Jump to content

J.C.MacSwell

Senior Members
  • Posts

    6039
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    33

Posts posted by J.C.MacSwell

  1. 2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    I've had a think about what it tells me, either your X, something I can't say, cus you'd report me, or Y, you've got a spreadbet on how many page's this will get to, or XY, you're a troll.

    If I've been a troll for the purpose of trying to get those with hand wave solutions to address the concerns of the IOC, World Athletics, the United Nations Human Rights Council, and the World Medical Association...I certainly haven't been a very successful one...

  2. 5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    Another diversion instead of an answer, it tells me a great deal...

    After all my long winded and repetitive attempts at explanation that you failed to understand, I'm glad you could glean so much from so little.

  3. 5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

    Nothing is being forced on anyone. If the price of entry to a swanky restaurant is white coat and tails with a top hat, one is required to comply. Otherwise, one can wear  what  one likes elsewhere.

    If all your friends get to go in with the nice white coat and tails and they insist you wear ones that are obviously contaminated you might find reason to object with the policy.

  4. 1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

    It's looking like you are going into panic-mode, and quickly compiling  a litany of obstacles. It doesn't matter if we here don't have all the answers now... Rome wasn't built in a day. If it takes decades for the stakeholders and regulators to find equitable solutions, that's ok.

    We only have to look at the timeline of homosexuality in the UK, since its eventual absorption into the UK's social fabric after 1967, to see the timescales probably  involved.

    Society and nature is constantly in flux. It's only when we look over several decades of societal development do we see more distinct periods of our behavioural evolution, and thus large-scale changes of attitude emerging from each era.

     

    I don't think responsible social adjustments are amenable to remote, hypothetical modelling. It needs to be small, empirical steps, in the field, with concomitant assessment.

    Other than my greater insistence on trying to accomodate intersex athletes without forcing drug treatments on them that they don't want and don't need, I'm pretty much on the same page as World Athletics.

    Are they in full panic mode as well? Is the IOC by allowing the same?

    Is everyone in full panic mode? What is being tried at elite levels that you approve of?

    Why would my sense that things are heading in the direction of my position as to elite sports eligibility cause me panic, while you and others here can so calmly watch it go against your wishes?

  5. 2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    So what do you suggest we do at this point. Give up or keep trying?

    1. Keep trying to solve the problem of intersex inclusion without resorting to testosterone targets or other deviations from healthy sports regulations.

    and 2. Otherwise ban XY athletes from participating in elite XX sports until there is a clear or at least promising path to inclusion that doesn't threaten elite XX sports or the health of any athletes that wish to participate.

  6. 3 hours ago, CharonY said:

    You seem to be weirdly hung up on nomenclature. As these categories do not exist yet, I do not know what one might call them. For all the relevance, you could call them Category 1 and 2. And it might surprise you, but featherweights do not actually weigh the same as a feather.

    In addition, there is no reason why age cannot be a factor (there are age categories in sports already.

    For the rest of your question, you almost make it sound that sports does not have any regulations. Who determines eligibility of athletes ? Who sets and enforces weight classes? Who determines what is considered doping and how it is enforced.... right now? If that was an issue, we wouldn't have sports in the first place.

    Moreover, one of the argument of separation is to ensure safety of the athletes. So in that regard, doesn't it make more sense to separate them according to measurable parameters such as body weight, muscle to weight ratio and so on rather than just by genitalia or karyotype or whether they can bear children? The latter three parameters generally do not cause injury in among competitors, as far as I am aware of.

     

    WTF?

     

    3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

    This is a work in progress, and those questions can be addressed empirically, as and when they become an issue in the course of trying things out.

    Clearly the work in progress is heading in a definite direction, and though anyone is welcome to try including trans female athletes at any level, at elite level there is nothing to suggest any real progress.

    People can point the blame wherever they like, but so far no one can point out anything that even suggests a path toward workable solutions...as CY has so eloquently demonstrated...

