Transgender athletes

[iNow]

Of course. Asking questions is not at all unreasonable. Asking loaded questions, or asking in prejudicial ways that preference information that reinforces preconceptions and merely confirms a potentially biased position (instead of letting the evidence inform our position in the first place), however? Not so much. 

[swansont]

16 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

Understood. I apologize.

Can you consider that Curious Layman intended honest discussion as well?

Yes, and they backed off the example (agreeing it was “extreme”). You brought it up again as if that didn’t happen.

Can we please discuss actual cases, instead of manufactured ones?

[J.C.MacSwell]

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes, and they backed off the example (agreeing it was “extreme”). You brought it up again as if that didn’t happen.

Can we please discuss actual cases, instead of manufactured ones?

No. I brought up that it important to consider reasonably plausible extremes when setting the rules. Despite your contention that it is not honest discussion (your term) I not only believe it is, I believe that's where it's necessary to focus when setting the rules/limits. Especially when dealing with a relatively new phenomenon, such as trans women competing in women's sports, limiting yourself to only real life examples is not a very prudent way to go.

Bruce Jenner won the decathlon in 1976. Many considered him the World's greatest athlete. He (I would refer to her today as she) didn't decide at that time to change to identifying as female until much later but it is not beyond plausibilities to have someone at a similar level wanting to make that choice, especially today and moving forward where people are becoming more accepting.

On 3/5/2021 at 4:01 PM, swansont said:

You could go with believing people when they tell you the gender with which they identify. Why does it have to be more complicated than that?

At some level of sport that's all that should be necessary. At some levels it absolutely isn't.

People cheat.

You could use your same argument for eliminating WADA (World Anti Doping Agency) by simply asking people not to cheat. I've been tested for steroids. No one accused me of anything but the protocol was in place to make for fair and safe competition. People cheat. Most don't but unfortunately it has to be guarded against at certain levels of competition. Rules committees need to take into account reasonably plausible hypotheticals. Having a Bruce Jenner or Mike Tyson choose to identify as female is not outside that realm...but even if it was (I still don't understand why it might not be) bringing it up shouldn't mean it's not honest discussion.

 

[dimreepr]

25 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

At some level of sport that's all that should be necessary. At some levels it absolutely isn't.

People cheat.

So let them cheat... 

Isn't that a level playing field???

[swansont]

30 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

People cheat.

A scenario expressly excluded in this discussion by the OP

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, Prometheus said:

Ronda Rousey is generally considered the best female MMA fighter of all time. Her record was 12 wins from 14 fights. By that metric i'd consider Fox's 5 wins out of 6 at least moderately successful.

Okay.

[J.C.MacSwell]

38 minutes ago, swansont said:

A scenario expressly excluded in this discussion by the OP

No. He clarified that it was not in the particular scenario he was suggesting, not that it should be outside of discussion in the thread. That was in the Super athlete/Mike Tyson scenario. If you want to limit the thread to that, and also eliminate that scenario from discussion, we won't have much to discuss.

[dimreepr]

23 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

That was in the Super athlete/Mike Tyson scenario.

you do know he lost???

Edited March 21, 2021 by dimreepr

[iNow]

Keep in mind that rather often these cultural identity issues (trans athletes, abortion, guns, etc.) are often being pushed out en masse strategically and on purpose to distract from the larger paucity of policies designed to help people and also to distract from those policies actually harming them (restricted voting rights, failure to expand Medicaid, for example).

 

https://www.vox.com/identities/22334014/trans-athletes-bills-explained

Quote

28 states have introduced bills to prevent trans kids and women from playing sports. It’s the GOP’s latest attempt to force trans people into hiding.

<...>

The crusade against trans athletes has been the most successful effort to introduce transphobic discrimination into state law, after numerous states failed to pass larger-scale bathroom bills and puberty blocker bans in recent years. Trans athleticism is a seemingly complicated issue that has found success largely due to a mishmash of cultural attitudes and generally incorrect assumptions, particularly about trans girls’ bodies.

