Transgender athletes

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

After I forget to do that...I can no longer edit to add them...not sure why but edit is no longer available to me.

Since February

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

Thanks INow!

[Holmes]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

That is not what I said. Not at all.

I’ve already clarified this for you more than once, yet you persist in your misrepresentation. 

It’s as if I’d said, “This is a lovely home. It reminds me of my grandmothers house,” and you replied, “I’ve never lived with your grandmother. I don’t even know her. Why are you lying? What’s wrong with you?”

Lather. Rinse. Repeat. 

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

It's not a sharp dichotomy. It's not male and female, it's a continuum: maleness to femaleness and vice versa. In the world of science, 'commonsense' is what it tries to avoid and is not a defence... it's a subjective position.

There are two sexes male and female, as for "gender" this is a social construct.

[iNow]

10 minutes ago, Holmes said:

 

 

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

Yeah, you're trolling me.

QFT

11 minutes ago, Holmes said:

There are two sexes male and female, as for "gender" this is a social construct.

Repeating an invalid claim doesn’t magically make it true. 

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Holmes said:

Perhaps, but the division men and women is based on an objective scientific facts, the chromosome pairing.

But it’s not. Men and women were divisions made long before chromosomes were known, and we know there are more than these two pairings.

3 hours ago, Holmes said:

I don't see how one can misrepresent their gender in this day and age, one's gender is merely announced ("fluid" to use the trendy term) nowadays it seems, not imposed by nature.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

[StringJunky]

44 minutes ago, Holmes said:

There are two sexes male and female, as for "gender" this is a social construct.

OK, list  the quantitative physiological parameters of each sex. That means the measurable elements of what encompasses and defines what each sex is. I think that gets to the heart of whether sex, as you seem to think it is, is compactly definable.

Edited July 3, 2021 by StringJunky
punctuation

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Holmes said:

This is not a real disadvantage, if they no longer want to compete in the men's category then that's their choice, I do not see why women should be expected to suffer just because men who claim to be female decide to no longer participate as men.

This whole argument is based on there being a disadvantage to competing in the men’s category.

And framing it as “men who claim to be female” is part of the issue.

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

We can start with your claim that "This whole thing boils down to either accepting or rejecting that trans women are women"

It was a claim of logic, not science. Is there some excluded third option?

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

1,665 in 1,666 people are have xx or xy chromosomes. Very approximately half are xx and half xy. Claiming that as a "false dichotomy" for the purpose of allowing generally advantaged xy chromosome individuals to compete in the category of those with xx chromosomes counts as well:

So in the US you exclude about 200,000 people.  Yeah, sure, that’s the same as zero </s> 

[CharonY]

58 minutes ago, Holmes said:

There are two sexes male and female, as for "gender" this is a social construct.

I think you need to read some basic texts to challenge your notions.

It goes beyond chromosomal pairing, and especially advances in high-throughput genetic analyses have started to show how biology diverges from our preconceptions.

Here is a decent and easy read: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

41 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

So in the US you exclude about 200,000 people.  Yeah, sure, that’s the same as zero </s> 

Who said it was zero? 

Do you feel those 200,000 with neither XX or XY chromosomes should effect the consideration as to whether some with XY chromosomes (where XY chromosomes have proven and demonstrable advantage at the highest levels of sport) in the category generally reserved for those with XX chromosomes (where XX chromosomes have proven and demonstrable disadvantage at the highest levels of sport)?

 

What do those 200,000 have to do with the question of whether the two distinct divisions should overlap in sports competition?

Edited July 4, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

4 hours ago, MigL said:

And your statement to dismiss, or silence, the argument that cis-women are disadvantaged by trans-women ( in some respects ), is not something I would expect from you.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. 

If you’d like to share some peer reviewed articles about the scope and scale of the problem… real-world examples of the disadvantages cisgendered female athletes are facing in athletics due specifically to the six (tee hee  ) trans athletes competing against them, then I’d be happy to review it and possibly reconsider my stance... Ideally something more than the fictional examples of Mike Tyson putting on a dress or people with robotic arms in the Olympics as have thus far been provided.

Until then, I’ll simply need to accept your disapproval of me and perhaps comfort myself in the recognition that I’m almost certainly once again on the right side of history with my current stance on this topic (much like I was on the right side with gay marriage, civil rights, universal healthcare, climate change, evolution, and other similar topics where one side is very clearly right and the other side is very clearly wrong).

