J.C.MacSwell

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...

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.

I give up Dim. You tell me...

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.

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?

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.

WTF? 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...

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?

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) 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.

It isn't. 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.

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

Physical gender is a term only meaningful using the old definition of gender. Get with the times!

For frick sake Swansont, can you not tell this paragraph is opinion? For frick sake Swansont how many times have I answered, directly to you, the reasons I believe you don't see more transgender athletes? Yes.

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. 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.

Read my post again, including the part you didn't quote and think about what that might mean. Even your link alludes to the inherent advantages...in particular the very part you quoted. Can you not infer from that, that it is understood that without testosterone suppression or some other form of handicap inherent advantages would remain?

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.

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. 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.

Ricky Gervais level clarity is pretty tough to match.

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)

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.

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. 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.

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

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.

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."

I did say essentially that for normal ranges there was a clear gap, though not as an argument for testosterone controlling treatments 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: Page 70 where I further argued it was no continuum but a clear gap between normal male and female ranges