Jump to content

J.C.MacSwell

Senior Members
  • Posts

    6029
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    33

Everything posted by J.C.MacSwell

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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."
  5. 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?
  6. 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?
  7. 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?
  8. 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?
  9. 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".
  10. From over 2 years ago (directed at CY at that time)
  11. The second bolded is BS. I've said this since the beginning. Not all XY individuals are physically more capable than those born XX, trans athletes included. Look at the bell curve graphs in a very recent post of mine and try to actually understand what I am saying. These XY individuals with less potential than elite XX athletes are not elite athletes. Why do you think they should compete as elite athletes while your flawed ideas will exclude athletes that have the same XY chromosomes but are actually, even if not elite, still much better athletes? Same chromosomes, same choice of gender. Look at the right of the XX bell curve (it's female for height but I'm assuming most here can see what I am saying). Look how few XX individuals are at or around that level...and how many XY individuals are in the same area. Draw your line anywhere around there and women's elite sports is all but eliminated.
  12. Today we don't generally exclude XX females from elite women's sports, as long as they follow the same set of rules as everyone else (no banned substances or similar attempts to gain unnatural advantages) regardless of how good or exceptional they may be. I say generally, because they do put some restrictions on intersex XX athletes. (I understand why some might want to exclude them, or not (closer to my position on some intersex athletes), but I don't see this as any reason to include any XY athletes (some mixed chromosome examples notwithstanding) Where have I suggested anything of the sort? And since you won't find anything...what compels you to say that?
  13. Don't get me wrong though. I do believe there is no likely way to include all transgender females in a healthy manner (no unhealthy encouragement of drugs) while being fair in a competitive sense (similar to what elite males enjoy) to cis-gender women. As long as it's safe, and most of it is, there is nothing wrong with including trans women in competition against anyone. The issue is the current necessity of discluding them for most elite women's sport. There are good reasons not to allow them to compete. So I agree with much of the current intent to stop their inclusion. I just don't agree with some of the methods which I think are contrary to clean sport, and not good for the trans athletes, or the intersex in particular, some of whom should be allowed to compete IMO. (with no more obligation to alter there natural chemistry than any other athlete)
  14. The part where you hand wave "merit". What exactly do you mean by that? Are you not excluding all those judged to have too much of an advantage? Or do you have some other criteria in mind besides sports potential? Community service? No. It assumes my interpretation of INow's "solution" that he assures me is incorrect and he will hopefully elaborate on.
  15. ...unless they are too good, correct? Then you exclude them, but not because they are transgender, but because they are better than some arbitrary but hard to define level, and you can point to many other cis-gender women that have been excluded as well, while many cis-gender males are eligible? I have np problem with this for recreational sports. It can still be quite healthy and competitive. But it basically sets women's elite sports back about a hundred years, so I'm not for that as a replacement. I say experiment all you like, but leave elite XX sports as originally intended and exclude XY individuals. And let any naturally high testosterone level athletes compete without insisting they reduce their testosterone levels through any unnatural means.
  16. So you are okay with "open", which would be dominated by XY individuals, plus some arbitrary other level that would be also dominated by XY individuals, and exclude some but not all trans females, and perhaps also exclude some of the more gifted XX females? Let's assume a similar set of bell curves for XX and XY individuals. Ignore the fact that this is for women and men for height. Is it fair to assume a similar overlap for many sports as to athletic potential, for XX individuals and XY individuals? Where would you choose to draw the line for the second category? You would need to exclude many XX females, including most from the group that elite women athletes currently come from, before it is as likely or more likely that an XX individual would top the podium. And of course, although "athletic potential" bell curves theoretically can exist, no one could even hope to accurately produce them. In fact, estimating the athletic potential of any given individual is extremely problematic.
  17. Funny enough I've almost commented on it. Like there are "nouveau liberals" (possibly some AKA "woke") that assume everyone either 1.) used to think in prejudiced ways as they did,or 2.) still do...vs old liberals that...oddly enough given the nature of the topic of this thread...don't see people as "binary" in this regard (call it say, woke or not) and so don't make such assumptions. But of course noticing trends such as this, even if there is some truth behind it, is no excuse to pigeonhole any particular individual. If gender doesn't enter the equation there are many, many XY individuals that can compete favourably with the very few few most elite XX individuals. Drawing the line of any merit based approach is problematic...get it right and by sheer numbers you will see an XY individual on top of the podium most of the time...get it wrong and it's almost a certainty. Unless of course you re-decide to include gender as part of the criteria...and hope to limit those with XY chromosomes to just a "handful" by some arbitrary means.