[MigL]

You keep throwing gay marriage,  civil rights, universal healthcare, climate change, evolution, and other similar topics, into a discussion they have nothing to with.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

If you’d like to share some peer reviewed articles about the scope and scale of the problem… real-world examples of the disadvantages cisgendered female athletes are facing in athletics due specifically to the six (tee hee  ) trans athletes competing against them, then I’d be happy to review it and possibly reconsider my stance

i thought you read all the posts; you must have missed this one I posted ... twice.

Barbara Kay: Transgender weightlifter may expose the unfairness of trans athletes in Tokyo (msn.com)

Or will you only accept it when someone does a peer reviewed study of it ?

Edited July 4, 2021 by MigL

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Until then, I’ll simply need to accept your disapproval of me and perhaps comfort myself in the recognition that I’m almost certainly once again on the right side of history with my current stance on this topic (much like I was on the right side with gay marriage, civil rights, universal healthcare, climate change, evolution, and other similar topics where one side is very clearly right and the other side is very clearly wrong).

Just for the record...what side are you on for climate change? The complete denial side, or the "I've only got 12 more years to pat myself on the back" side?

Edited July 4, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[dimreepr]

On 7/1/2021 at 1:58 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

I'm not saying you don't have a legitimate view point. No one should be forced to give a damn about Women's sport or drug testing to keep it clean and healthy. If you don't that's fine.

That's tap-dancing around a strawman; my point is, the people who really give a shit are:

Those who just want to compete, in order to find their limits.

Those who just want to win at any cost.

You'll note the lack of a gender...

 

[iNow]

8 hours ago, MigL said:

Or will you only accept it when someone does a peer reviewed study of it ?

Thank you.  I did see that. It was interesting, but I struggled to accept it as a non biased source when they did things like calling the existing rules delusional and unfair. They even mentioned the “parade of horribles” which would likely ensue as nations would begin “coercing” their male athletes to falsely declare themselves as female before competitions in order to secure trophies, etc. I was reminded of comments in gay marriage threads where people would ask, “what’s next, letting humans marry their dogs?”

It strongly implied to me that the author had an agenda and needed to be read with a grain of salt. Yes, I would prefer an actual study with actual evidence that’s been peer-reviewed… something that goes beyond an anecdote from an opinion writer.

Note: They do reference testosterone levels. As I think has already been mentioned here, we could eliminate differentiation by gender/sex altogether and class groups by serum testosterone amounts regardless of the XX XY etc makeup. There are better paths available. 

Edited July 4, 2021 by iNow

[dimreepr]

The most commonly used word in this thread is the word fair/is it fair?

From the example above; which type is most likely to cry "unfair", before stamping their feet and slamming the door, in a dramatic exit?

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Just for the record...what side are you on for climate change? The complete denial side, or the "I've only got 12 more years to pat myself on the back" side?

Do you know what your bias is?

[Holmes]

15 hours ago, StringJunky said:

OK, list  the quantitative physiological parameters of each sex. That means the measurable elements of what encompasses and defines what each sex is. I think that gets to the heart of whether sex, as you seem to think it is, is compactly definable.

Do you really want to pursue this line of reasoning? it leads nowhere useful.

For example what if someone argued that marriage to twelve year old girls should be legalized and accepted by society, including some 12 twelve year old girls?

Today - we and certainly I - would point out that this is a child but then someone could ask "define child for me?".

So, how would you react if someone were to suggest this?

15 hours ago, swansont said:

And framing it as “men who claim to be female” is part of the issue.

I don't see how it is not part of "the issue", if there were not men claiming to be female (that is, demanding to be regarded as female wherever the distinction arises) then there would not be an issue surely?

Furthermore if you insist on supporting this idea then logically we should eliminate the current distinction between men and women altogether since if we cannot scientifically define "woman" (as you and some others appear to argue) then why even entertain the concept at all?

Why even have terms like "feminine" or "masculine" when there's no logical prospect of defining these? 

Can you define "feminine" for me for example in objective scientific terms?