  7. 3 hours ago, CharonY said:

    I might have missed some intermediate posts, but fundamentally, when we talk about transgender inclusion, we are talking about some level of some level of HRT. AFAIK, folks that have not undergo some level of gender affirming therapy do compete based on their assigned sex (which usually is based on presence of external genitalia), rather than the gender they are representing. 

    That being said, I found some articles discussing something that we have been circling around in this thread for a fair bit, is the idea of using "athletic gender". The basic idea is to designate athletes to a gender for sports performance only and using a quantitative criteria based performance. Originally the idea was focused on testosterone levels, but has been expanded (similar to our discussions here).

    But the basic idea is the same, use quantitative parameters to create categories.

     

    So you will call anyone male that outperforms a set criteria? Call everyone female that performs below it? Regardless of gender or biological sex? Every elite male becoming an elite female towards the end of their careers as their performance declines?

    How does doping control work in all this?

    Who sets the performance parameters?

    Who judges the athletes and puts them into categories?

    Who gets to tell the better transexual females that the've been judged to be male?

  8. 34 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    Please explain.

     

    HRT is not fundamental to transitioning, it's an extra step that many transsexuals may choose to take, or choose to avoid.

    Generally this is done in consultation with the individual's health care providers, assessing the health risks involved of taking the treatments and/or the health risks of avoiding them.

    Any use of HRT beyond that to reach arbitrarily targets set by others represents outside interference, and often increases the health risks and decreases any health benefits whether long term or short term. (This statement is consistent with the current guidelines of the IOC, United Nations Human Rights Council, and the World Medical Association)

    1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

     

    I understand your position just fine, because if it isn't that you object to them playing, before any evidence can be collected, then wtf have we been talking about in the past 80 page's?🥱

     

    There was plenty of evidence to support my position well before this thread started. 80 pages in you fail to understand my position. Others have, even if they don't agree with it in whole or in part.

  9. 2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    Well, the only argument/objection you seem to have is a fundamental part of being a transsexual, namely HRT

    It isn't.

    3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    and however you try to spin that, it's just an excuse to object.

    So for me it's a dead end, so I'm not going to spin again, until I see an actual reason for your basic position on this...

    Your inability to understand my reasoning or position, and your assumptions that it's guided by malice toward transexuals, does absolutely nothing toward helping transexuals in sports or otherwise.

     

  10. 1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

    Well said +1

    I wonder if that will be enough to bring this sad little roundabout to a halt??? 🤒

    Since it proposes nothing toward resolving the issue with regard to sports participation, XY advantage or competitive fairness in female sports...why would it?

  11. 17 minutes ago, TheVat said:

    Just looking in.  So folks are still conflating physical and psychological gender?  Crikey, you will circle for eternity.

     

    Physical gender is a term only meaningful using the old definition of gender.

    Get with the times!

  12. 5 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

    It might sound like the same thing to some here, but I think a great many of them see trans females potentially taking over the top spots. Most in say, the top hundred are not so much concerned about being knocked down a couple places so much as having their ultimate goal taken away by some with a well established inherent advantage.

     

    For frick sake Swansont, can you not tell this paragraph is opinion?

     

    2 hours ago, swansont said:

    Then please, for the frikkin’ love of Zeus, please, point out who these athletes are?  Are there transgender athletes competing who are not undergoing HRT?

     

    For frick sake Swansont how many times have I answered, directly to you, the reasons I believe you don't see more transgender athletes?

     

    3 hours ago, swansont said:

     Are there transgender athletes competing who are not undergoing HRT?

     

    Yes.

  13. 18 minutes ago, CharonY said:

    Here, a rather precise analysis is warranted as such a sweeping statement (as mentioned multiple times) can mask important differences caused by transitioning. It is complicated by the fact that performance is not an inherent ability but also depends on the sport, training and the how the performance improves with training. It also does not help that elite athletes are a tiny fraction of an already highly selective group, so it is small wonder that there is even less data available. In fact, a study on elite transgender athletes at this point would essentially likely only consist of a handful of people, scattered across different types of sports, which would likely be rather useless. Things are even further complicated as longitudinal studies are needed as the effects of transitioning on the body can take a long time. 