  18. I have to admit my wording isn't always the greatest, but I think in this instance I thought I was simply going along with what I thought was your implied context. This is certainly bad wording on my part. It should read if they want to compete against XX humans.... To clarify further, if it's true that the potential trans population is a high as claimed, I would hope their would be a very high number of them in sports, just not in any way that threatens Women's elite sports. I don't know how many there are, but I suspect there would be many that could in fact potentially compete at elite female level. XY chromosomes are known to be a distinct advantage in many sports. Where are they? I suspect most of them have not yet come out. So we agree that drugs are an issue in elite sport, and the unhealthy use of them should not be incentivised or encouraged?
  19. Sorry Dim, but I'm going to report this post.
  20. Yes. Just like cis-gender athletes, they need to be protected from incentivized unhealthy drug use. Are you suggesting they are not like other people in this regard? Is that a question? If so can someone translate it for me?
  21. You want me to provide evidence that the remaining trans athletes have, for various reasons , chosen not to compete at elite levels? Perhaps my wording was a little loose. Do you think I'm trying to say all trans athletes could compete at elite levels if they wanted to? I don't think you are suggesting that but that's my best guess. Not how I would have phrased it, but I certainly would expect and hope, that there would be a horde of trans athletes below elite level, many of whom might like to become elite, improve, or simply enjoy healthy recreation. The problem is that they want to compete against XX chromosome humans that generally can only compete fairly against other XX humans. NCAA sports, for women especially, already include many athletes at World elite level. Performance enhancing drugs aren't banned simply because they are performance enhancing, they are banned because they are unhealthy, so they are banned to protect athletes from themselves, and to protect clean athletes that would be put at a disadvantage if they did not use them themselves. There's no "let them do it if they want..it's their bodies". Why allow or encourage trans athletes to use unhealthy levels of drug treatments in order to qualify? Do they not deserve the same consideration against unhealthy drug treatments as other athletes? Do the clean athletes with natural testosterone levels well below the testosterone targets for transgenders not deserve the same competitive considerations? 2.5 nmol/L for testosterone is not a healthy target for most transgender females to obtain and maintain, and cis gender females aren't allowed to use performance enhancing drugs to get there. Very few would be there naturally. And as I said from the beginning and it's becoming more and more clear...it's not just about testosterone levels. And handicapping individuals by suppressing it is no more conducive to clean sport than allowing the augmentation of it for others.
  22. Yes. (Besides the paramount reason being to protect elite women's sport) All but what you consider to be a "handful" do just that, choose not to compete at elite levels, though there are many other reasons for it such as some realizing the testosterone targets are well out of healthy reach. Do you think the East German coaches cared enough about the long term health of their athletes? Or Charlie Francis about Ben Johnson? Rules against drug use for performance enhancement has been a major effort for sometime to protect clean athletes. Why encourage drug use for the purpose of qualifying?
  23. Hypotheticals do need to be addressed. Setting rules takes more than just looking at the past and thinking that is the obvious limit as to what might be attempted. Some organizations have allowed transwomen to compete,and many have regretted it and felt the need to put more restrictions on them, not because they feel some malice toward transgenders but to protect women's elite sports. From the CBC link page 58: World Athletics president Sebastian Coe told a news conference that the decision to exclude transgender women was based "on the overarching need to protect the female category." Further, many of the transgender athletes have had to put up with considerable backlash that IMO should have been directed at those advocating for these experiments with their (temporary) inclusion. That backlash is quite possibly the biggest factor limiting them to this "handful". It's not the way to help transgenders IMO, individually or otherwise, to have them forefront in this threat to elite women's sports.
  24. It's an accurate description of flawed thinking. More on the lines of belief that having equal outcomes can produce less poverty than equal opportunity. But answer me this: Should the goal of handicapping transgender women through drug treatment to reduce their XY advantages be targeted to match those of average XX natural ability, or targeted to match those with the most natural abilities? The latter gives them essentially weak chances at best for elite women's sport, and the former makes any of above average XY potential suddenly positioned to compete at elite levels that they never could achieve against XY competition...and of course well above average examples could dominate even with the Bruce Jenners and Mike Tysons choosing to stay in male sports, even though the chance remains that any given individual could choose to transgender. The mandate for those in charge of this for elite sport is to protect elite sport, not make it fair for everyone in the definition you suggest...otherwise I would have been on the starting line for the final in the 100m against Usain Bolt...but with a 50m+ head start.
  25. You might reasonably think that's fair, but officially for elite sport that isn't even close to what they consider fair...to quote a Clint Eastwood character "deserves got nuthin' to do with it!" But I think your comment accurately describes what many think is the best way to find a compromise for transgenders...give them the same chance as anyone else in the gender sport of their choice...except it isn't even close to true for cis-genders so the target is indefinable.
×
×
  • 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.