Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by J.C.MacSwell

  1. Just now, swansont said:

    You were claiming this, not me.

    No round for me.”

    No round within the scope and control of the IOC.

    (though in a very different sport they would have been interested in my one and only sports drug test, and taken action if it was positive)

    Fortunately it was negative (T=0)

  2. 4 minutes ago, iNow said:

    Of course. It’s far easier to turn us against each other with tribal culture war issues so we’re distracted while they act as grifters looting the civil coffers than it is to do the hard work of governance addressing famine, drought, climate change, poverty, economy, etc.  

    Sad. But unfortunately true.

  3. 28 minutes ago, iNow said:

    Since only like 12 humans get to elite level sports, my comments on this topic tend to focus more on lower less elite categories where state legislatures, local school districts, community sporting clubs, and many others are painting trans athletes as bogeymen who MUST be prevented from competition.

    I know you're not in this camp, but I'd wager it comprises 99.99% of the athletes impacted by this issue. I'm not as interested as you seem to be in focusing on the marginal remaining 0.01% of the challenge.

    So what's the best route to encouraging the 99.99%, so they get to challenge themselves to the degree they wish without stigma? None of the current attempts by either camp are helpful in that IMO, whether by good intention or otherwise by some of those in each camp,

    Solve that and I bet there are many more than 12 that can excel to that level, especially without the arbitrary testosterone targets or other -T's forced upon them beyond the -T's their health providers consider acceptable risks and to their overall benefit.

  4. 50 minutes ago, swansont said:

    That you would not qualify for your country’s olympic team doesn’t mean you can’t attempt to do so, and that’s what access is, and we’ve seen transgender people lose access is some places in the US, which means they would probably quash any chance of making an olympic team, even if they had the raw ability.

    Access is not the same as competitive fairness.

    Who is denying them access? If their N + E is sufficient, they are welcome to try out for XY or open competition, just as I would be. What is being denied is access to elite female sports, which was intended to test N + E for females in the same manner as elite sport for males, not based on testing for E alone with T compensating for any discrepancy in N.

    Setting aside the fact that correctly identifying N accurately for any individual is currently not possible, testing for E alone has never been the goal of elite sports. It isn't what females are trying to pursue, transgender athletes included. They are asking to challenge their natural abilities as well as their efforts, That's the nature and intent of elite sports, and even recreational level sports to a lesser degree.

    You are denying females access to that if you make rules to test for E alone, regardless of how fair you might think that might be.

  5. 9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    Then we're agreed, we should let them, not us, play...

    We can all play. We just don't get to demand inclusion in elite sports, even if in theory a level could be found that might include everyone by correctly estimating N, and correct;y compensating with T.

  6. 11 hours ago, swansont said:

    Access is opportunity to compete. Nothing guarantees you advance to a later round.

    No round for me.

    As INow suggests, my lack of speed guarantees that the IOC, though they do support and encourage sport at many levels, would not be involved with me sprinting at any level I might consider entering.

    My point is that the IOC's direct involvement with rule enforcement starts at elite levels.

    When you consider INow's well written link with the N + E + T = P model, their version of competitive fairness is to test performance on N + E, while through drug testing hope to keep T at 0, not on testing for E alone by having T compensate (negatively or positively) for differences in N. (which Bolt has an abundance of and JC MacSwell lacks)

    Any model where I am given an equal, and fair in a more absolute sense as Bolt (thereby testing for E alone), is outside of their mandate.

  7. Female and male elite sports are inherently unequal but a reasonable goal is equal access to sport.

    The IOC's interpretation of that would of course not even attempt to give me equal access to elite sports as say Usain Bolt. That would be outside their mandate but left to recreational sports to accomodate my wishes.

    The IOC of course, does have the mandate to provide for elite female athletes as well as men.

    A hundred years ago the IOC did not have that obligation.

  8. 58 minutes ago, mistermack said:

    It's a pointless exercise debating how to make a level playing field. Handicapping contestants might be interesting from a horseracing point of view, for gambling purposes, but it's not very interesting from a human competition angle. 


    At recreational level sport it's workable and many aspects of it are already in place, but of course you are correct for elite levels if females are to have elite levels similar in competitive fairness to men.

    Elite female levels are what need protected and of course what transgender females are asking to join. No one is excluding them from playing sports, as I think you have mentioned a number of times.

    I would add that it would be more conducive to transgender acceptance if they could be encouraged in sports outside of elite female levels where many have natural advantages.

