Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by J.C.MacSwell

  1. I might INow. Someone might have to tell me "sorry about this...but you have to play in this other division. You don't qualify for the one you prefer". (though transmales are currently allowed to play against other males with no extra restrictions...since they are considered to be at a disadvantage not an advantage, and can also play against females as they are considered to have no advantage) I understand your point. But I've understood it for years. Now can I ask you whether or not you are in favour of using detrimental drug treatments to compensate for the known XY advantages in sports, in order to allow them to play in competitive fairness (as the IOC would define competitive fairness) against XX athletes?
  2. Yes. Or possibly lesbian...? I really have a single perspective, so I don't even know.
  3. I would say it was assumed or chosen for me and I never felt the need to choose to change it. Why?
  4. 31 minutes ago was my latest attempt.
  5. No. That is why I use the term "elite". Unless you know something about me that I don't, you should accept that. What in Hell do you think I mean by it?
  6. My use of "elite" is to differentiate high level sports that women fought for about a hundred years ago to get there own chance to participate in, from more recreational levels that women have had access to for pretty much time immemorial.
  7. I think I've been at least as clear as anyone here as to stating my position, though I don't expect everyone to see it. Anyone else here against the use of drug treatments to compensate for XY advantages in Sports?
  8. I've made no attempt to dodge. If you can't understand the difference between "trying to accomodate" and "fine with" in my answers, then I don't know how to go about clarifying further...but I'll try if you stop assuming it's dodging.
  9. I didn't claim it was fine. I believe there is more room for competitive inclusion depending on the seriousness of the competition, and at fully recreational levels for many sports it would be completely inappropriate to question someone's choice of gender with regard to participation. Sorry if I am unable to help you understand my position.
  10. Elite women's sport for many began about 100 years ago and biological males were excluded. Can you suggest any results that can be analysed that don't show a clear advantage of having XY chromosomes? It seems that unless XY athletes are artificially handicapped they have clear advantages at elite levels. One could argue that it would be fair to include lesser XY athletes, but that is not the definition of competitive fairness that most elite sports organizations want to use, as there are concerns that it would crowd out elite women athletes. (unethical obligations on XY athletes wanting to participate aside)
  11. Certainly: "High performance sport or elite sport is sport at the highest level of competition. In sports administration, "high-performance sport", where the emphasis is on winning prestigious competitions, is distinguished from "mass sport" or "recreational sport", where the emphasis is on attracting the maximum number of participants." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-performance_sport
  12. Yes. Of course I'm serious. Note that I framed it as a question. The data you linked to seems pretty clear that there is a definite cis-male over cis-female advantage. What is less clear is how much remains after treatment. What type of "adjustments"? Also note that, from the very beginning of this thread, I have never been against trying to accommodate transgenders in recreational level sports. For the purposes of arguments for including or excluding them at elite levels, you need to compare with top performers.
  13. Human experiments? From Swansont's article on Semenya: "9. It can’t be implemented The World Medical Association has advised doctors not to administer testosterone-lowering interventions, describing the regulation as “contrary to international medical ethics and human rights standards”. Their use would be “off label” and is for purposes other than the athlete’s health. The rules involve “strict liability” which means the athlete is responsible for any failure to comply, even if unintentional and outside of the athlete’s control."
  14. XY advantage over XX athletes is well documented. I've referred to plenty of examples of it including the ability of good high school age soccer players being competitive with your Women's national Team. World Records for XX athletes vs XY athletes have been discussed. Caster Semenya, according to Swansont's article, had just a 2% advantage where 12% would be closer to expected (in line with current World record times) Can you produce any evidence that it's possible and appropriate at elite levels? We seem to be in agreement on possible inclusion for recreational sports when it's safe to do so. But for elite women's sport? You suggest taking any gender requirement out: It's certainly possible with inappropriate requirements of drug treatments that handicap XY individuals significantly enough to compensate....or is that your idea of appropriate? Should non elite XY athletes that are close to the elite level of elite XX athletes be allowed to compete? While excluding the many better ones? Do you deny the obvious fact that there are many, many XY individuals at that level compared to very few women? How many teenage soccer teams could be made in the US capable of beating your Women's national Team? How many under 18 teams in the US or Canada can compete more than favourably with the American or Canadian women's national Teams? Plenty of evidence and yet you choose to ignore it. Meghan Rapinoe has advocated for both inclusion and "equal pay". If there were no elite women's sports no one here would know her name.
  15. The best evidence is that she is very fast and very successful. But of course you are correct that for any one individual it is somewhere between extremely difficult and impossible to ever ascertain it accurately. Which is why I claim your suggested methods of inclusion will never be competitively fair...in the context I did my best to describe competitively fair. That said, I am not against reasonable and best attempts to include some intersex athletes....but as per the opinion given in your link, I don't think this should be seen as any reason to include transgender females...that being a separate issue.
