, is that there are biological effects in the phenotypic expression of sex chromosomes, relating to pre-natal hormone levels in utero and epigenetics and androgen insensitivity, such that gender is not just a social artifact.  IOW, feeling one is a woman inside a male body is a genuine and valid experience, not a social fad one has taken up.

The Endocrine Society said, in a position statement that

"Considerable scientific evidence has emerged demonstrating a durable biological element underlying gender identity. Individuals may make choices due to other factors in their lives, but there do not seem to be external forces that genuinely cause individuals to change gender identity."

https://www.endocrine.org/advocacy/position-statements/transgender-health

 

[zapatos]

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

it's unfair to include them in the group with which they identify because that is unfair on the group.

It is only unfair on the group if you don't implement rules that make it fair for the group. Which is of course the route everyone (except you) is taking. No one is arguing there should be no rules surrounding transgender inclusion. You are again erecting straw men.

[mistermack]

25 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I am wondering how your thread experience has paralleled Dawkins's.

This comment by Dawkins applies pretty closely to a lot of posting on here : 

"The God Delusion author said that some activists choose not to listen to counter-arguments, instead only hearing “hate hate hate”.     

And this : 

Dawkins believed that the user who complained was sincere in their outrage, but pins this down to a “paranoid hypersensitivity that almost literally warps their hearing”.

Of course, being silenced for Dawkins, on here translates as negative "arse-lick" points, which might influence some people I guess, if they are sad enough to treasure them. 

37 minutes ago, TheVat said:

IOW, feeling one is a woman inside a male body is a genuine and valid experience, not a social fad one has taken up.

Well, it can be one or the other, or both. It's mainly because people identify as their mental ID firstly, over their physical ID. That's why people consider they have the wrong body, and not the wrong brain. You could conceivably put your brain in another body, and still feel that you are still yourself. But if they put another brain in your body, then "you" would be gone. 

12 minutes ago, zapatos said:

It is only unfair on the group if you don't implement rules that make it fair for the group. Which is of course the route everyone (except you) is taking. No one is arguing there should be no rules surrounding transgender inclusion. You are again erecting straw men.

What are these rules, that will make it fair for both groups?

[zapatos]

10 minutes ago, mistermack said:

What are these rules, that will make it fair for both groups?

Can you think of anything, anyone in this thread has mentioned over the past 88 pages? Anything at all? Testosterone levels perhaps? Handicaps? Different rules for different sports? Number of transgender players on the field at a time? Olympic rules for participation? Trying different strategies and collecting data as they are evaluated for fairness?

[mistermack]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Can you think of anything, anyone in this thread has mentioned over the past 88 pages? Anything at all? Testosterone levels perhaps? Handicaps? Different rules for different sports? Number of transgender players on the field at a time? Olympic rules for participation? Trying different strategies and collecting data as they are evaluated for fairness?

What rules are you offering?

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

What rules are you offering?

Handicapping.