  9. 8 hours ago, iNow said:

    Of course I could if I dug around for them, but as this is just a discussion forum unlikely to change the parts of the world I’d like to see changed, I see the ROI of such an effort as nearly zero and consequently also have zero plans right now to use my time doing so. 

    Cato took a swing at it last fall though: https://www.cato.org/regulation/fall-2022/transgender-athletes-fair-competition-public-policy#analyzing-performance-factors

    First of all. That's an excellently written article that frames much of the competitive side of the debate quite nicely, even if the assumptions are very simplistic.


    It builds a model that adds up Natural ability (factor N), Effort level in training and competition (factor E), and effects of hormone Therapy (factor T), that assumes N + E + T = P,  P adding up to performance. (note that T can be positive or negative)

    I think it can be a useful model going forward in this discussion and to some degree outline why this is not just politically difficult but technically difficult and probably impossible for elite levels as intended for female sports.

  10. 3 minutes ago, iNow said:

    I’ve suggested no conspiracy . 

    There are many advocates for inclusion of transgenders in elite female sports that claim expertise.

    Can you not cite any of their ideas that even claim to provide all three?

    With current best practices:

    Athlete health safety, competitive fairness, and inclusion.

    Pick two at most, or seriously compromise at least one.

  11. 3 minutes ago, iNow said:

    No. The ones which with high probability listed then after that voted against those ideas (or had one senior leader veto them)… Ideas for thresholds to inclusion were SURY introduced by members of those panels… members far more expert than myself on which metrics make sense for the various different sports and performance categories. 

    This is my speculation. It seems likely. It seems VERY likely. No, I cannot provide a citation. It’s a conjecture. A hypothesis. An informed suggestion based on how humans making rules for large revenue generating organizations tend to behave. 

    Just bc they didn’t agree on metrics for inclusion in the final language of that one publication doesn’t mean that high quality ideas for inclusive metrics weren’t shared nor advocated for during the lead up to that press release. 



    9 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

    Or do you think there was some conspiracy to suppress ideas that included all three?


  12. 2 minutes ago, iNow said:

    I’m sure there are meeting minutes and emails and follow ups from those Olympic committees you cited above. 

    The ones that saw no way forward that included competitive fairness, athlete health safety, and inclusion?

    Or do you think there was some conspiracy to suppress ideas that included all three?

  13. 1 minute ago, iNow said:

    That politics and emotions often get in the way of us hearing and successfully implementing intelligent ideas. 

    It tells me that too often humans sacrifice the good in pursuit of the perfect… The demand of perfection becomes the enemy of progress and the status quo continues to thicken. 

    What are these ideas? 

  14. 47 minutes ago, iNow said:

    I said: 

    “My position throughout has been that it's entirely possible to design and implement sports division qualification thresholds and guidelines which allow for transgender inclusion.

    This position remains entirely valid despite my stipulation that I personally lack sufficient expertise to design those aforementioned guidelines personally myself.”

    THEN JCM said:

    There’s just no way you can think this is possibly true… 

    “Welp… I can’t figure this out, nor can iNow… that obviously means not a single human can nor ever will.” 


    The IOC (International Olympic Committee) guidelines say "don't use testosterone targets to figure this out...but do what you have to do...figure it out!" 

    World Athletics decides "We need to exclude transgenders that have gone untreated through puberty, and use very onerous testosterone targets for the rest plus same for the intersex (event dependant)".

    What does that tell you?

    And why the need to misrepresent my claim as "not a single human can nor ever will.” 

    Even though I suspect that may be true...I didn't say that!


    If you think my claim is so preposterous why don't you let it stand as it is?

  15. 25 minutes ago, swansont said:

    Are the targets arbitrary? My understanding is that many transgender women undergo hormone replacement therapy


    The NCAA policy in 2011 makes no mention of target levels, only that the athlete needs to be undergoing HRT


    Yes. The targets are arbitrary. They are set as a compromise between health and "competitive fairness" but despite the health concerns the targets are generally becoming more onerous (thus the difference between current and 2011 for NCAA swimming). The IOC guidelines suggest, but don't mandate, that they should not be used at all but leave it to each sports body to decide how to regulate their respective sports.



    If they are already below the targets after transitional therapy, they can, depending on the sport compete but that seems rather rare, and IMO they would have already been handicapped enough, or more than enough to be uncompetitive. But most struggle to reach and maintain target levels.