    As also mentioned before, data is therefore lacking and a lot is still based on extrapolation rather than high quality data. 

    Depending on the length and cohort investigated, the results can be fairly different. For example, here is a review on a cohort of non-athletes:

    https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgad414

    Here, they found that the "innate advantage" of transgender woman after 4 years amounted to a statistical advantage of push-ups, but in none of the other measures. 

     

    As mentioned multiple times, I realize hormone therapies and other surgeries and/or drug treatments can reduce, eliminate, or overcompensate for any or all of the inherent advantages.

    I was quite aware of it prior to the start of this thread. 

    41 minutes ago, CharonY said:

    I am not sure what your point is. The whole discussion regarding transgender athletes is whether and how folks that have undergone gender-affirming procedures can participate. If they don't transition, there is little question where they participate, is there?

    Transgendering does not require any gender affirming procedures or treatments. 

    Nor should it. 

    Would you not call a girl she if she was born male but declined any gender affirming treatments?

    Gender is a choice, and has been for some time now. The term used to be considered to be essentially the same as biological sex but no longer is. How is it that you've failed to make the full connection?

    No wonder you have misunderstood so many of my posts.

  14. 32 minutes ago, swansont said:

    Well-established? Where and when did this happen?

    Read my post again, including the part you didn't quote and think about what that might mean.

    1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

    Equally, I have no doubt that trans females that feel they should be allowed to compete in the women's categories would be concerned that any compensatory handicaps would be overly onerous on their potential performance so as to eliminate there chances of success, even if they were willing to risk the drug treatments that could make them eligible.

    Even your link alludes to the inherent advantages...in particular the very part you quoted.

    39 minutes ago, swansont said:

    "Available evidence indicates trans women who have undergone testosterone suppression have no clear biological advantages over cis women in elite sport."

    Can you not infer from that, that it is understood that without testosterone suppression or some other form of handicap inherent advantages would remain?

  15. 1 hour ago, zapatos said:

    I may be mistaken but I suspect a great many of them object because they are afraid they are going to lose relative standing. If trans women were only half as competitive as cis women I doubt very many would be complaining. 

    I also doubt that "a great many" cis women see transsexuality as a "delusion".

    It might sound like the same thing to some here, but I think a great many of them see trans females potentially taking over the top spots. Most in say, the top hundred are not so much concerned about being knocked down a couple places so much as having their ultimate goal taken away by some with a well established inherent advantage.

    Equally, I have no doubt that trans females that feel they should be allowed to compete in the women's categories would be concerned that any compensatory handicaps would be overly onerous on their potential performance so as to eliminate there chances of success, even if they were willing to risk the drug treatments that could make them eligible.

  16. 1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

    Is historicity important and should it never be changed? You seem to use that word a lot, as though it's immutable, like the now-antique US Constitution. People that are yet to be born won't care if something isn't useful  to them  anymore, or gets commandeered for other purposes. What happened to the original meaning of 'gay' and the associations regarding rainbows. They were just rainbows.

    That small subset of individuals will require categorizing and there will have to be a trinary, quaternary, whatever number of sets to include them, if they can't belong to the the binary set. Either way the binary system becomes a figment of history.

    My point is that while the science of biology might gain understanding, definitions may change, and society may change, none of that will change the actual biology, drug treatments or surgical treatments notwithstanding.

     

    18 minutes ago, iNow said:

    Not precisely, no.

    Well that's good. Hopefully you will be able to forgive those that consider you transphobic and therefore probably racist for not being able to convince yourself otherwise. 

  17. 29 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

    That's entirely up to him, society will just keep evolving, regardless.

    In the near term, we will continue to adapt, but not much evolving will take place. Regardless of changes in language those who we historically considered of a particular biological sex, will continue to be so, difficulties in ascertaining that for a small subset of individuals due to the limitations of the science of biology notwithstanding.

    (adding just to be fair...I do know your use of the term evolving was correct in the context intended...just hoping to make a related point)

  18. 3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    You've taken that out of context, like you do with all of your excuses; you've obviously missed the part where he explains why he's not being transphobic and that there will be a certain amount of irony in the following joke's... 😉 

    I think you might have missed the part where Mistermack has explained that he's not transphobic either. His unwillingness to bend to pressure to accept changes to the meaning of some words from there historically accepted context doesn't change that, nor should he be obligated to IMO.

