Transgender athletes

[iNow]

15 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

it only takes one to dominate and thus exclude hundreds of other competitors from a chance of winning

IINM, no evidence of trans dominance has yet been provided. This assumption rests at the heart of your entire position, yet remains unfounded. Maybe one anecdote about one athlete, but anecdotes do not evidence make. 

17 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

The only issue I see is that I'm told science cannot accurately determine the distinction between a male and female

More specifically, the categories aren't as hard and independent as you and others keep suggesting. Spectrum, not binary. Literally non-binary. 

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

If a handicapping system is brought in, and you remove their current advantage

What advantage is that, again?

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

the trans women would still be complaining that the handicapping is unfair. And when one actually qualifies and wins, the females will complain that the handicapping wasn't properly assessed.

Your self-assured ability to forecast the future is impressive. Can you use this same power of yours to please tell us next weeks lottery numbers? 

[mistermack]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

What advantage is that, again?

What's wrong with you? How can you not know that after taking part in this thread?

[Intoscience]

On 8/19/2023 at 1:32 AM, iNow said:

Unless, of course, you’re trans and trying to compete in the division which best aligns with how you authentically identify yourself

What does this mean? How does a person authenticate their chosen identity? And how does that map with actual biology or physical attributes? 

I think this is where things get a little muddy and where we need definitions that we all align to. Personally I would prefer to align with fact based definitions rather than psychological based feelings, opinions or beliefs.  

[iNow]

1 minute ago, Intoscience said:

How does a person authenticate their chosen identity? And how does that map with actual biology or physical attributes?

It depends a bit on each individuals circumstances and the sport in which they're trying to participate, does it not? 

1 minute ago, Intoscience said:

Personally I would prefer to align with fact based definitions rather than psychological based feelings, opinions or beliefs

I understand you believe your approach is fact based, but that just means you've ignored the biology-focused content our biology and other experts have repeatedly shared here in this thread.

You can continue working from a foundational premise that only two genders exist and everything else is some sort of "woke nonsense," but simply repeating a mistake over and over doesn't magically make it correct. 

[Intoscience]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

More specifically, the categories aren't as hard and independent as you and others keep suggesting. Spectrum, not binary. Literally non-binary

So if they aren't so distinctive why does a person wish to trans in the first place? Surely there has to be s distinction to make the transition?

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, mistermack said:

What's wrong with you? How can you not know that after taking part in this thread?

Many things are wrong with me, and sometimes a bad memory is one of them. Kindly please remind me of where in this thread the "clear advantages trans athletes have" was supported in any way beyond speculation and opinion.

2 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

So if they aren't so distinctive why does a person wish to trans in the first place?

You'd have to ask them. It's likely because they're trying to exist in a culture where those categories are still so prominently used (despite their obvious flaws and limitations). 

2 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

there has to be s distinction to make the transition?

Nobody here is arguing zero distinctions. The point is there are more than two... non-binary, along a spectrum... distinctions still exist, but they're not representable with just two non-overlapping Venn diagram circles. 

Edited August 21, 2023 by iNow

[Intoscience]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

I understand you believe your approach is fact based, but that just means you've ignored the biology-focused content our biology and other experts have repeatedly shared here in this thread.

You can continue working from a foundational premise that only two genders exist and everything else is some sort of "woke nonsense," but simply repeating a mistake over and over doesn't magically make it correct

But I see, based on evidence and definitions (not mine but mainstream) that the majority of the population is made up of either male or female and the remaining minority a variety of "conditions" which are regarded as abnormalities. 

[iNow]

IOW, please stop erecting strawmen. 

Just now, Intoscience said:

the majority of the population is made up of either male or female

So what? Even within those buckets distinctions remain

Majority of white people used to think black people were inferior. Didn't make it true. 