  16. Agree. She is an example of an XY individual with advantage (but not to the typical extent) It's certainly noteworthy that the competitive advantage is based on sex (as difficult as the classifying can be) and not on the choice of gender. The IOC was obviously on the wrong track when they abandoned sex in favour of gender identification after the 1996 Olympics. Very good article and agree with most of it, though I don't agree with #10 that advocates doping being allowed for athletes with lower testosterone than 5nmol/L.
  17. Caster Semenya is certainly a real example of an XY athlete (46, XY) that has dominated XX athletes. Her case as an intersex athlete is one I'm sympathetic with and I see she has just won an appeal against the Swiss Court, https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/66162083 It won't however, change the recent restrictions on intersex athletes going forward according to World Athletics. "While the judgement would appear to vindicate Semenya's long-held view that she has suffered discrimination, it's uncertain if or how the court's decision will impact the current restrictions on DSD athletes. World Athletics has doubled down on its position in its efforts to protect fair competition in the female category, and is also keen for the Swiss courts to challenge the ECHR verdict. There is a three-month window to lodge an appeal. In terms of competing - if that's what she wants - that leaves Semenya in a similar position to where she was before the ECHR ruling, unless she takes medication to suppress her testosterone or World Athletics is forced to change its position on DSD athletes, and it's not clear how that could happen. As it stands, she still cannot compete in female track events."
  18. Too extreme an example for you to understand the point then? How about admissions from the IOC and others that surgeries or testosterone reducing drug use experiments in the past were not well thought out and that mistakes were made in attempts at inclusion?
  19. You want proof that someone jumping off a cliff holding 43 feathers in their hand will result in their demise before suggesting someone not try it? Or is that too extreme an example of why not everything should be attempted without considering potential consequences?
  20. You seriously are unable to see potential XY outliers beyond the level of elite female sport? Every single trans female that qualified for the last Olympics did so while struggling against unhealthy restrictions on their testosterone levels. Do you think they would not have been more successful without such rules in place?
  21. The suggestion is to replace women's elite sport with a second tier, removing gender altogether as a criterion, but presumably somewhere around the level of the current elite women level. Far more XY athletes exist around that level, at it, just below it, and just above it. How is that not the demise of elite women's sport? And @JC MacSwell: What in Hell is wrong with you? Why has it taken over two years and you still can't get such a simple concept across to some of the quite intelligent people participating in this thread? Why does it instead sound like, between the lines, that you think all trans females are able to dominate all females, like some fictitious Swedish/Amazon hybrid women?
  22. Depending on the sport their are only a small percentage of XY individuals that are able to compete at the highest levels. It takes sufficient training and fortune, but they also have to be somewhat gifted. This is considered fair in a competitive sense, As I've said since the beginning of this thread, this is a very subjective definition of fair, but it's fair in the sense that that's how competitive athletes want to compete. It's how they want to challenge themselves....against the best. That is basically the IOC's definition of competitive fairness, and for most high level sports. If you don't get this, if you want to use your own definition of fair, that's fine, but if the definition strays from that then the most competitive athletes generally won't be interested. Certainly many people might be interested in a sense of recreational sports, but not in the most competitive sense. XX individuals wanted the same opportunity...to compete against, and measure themselves against... the best XX individuals. This is the basis of elite women's sport. Women's world record's are based on that. Some, but very few, of these potentially elite athletes are also potentially transgender. Bruce Jenner, for example, was certainly potentially both. Most XY individuals of course are neither. You are certainly welcome to call them elite, make them your heroes (the ones you deem eligible, while excluding others that are better), but few people are likely to actually do this. Few without some personal will want to watch them play. If the stands are full, it's parents, family members and friends...or maybe classmates out to support their high school team...and the stands that are full are generally not that big. Now you, who probably have little interest in watching them, want some of these non elite XY athletes to compete in elite sports even though they are not competitive at elite levels against elite XY athletes, And you want them to be considered elite by competing against the best XX athletes. This is not the competitive definition of fair elite athletes are interested in. Can you not see on the height graph that in the area of the few tallest women...there are many men around that height? If you are incapable of seeing that, or understanding the implications in regard to elite women's sport if opened up to include XY athletes...then of course you are not going to buy any of this...but I assure you that if you get your way you won't be liking the results...you certainly won't be buying tickets to watch. You will be spending your discriminating dollars elsewhere, after your system has excluded the better XY athletes, and excluded the better transgender athletes, when you get your arbitrary line actually drawn. Being able to point to some transgender women on the elite women's playing field, and calling them elite when by most competitive definitions they are not...doesn't solve the problem. But at least you aren't advocating for the unhealthy use of drugs to handicap them to "let them play".
  23. From over 2 years ago (directed at CY at that time)
  • 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.