<...>

But that narrative largely fails to hold up to real-world evidence — trans athletes have been allowed in girls’ high school and women's college sports for years and no school has had to make “co-ed teams,” a dig that misgenders trans girls and women. Meanwhile, science has found that trans girls who hormonally transition at younger ages do not necessarily have a “biological advantage” athletically. And none of it justifies banning middle school trans girls from the local girls’ soccer team.

Transgender advocates say that using a handful of examples of trans girls succeeding at sports to push widespread and exclusionary legislation is a solution in search of a problem. An Associated Press investigation into these athletic bans found that most lawmakers supporting such bills cannot name a single trans athlete competing in their state. A New York Times report indicated that out of about 200,000 women taking part in NCAA women’s sports at a given time, about 50 are transgender.

“This is a manufactured fear that the politicians pushing hope will be emblematic of a too-swiftly changing culture,” Gillian Branstetter, a spokesperson for the National Women’s Law Center, told Vox. It’s “simply a wedge issue to drive between voters of one party or another. My concern is that the wedge that these bills will drive is not between voters and a political party, but between parents and their children.”

 

[MigL]

Found this article, which makes for interesting reading, and touches on many of the points brought up in this thread ...

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

that is , assuming the Tokyo Olympics actually take place.

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 6/7/2021 at 9:27 PM, MigL said:

Found this article, which makes for interesting reading, and touches on many of the points brought up in this thread ...

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

that is , assuming the Tokyo Olympics actually take place.

I think the upcoming Olympics may put an end to the notion that testosterone control alone can level the playing field (never mind identifying alone as per High School athletics in some States).

It could possibly also end the notion of a lack of bias in science if it agrees with political correctness.

 

[MigL]

Seems the fight to fix perceived inequalities for trans people is more important than women's rights to equality.
( according to some virtue signaling people )

[CharonY]

https://theconversation.com/striking-a-balance-between-fairness-in-competition-and-the-rights-of-transgender-athletes-159685

I think this is could be a reasonable take (as opposed to bans):

 

Quote

“Men’s” divisions could be eliminated and replaced with “open” divisions. Any athlete could be allowed to compete in that division.

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.

Instead, this acknowledges – and takes seriously – that she identifies as a woman, but that respect for the principles of fair competition requires that she not be allowed to compete in the women’s division.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

https://theconversation.com/striking-a-balance-between-fairness-in-competition-and-the-rights-of-transgender-athletes-159685

I think this is could be a reasonable take (as opposed to bans):

 

 

Might be reasonable at recreational level sports if it can be accepted. I don't see it even remotely working at serious competitive levels.

[iNow]

God, why do people care so much about this ridiculous topic? Isn’t this just the next gay marriage?

[swansont]

5 hours ago, iNow said:

God, why do people care so much about this ridiculous topic? Isn’t this just the next gay marriage?

Yes, probably. 

Until people who know little about Critical Race Theory start talking about Critical Race Theory.

[Prometheus]

5 hours ago, iNow said:

God, why do people care so much about this ridiculous topic? Isn’t this just the next gay marriage?

 

I watch MMA. Some women in the sport have raised concerns about transgender athletes, which is how it came to my attention. Some in the medical have put forward scientific reasons to legitimise this concern, others refute these reasons, and that debate continues within the medical community (links have been provided in the course of this thread). To have these concerns just brushed away as ridiculous, and to equate them with resistance against gay marriage is unhelpful at best. It's the sort of rhetoric that pushes people toward Trump and Brexit, as it exacerbates the us vs them attitude that precludes nuanced debate - the nuance here being that having concerns about transgender athletes does not automatically make you transphobic (although it's likely true that all transphobes oppose all trans athletes and will leverage legitimate concerns to muddy the waters).

It may turn out that these concerns are unfounded, but i would hope, on a science forum of all places, that the concerns were addressed rather than being dismissed simply ridiculous. It is patronising.