    Just my $0.02, overpriced as it may be.

  19. 6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

    Cheers for clarifying that. The problem at hand here is the use of 'normal' 

    It is a term I tend to avoid in contexts such as this one. I often say "no one has ever accused me of being normal" or claim "I'm the only normal person I know" when it comes up in some conversations.

    13 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

    ...and the arbitrary application of limits...

    Right. And when you see round numbers used like 2.5, 5.0 and 10.0 nmol/L in rules you can tell right away it's not just science behind it. It's practically an admission that they really aren't sure what they're doing.

  20. The IOC has just been much slower in realizing that requirements for drug treatment are similarly intrusive.

    Just now, zapatos said:

    I was trying to use colorful language. 

    Okay...I guess you succeeded...

    I would say you got a rise out of me...but that might seem a little inappropriate LOL.

    ...someone might tell me to cut it out....

  21. 1 minute ago, zapatos said:

    But competitively there would be no issue.

    I also question whether the Women's World Cup would take a big hit just because a few players used to have a penis.

    Whether trans athletes are allowed to compete in the female category, or not, it has long been established that surgical treatments will not be a requirement.

  22. Here is a US government study: (can't seem to reduce font size after cutting and pasting but note bolding by me)

    From https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30136295/

    "Abstract

    Objective: The purpose of this narrative review was to summarize available data on testosterone levels in normal, healthy adult males and females, to provide a physiologic reference framework to evaluate testosterone levels reported in males and females with conditions that elevate androgens, such as disorders of sex development (DSD), and to determine the separation or overlap of testosterone levels between normal and affected males and females.

    Methods: A literature review was conducted for published papers, from peer reviewed journals, reporting testosterone levels in healthy males and females, males with 46XY DSD, and females with hyperandrogenism due to polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Papers were selected that had adequate characterization of participants, and description of the methodology for measurement of serum testosterone and reporting of results.

    Results: In the healthy, normal males and females, there was a clear bimodal distribution of testosterone levels, with the lower end of the male range being four- to fivefold higher than the upper end of the female range(males 8.8-30.9 nmol/L, females 0.4-2.0 nmol/L). Individuals with 46XY DSD, specifically those with 5-alpha reductase deficiency, type 2 and androgen insensitivity syndrome testosterone levels that were within normal male range. Females with PCOS or congenital adrenal hyperplasia were above the normal female range but still below the normal male range.

    Conclusions: Existing studies strongly support a bimodal distribution of serum testosterone levels in females compared to males. These data should be considered in the discussion of female competition eligibility in individuals with possible DSD or hyperandrogenism.

    Keywords: ambiguous genitalia; androgen insensitivity; disorders of sexual development; hyperandrogenism; polycystic ovary syndrome; testosterone."

  23. 10 hours ago, StringJunky said:

    Stop using it to support your positions then.

    I would have to look back, but you have put up a statistic whereby there was a very distinct delineation, with a clear gap between men and women's testosterone... 

    I did say essentially that for normal ranges there was a clear gap, though not as an argument for testosterone controlling treatments

    10 hours ago, StringJunky said:

    like they they were so far apart they would never connect. 

    I didn't say that, but it would be fair to infer that my understanding is that any overlap is slight and represents unusual conditions for either the female individuals, the male individuals or both.

    I'll have to check your link as it seems to disagree with that but it won't change my position as my position was never based on that.

    Here is where I think I first brought it up as questions for CY:

    On 7/22/2023 at 9:56 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

    I certainly don't think this is just all about testosterone levels but here is a question:

    If human biological sex is a continuum, why is there such a huge gap between the testosterone level ranges of XY vs XX individuals?

    And a follow up would be...why is it so difficult for XY individuals to reduce their testosterone levels to that of XX levels?

    Page 70 where I further argued it was no continuum but a clear gap between normal male and female ranges

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.