[Intoscience]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Nobody here is arguing zero distinctions. The point is there are more than two... non-binary, along a spectrum... distinctions still exist, but they're not representable with just two Venn diagram circles

Ok I'm willing to accept this even though I don't agree, but for the sake of this discussion lets run with it. So a person identifying as a "woman" as a clear specific definition of what a woman - adult female - is. So what is the definition? 

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

IOW, please stop erecting strawmen. 

How is it a strawman? the vast majority of the human population are regarded by mainstream to be either biological male or biological female and any person excluded from these groups are said to have "conditions". I'm not setting these definitions the medical world is! 

[iNow]

48 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

a person identifying as a "woman" as a clear specific definition of what a woman - adult female - is.

Not necessarily. I challenge this assumption. 

48 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

So what is the definition? 

It will vary from one person to the next, as already noted. 

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Many things are wrong with me, and sometimes a bad memory is one of them. Kindly please remind me of where in this thread the "clear advantages trans athletes have" was supported in any way beyond speculation and opinion.

Nope. If you are going to pretend to be that ignorant, then I'll leave you in bliss. 

[iNow]

I’d genuinely like you to show me instead of just acting like an ass, but I readily acknowledge that has nearly a zero probability of happening (previously summarized by saying you’re posting in bad faith)

Edited August 21, 2023 by iNow

[Intoscience]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Not necessarily. I challenge this assumption. 

It will vary from one person to the next, as already noted. 

I have researched the definition of a woman and can find 2. 

1. An adult human female - attributed by biological sex

2. A person's gender identity

Though technically the first is the original definition the second is being (changed) embraced by some and now more widely accepted by people to use as gender identity and this definition is becoming ever more fluid, the 2 are not mutually inclusive. 

Ok, so coming back to sports, my assumption was that sporting categories were, and continue to be based on biological sex for the reasons as pointed out over many pages - In general, but especially so at the elite level, biological men physically out perform biological females.

Based on this, If the above 2 definitions are not mutually inclusive then why should the sporting category be so?     

Edited August 21, 2023 by Intoscience

[swansont]

9 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Ok, so coming back to sports, my assumption was that sporting categories were, and continue to be based on biological sex for the reasons as pointed out over many pages

Except they aren’t necessarily based on biological sex. Some of them are based on gender.

9 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

- In general, but especially so at the elite level, biological men physically out perform biological females

Cis males, on average, outperform cis females 

“biological” determination can be based on chromosomes, or by the visible reproductive organs. And, as has been noted a number of times, either is only a very coarse description - there are a number of biological attributes if you look closer.

[Intoscience]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Except they aren’t necessarily based on biological sex. Some of them are based on gender

Ok, so maybe this needs changing. If there is (data driven) evidence supporting cis - male over cis female physical advantages then surely the categories require acknowledgement of this and adjust the rules accordingly? 

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Cis males, on average, outperform cis females 

“biological” determination can be based on chromosomes, or by the visible reproductive organs. And, as has been noted a number of times, either is only a very coarse description - there are a number of biological attributes if you look closer

This is fine but where do you draw the line to enable sporting rules to be applicable? We have agreed and established that on average there is a physical difference. What we need is a distinct definition for sporting events, a cut off line so to speak, that clearly and fairly categorises in a way so that participants can compete on a relatively even playing field. 

When all said and done this argument isn't even really about gender identity, its about biological sex. the 2 get conflated because we insist on using the term "woman" for the categories where in modern society the term woman has an additional definition that is not mutually inclusive with the original. 

 

[swansont]

15 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

This is fine but where do you draw the line to enable sporting rules to be applicable? We have agreed and established that on average there is a physical difference. What we need is a distinct definition for sporting events, a cut off line so to speak, that clearly and fairly categorises in a way so that participants can compete on a relatively even playing field. 

Even before that, for this thread (or perhaps another, since this one is supposed to be about gender), we need to have participants acknowledge the reality that the notion of sex is more complicated than what chromosomes you have, or what your visible genitalia are. 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Even before that, for this thread (or perhaps another, since this one is supposed to be about gender), we need to have participants acknowledge the reality that the notion of sex is more complicated than what chromosomes you have, or what your visible genitalia are. 