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

God, why do people care so much about this ridiculous topic? Isn’t this just the next gay marriage?

In what way does gay marriage encroach on the rights of others? What legitimate threat stems from it?

[iNow]

26 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

It is patronising.

I don’t disagree

[Intoscience]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

God, why do people care so much about this ridiculous topic? Isn’t this just the next gay marriage?

It may seem ridiculous to those whom it doesn't affect. But professional athletes who are making a career and a living may think otherwise. 

I actually agree that the extremes should not be discluded for consideration. If you are a professional organisation that is going to set rules or limits then the upper and lower extremes have to be considered, else why have any rules or limits at all? 

I'm not clued up on and so have no opinion on whether transgender athletes have an unfair physical advantage or not. But if there is a possibility that this is the case then surely it should be addressed accordingly, based on testing, data and verifiable evidence, so that people that maybe at an unfair disadvantage are not affected? 

In lots of sports there are all sorts of categories to try and level the playing field so that "all" have an equal and fair opportunity. We see male, female, age, size, weight, dis-ability, even skill levels often categorized. For general recreational sports the importance of this may not be such a priority. But at a professional level where the athletes are earning a living/making a career and are at the pinnacle of performance level, where the tiniest of advantage can make a huge difference then I feel this is where its even more important to make things a fair as possible.      

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

It may seem ridiculous to those whom it doesn't affect. But professional athletes who are making a career and a living may think otherwise. 

I actually agree that the extremes should not be discluded for consideration. If you are a professional organisation that is going to set rules or limits then the upper and lower extremes have to be considered, else why have any rules or limits at all? 

I'm not clued up on and so have no opinion on whether transgender athletes have an unfair physical advantage or not. But if there is a possibility that this is the case then surely it should be addressed accordingly, based on testing, data and verifiable evidence, so that people that maybe at an unfair disadvantage are not affected? 

In lots of sports there are all sorts of categories to try and level the playing field so that "all" have an equal and fair opportunity. We see male, female, age, size, weight, dis-ability, even skill levels often categorized. For general recreational sports the importance of this may not be such a priority. But at a professional level where the athletes are earning a living/making a career and are at the pinnacle of performance level, where the tiniest of advantage can make a huge difference then I feel this is where its even more important to make things a fair as possible.      

I think iNow has a point, it's like the drugs in sport argument; who cares?

Only the people who have a vested interest; most footballers don't give a shit who they play with... 😉

[swansont]

14 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

It may seem ridiculous to those whom it doesn't affect. But professional athletes who are making a career and a living may think otherwise. 

...

But at a professional level where the athletes are earning a living/making a career and are at the pinnacle of performance level, where the tiniest of advantage can make a huge difference then I feel this is where its even more important to make things a fair as possible. 

Then provide examples of professional athletes being impacted.

And also where they bring "fairness" into their rules. If a basketball player is 7' 4" how is this "fair" to someone who is 5' 6"? 

 

 

[Intoscience]

Just now, dimreepr said:

I think iNow has a point, it's like the drugs in sport argument; who cares?

Only the people who have a vested interest; most footballers don't give a shit who they play with... 😉

I do understand the point and I'm sure the vast majority don't care. But the minority, (professional athletes, and those that pay their wages) will and should care. 

[dimreepr]

Just now, Intoscience said:

I do understand the point and I'm sure the vast majority don't care. But the minority, (professional athletes, and those that pay their wages) will and should care. 

About what?

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Then provide examples of professional athletes being impacted.

And also where they bring "fairness" into their rules. If a basketball player is 7' 4" how is this "fair" to someone who is 5' 6"? 

 

 

...and what's with not handicapping the sprinters with fast twitch muscles? Why do they get to start at the same time as the others?

16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I think iNow has a point, it's like the drugs in sport argument; who cares?

Only the people who have a vested interest; most footballers don't give a shit who they play with... 😉

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.