Edited July 4, 2021 by Holmes

[J.C.MacSwell]

16 hours ago, StringJunky said:

OK, list  the quantitative physiological parameters of each sex. That means the measurable elements of what encompasses and defines what each sex is. I think that gets to the heart of whether sex, as you seem to think it is, is compactly definable.

No one can answer this accurately enough to judge which transgenders should be allowed to compete in CY's suggested "Women's" category at competitive levels. The baseline is elusive enough prior to judging on a case by case basis as described.

 

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The most commonly used word in this thread is the word fair/is it fair?

From the example above; which type is most likely to cry "unfair", before stamping their feet and slamming the door, in a dramatic exit?

Do you know what your bias is?

You think anything suggested here is fair to trans athletes?

Do you thinks it's fair to have someone judge whether they are "women enough" to compete?

How about allowing them to compete...and then telling them they are no longer eligible after realizing the maintained more "biological advantage" than previously judged?

How about making sure they are handicapped so onerously they cannot win? Would that be any better?

Do you think it's fair to ask a transgender athlete to alter their body chemistry if they wish to compete?

I can see no path to success on this. I can see it failing and all the so called "experts" abandoning it like rats off a sinking ship...I mean they meant well...hoped it would work out...and the athletes getting pointed at are adults and did choose to subject themselves to the drug regimes required to compete ...so not their fault.

Except it would be.

Edited July 4, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I can see no path to success on this. I can see it failing and all the so called "experts" abandoning it like rats off a sinking ship

Which, as you may understand, makes dialog with you on possible paths forward rather challenging and frustrating. Some of us would like a better solution than “let them have their own separate water fountains.”

[J.C.MacSwell]

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

Which, as you may understand, makes dialog with you on possible paths forward rather challenging and frustrating. Some of us would like a better solution than “let them have their own separate water fountains.”

Has there been any better suggestions?

From CY's suggested solution:

"Then, transgender athletes could be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Based on their athletic ability, a tournament organizer could determine which division is most fair for them to compete in, “women’s” or “open.”

For trans women athletes, at issue is their athletic ability, not their womanhood. If a tournament organizer determines that a trans woman athlete is too good to compete against other women because of her biological advantage, requiring her to compete in an “open” division does not undermine her humanity."

What if she feels it does? And why should she feel it would not?

What fountain does she get banned to, if she's to good for one but not good enough for the other?

[zapatos]

6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Has there been any better suggestions?

 

I like to think mine was better...

Quote

 

"My suggestion is to look at data that predicts the impact of transgender women on women's sports, discuss it, and develop a plan. It would not involve anyone being forced to change their bodies or hormones.

That would involve things such as how many people are involved, what the average difference is between trans- and cisgender women wrt to physical ability, whether or not that difference is material in the sport being discussed, the feedback received from the women/governing bodies/governments/etc."

 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I like to think mine was better...

 

+1. How does it work in the interim, prior to the impacts becoming clear?

[swansont]

16 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Who said it was zero? 

You said the situation wasn’t a false dichotomy, which implies there isn’t a third option. So basically you did.

Claiming that as a "false dichotomy" for the purpose of allowing generally advantaged xy chromosome individuals to compete in the category of those with xx chromosomes counts as well

Nobody has established that the chromosomes of these people (is anyone doing such tests?) or that chromosomes are actually the sole determinant of gender.

Nor that the ones competing are “generally advantaged” because this. The lack of examples of all the medals/money being won suggests this is not true.

Furthermore, this is not an exclusive matter of science. There are moral/ethical considerations, and legal ones in play.

1 hour ago, Holmes said:

I don't see how it is not part of "the issue", if there were not men claiming to be female (that is, demanding to be regarded as female wherever the distinction arises) then there would not be an issue surely?

It basically demands we use two categories for gender when that’s not the case. And that gender is all in the plumbing and not in the brain and other aspects of the body (and even then ignores that it’s not so simple as only 2 options for what body parts you have)

To me the blinders seem similar to the mistaken notion that you choose your sexual orientation. That one is choosing to be a different gender, like one is choosing to be attracted to people of the same sex.

 

Quote

Furthermore if you insist on supporting this idea then logically we should eliminate the current distinction between men and women altogether since if we cannot scientifically define "woman" (as you and some others appear to argue) then why even entertain the concept at all?

Out of convenience, perhaps. Since it applies to a large majority of people

Quote

Why even have terms like "feminine" or "masculine" when there's no logical prospect of defining these? 