 

It is about transgenders (in sports of course), not just gender alone...so yes it's certainly complicated but can't be gender alone as transgender means to have changed from your gender assumed from your biological sex (or that assumed at birth)

...and your biological sex, based on your chromosomes, surely aligns with the male advantage.

You can argue that some transgender females may have never had this advantage...but you can't ignore that the ones we need to consider for elite sports all did. Laurel Hubbard, for example, surely had lifts that if female at the time would have been significant World Records (I'll look it up if you don't want to...I'm more than confident that's the case if that's not obvious to you as well)

 

[zapatos]

8 hours ago, Intoscience said:

The only issue I see is that I'm told science cannot accurately determine the distinction between a male and female and if a person identifies as either then this seems to trump any physical evidence anyhow. 

I'm not sure a universally accepted definition of male and female is required.

For the purposes of competition we already manage to slot most people into a reasonable category. That is, the way you were identified at birth as male or female works just fine for putting you in the 'male' or 'female' divisions.

If you identify as the opposite of the way you were identified at birth and your transition status complies with the rules, then you compete in the category in which you identify/transition.

There may be something lacking in the above but I think for the most part we needn't get any more detailed in our definitions of male/female.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

...and your biological sex, based on your chromosomes, surely aligns with the male advantage.

Chromosomes alone does not indicate any individual’s ability at sports. So any alleged biological advantage has to go beyond your chromosomes. It’s ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

[Intoscience]

9 hours ago, zapatos said:

I'm not sure a universally accepted definition of male and female is required.

For the purposes of competition we already manage to slot most people into a reasonable category. That is, the way you were identified at birth as male or female works just fine for putting you in the 'male' or 'female' divisions

Sure it is, all rules have to operate around universally accepted definitions else they are open to interpretation which leads to confusion and sometimes controversy.  Any category defined by a marker needs a well defined marker. For example categories set by weight. 

If the definition of the term "woman" is fluid then how can that be used to define a category?  If we can clearly define (within reasonable accuracy) the physical performance difference between what we label as male and female then we can use this as a universal marker (definition) specifically for the purpose at hand - sports.

Is that not the whole point? 

Things get complicated when gender identity and biological sex performance attributes are conflated. When clearly by the very 2 definitions of the term "woman", gender and biological sex are not mutually inclusive. 

We have to start with clear definitions based on a selection of data and testing. We can argue till the cows come home about how deep into the biological aspects we delve. But the logical step would be to take from the data that which is most relevant to the context - physical performance, and apply it so we can draw a sensible and universal conclusion. 

But this is already done to a degree, and has been workable for years.

Now we want to include trans gender, and rightly so, all should have an opportunity to compete! But qualification by gender identity alone comes with complications, which need addressing.   

14 hours ago, swansont said:

Even before that, for this thread (or perhaps another, since this one is supposed to be about gender), we need to have participants acknowledge the reality that the notion of sex is more complicated than what chromosomes you have, or what your visible genitalia are

Maybe so, but for the purpose of this thread which is centred around sports then there are biological aspects that have been proven to be clear markers for physical performance. 

The data is out there look at the sporting results, on average males out perform females in physical activities. So clearly there is a physical (biological) difference between what we term male & female. 

So regardless whether this thread is specifically about gender identity, to have any sensible discussion we have to also look at the biological aspects related to physical sporting ability! We need this in order to determine what category a person should be included in. No different than weight divisions or other physically defined categories.   

Edited August 22, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Maybe so, but for the purpose of this thread which is centred around sports then there are biological aspects that have been proven to be clear markers for physical performance.

And it isn’t based simply on what chromosomes you have.

[zapatos]

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Sure it is...

Then how do you explain the fact that we have men's and women's categories now even though there is no universally accepted definition of male and female?

The world is full of examples where we don't have universally accepted definitions yet we function just fine. In my circles, a gun would include my target pistol whereas in the military it only includes "any large-calibre, direct-fire, high-velocity, flat-trajectory artillery piece employing an explosive-filled hollowed metal shell or solid bolt as its primary projectile."

What is the universally accepted definition of "football"? How can we study black holes if we don't have a clear definition of what it is? Why must the definition of "woman" be the same for a priest, biologist, sports league, school administrator, justice system, corporation and individual?

Sports leagues are free to define 'woman' any way they wish, and if they choose to define 'man' and 'woman' as they've done for the past 50 years, why should they be forced to change that definition now?

As I've said to you several times in this thread, I believe the quest for the mythical "one true definition of "woman"" is nothing more than a distraction when it comes to the question of transgenders in sport. We've never had the perfect definition in the past and yet we managed to have men's and women's leagues. The focus needs to be on NEW rules for trans women to compete in the existing women's leagues. There is no need to redefine the OLD rules that define women's leagues as they exist now.

[Intoscience]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Then how do you explain the fact that we have men's and women's categories now even though there is no universally accepted definition of male and female?

The world is full of examples where we don't have universally accepted definitions yet we function just fine. In my circles, a gun would include my target pistol whereas in the military it only includes "any large-calibre, direct-fire, high-velocity, flat-trajectory artillery piece employing an explosive-filled hollowed metal shell or solid bolt as its primary projectile."

What is the universally accepted definition of "football"? How can we study black holes if we don't have a clear definition of what it is? Why must the definition of "woman" be the same for a priest, biologist, sports league, school administrator, justice system, corporation and individual?

Sports leagues are free to define 'woman' any way they wish, and if they choose to define 'man' and 'woman' as they've done for the past 50 years, why should they be forced to change that definition now?

As I've said to you several times in this thread, I believe the quest for the mythical "one true definition of "woman"" is nothing more than a distraction when it comes to the question of transgenders in sport. We've never had the perfect definition in the past and yet we managed to have men's and women's leagues. The focus needs to be on NEW rules for trans women to compete in the existing women's leagues. There is no need to redefine the OLD rules that define women's leagues as they exist now.

Sure we do, we have many clear definitions for many things, there is nothing stopping us redefining as we probe more detailed depths or as more accurate data comes to bear. It also depends on the context and purpose. For example you mentioned a black hole, the simple universally accepted definition is simply - a region of space where not even light can escape. Sure you can refine that definition and continue to improve on it if you wish to do so. Until recently a woman was defined as - an adult human female. The definition has since evolve over the past few years and now includes - gender identity that is fluid. 

Quote

Sports leagues are free to define 'woman' any way they wish, and if they choose to define 'man' and 'woman' as they've done for the past 50 years, why should they be forced to change that definition now?

I'm not the one forcing them to change the definition?????

The original definition of a woman was  - adult human female. That's what the women's category was originally based around. Now the definition of a woman has evolved to include an additional definition - fluid gender identity. So the logical step to include trans gender in the "women" category, the rules must be fundamentally changed to fairly include the new additional definition. Or we could split the category into separate divisions, like they do with weight. 

You cant have a competition with rules that were based on old definitions and expect it to continue to function properly without evolving to include/consider changed/new definitions, that would be illogical.  

 

[zapatos]

7 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I'm not the one forcing them to change the definition?????

 

You are the one advocating for them to change it because you say they "have to operate around universally accepted definition." They are not attempting to change it themselves. They are attempting to integrate transgender women into the competition.

Edited August 22, 2023 by zapatos

[Intoscience]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

And it isn’t based simply on what chromosomes you have

I never advocated it was. There is an undeniable difference between male and female physical performance. The current world athletic championships highlight this as we speak. So where predominantly does that extra performance come from? cause it sure aint all just psychological. It comes from physiological attributes that are fundamentally biological differences.