Can you define "feminine" for me for example in objective scientific terms?

It’s a social distinction, but probably much less of a scientific one.

[Sensei]

21 hours ago, Holmes said:

If this is to be partitioned into just two then surely, scientifically basing it on the chromosome paring of XX and XY solves this problem.

BTW, did not you hear about e.g. XXX, XXY, XYY etc. ?

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

"A relatively common disorder occurring in 1 in 1,000 women, trisomy X is rarely diagnosed; fewer than 10% of those with the condition know they have it. Diagnosis of trisomy X is complicated by its mild presentation; many girls and women with an extra X chromosome show no symptoms significant enough to inspire formal testing."

(so there are ~ 4 millions worldwide people with it)

"The first known case of trisomy X, in a 176 cm (5 ft 9+1⁄2 in) woman who experienced premature ovarian failure at the age of 19, was diagnosed in 1959 by a team led by Patricia Jacobs."

(so it pretty fresh discovery and not fully well understood branch of science)

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

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

...and more variations at references..

Quote

  1. ..... 56.

That looks like a fake created by mockers..

17 hours ago, Holmes said:

There are two sexes male and female, as for "gender" this is a social construct.

No, it's not a social construct.

Some incompetent people and mockers who want to ridicule and disqualify LGBT, are persuading that it is a social construct and somebody can be artificially transformed by just discussion about it..

21 hours ago, swansont said:

So you would not let these other people compete? That hardly seems fair.

If they don't identify as male or female they should not participate in male or female sports either.. Otherwise they would have to lie that they are male or female, if they truly don't identify with these genders..

[Holmes]

44 minutes ago, Sensei said:

BTW, did not you hear about e.g. XXX, XXY, XYY etc. ?

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

"A relatively common disorder occurring in 1 in 1,000 women, trisomy X is rarely diagnosed; fewer than 10% of those with the condition know they have it. Diagnosis of trisomy X is complicated by its mild presentation; many girls and women with an extra X chromosome show no symptoms significant enough to inspire formal testing."

(so there are ~ 4 millions worldwide people with it)

"The first known case of trisomy X, in a 176 cm (5 ft 9+1⁄2 in) woman who experienced premature ovarian failure at the age of 19, was diagnosed in 1959 by a team led by Patricia Jacobs."

(so it pretty fresh discovery and not fully well understood branch of science)

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

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

...and more variations at references..

I'll consider the above and respond in due course, in the meantime though:

Quote

No, it's not a social construct.

Some incompetent people and mockers who want to ridicule and disqualify LGBT, are persuading that it is a social construct and somebody can be artificially transformed by just discussion about it..

Very well so define "feminine" for me please.

Right, now back to your first point:

44 minutes ago, Sensei said:

BTW, did not you hear about e.g. XXX, XXY, XYY etc. ?

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

"A relatively common disorder occurring in 1 in 1,000 women, trisomy X is rarely diagnosed; fewer than 10% of those with the condition know they have it. Diagnosis of trisomy X is complicated by its mild presentation; many girls and women with an extra X chromosome show no symptoms significant enough to inspire formal testing."

(so there are ~ 4 millions worldwide people with it)

"The first known case of trisomy X, in a 176 cm (5 ft 9+1⁄2 in) woman who experienced premature ovarian failure at the age of 19, was diagnosed in 1959 by a team led by Patricia Jacobs."

(so it pretty fresh discovery and not fully well understood branch of science)

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

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

...and more variations at references..

I just read the Wikipedia article and noticed this "...in which a female has an extra copy of the X chromosome...".

So it seems that this is regarded as a female (XX) with the addition of an abnormality, and a similar definition exists for the others, all of them refer to abnormalities.

I also just saw this too, quite by accident:

Quote

The appearance of at least one Y chromosome with a properly functioning SRY gene makes a male. 

Examining "SRY" gives us:

Unless I'm mistaken, this is what one would call "scientific".

Edited July 4, 2021 by Holmes

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

+1. How does it work in the interim, prior to the impacts becoming clear?

Well I don't know precisely of course, but perhaps it could use Demonstration Sports as a model once an acceptable plan is worked out.

This has the advantage of not negatively impacting the current crop of athletes while running a realistic trial to see how well it might work in the future.