    The targets are a contentious issue as IIRC was discussed in your link on Semenya.

    (I know she is intersex not transgender but the principles are the same)

  16. 3 hours ago, swansont said:

    If trans women will dominate these competitions, given that they have been competing for some time in various places, where are they? We should be flooded with trans women winning competitions if this thesis is true.

    Can you provide of an example of a trans female competing at elite level without handicapping her, through arbitrary testosterone reduction targets?

    The ones unwilling or unable to comply with the targets have essentially been banned/excluded.

    Let's not pretend they've been given a chance to perform at their best.

    Here is an article from over a year ago arguing that Lia Thompson was not at an advantage because  her hormone therapy treatments removed the advantage. (though NCAA allows twice the testosterone level of US swimming, which allows twice the normal female range)

    Apologies for the print size. I don't seem to be able to reduce it after cutting and pasting.


    "Ms Hogshead-Makar also drew attention to the difference between Ms Thomas's pre-HRT times and her times today. Her best time in the 500 yards was 5.6 per cent slower than before transition, while her 1,000 yards time was 7.5 per cent slower and her 1,650 yards time was 7.2 per cent slower.

    That is less than the 10 to 11 per cent gap Ms Hogshead-Makar says is usually found between men's and women's races. However, according to the LGBT sports news site OutSport, the difference in NCAA men and women's records varies by distance: 11.2 per cent for the 200 yards, 7.2 per cent for the 500 yards, and 6 per cent for the 1,650 yards.

    It is also possible that Ms Thomas' old times do not represent how fast she'd swim if she had never begun HRT. They date from an earlier point in her evolution as a swimmer, and therefore would not reflect any improvements in her technique or mindset since then."

    So despite all her training and maturing, her times are significantly slower (thus arguing for inclusion)

    Obviously there is no evidence that her times would be even slower if she was forced to half her testosterone from the current NCAA target, or half it again to get to what is required now fior some sports...but one can make a much easier argument that it would than one that it wouldn't.

    You would have to argue against some of the arguments commonly made for inclusion to continue to deny that Trans females have advantages over cis-gendered females.

    On 7/25/2023 at 10:24 AM, iNow said:

    My position throughout has been that it's entirely possible to design and implement sports division qualification thresholds and guidelines which allow for transgender inclusion.

    This position remains entirely valid despite my stipulation that I personally lack sufficient expertise to design those  aforementioned guidelines personally myself. 


    Unfortunately when it comes to the necessary expertise...currently the other 8 billion of us lack it as well.

    ...and there's nothing remotely indicating that will ever.change 

  17. 2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

    Moderator Note

    This is a problem we probably don't deal with effectively. Staff wants you to use the Report function so the threads don't get derailed, then we're reluctant to derail a thread with reports on reported posts if it isn't actionable, but I can see it looks the same as ignoring the report.


    Okay thanks. I appreciate the comment.

  18. 2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

    Moderator Note

    You reported it as a "personal attack", which 3 staff members judged it wasn't . If you want to report someone using a Strawman argument, please be clear. 


    Thank you. I now at least know that you made a decision. 

    I don't feel the need report it as a strawman argument. I just wanted to make it clear that I have nothing against transgenders, some of whom agree with my position with regard to their inclusion in elite sports.

  19. 18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    I get it, you'll just pretend the awkward questions didn't happen, so it can't be a biased reply... 

    All replies here are biased Dim. Mine are no exception.

  20. 27 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    Are you going to report me again?

    That's a good excuse... 😉

    I'll probably just ignore you for the most part if the posts aren't especially bad, but still reply to some of your better posts.

    I reported INow the other day for intentionally misrepresenting my position on transgenders and so far...crickets...

  21. 9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    It's clear for all too see, your bias is driving your thinking, and all I can honestly conclude is, the reason for that is, you fear they/women might beat you in a fight; then your no man at all... 🙄

    But I'm an optimistic person, so please explain how I'm wrong in my thinking...

    Ask him... 🧐

    You're wrong in your thinking that such statements and questions belong in this thread.

  22. 3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

    Sex testing hurts more females that are outliers than transgender females.

    This article is useful for reading the history of sex testing in sport. All it's done since the 40's is hurt female outliers. If one thinks this focus  helps women... think again. All because of the biblical/historical assertion that humans are binary.

    By outlier females you mean intersex females?


    50 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

    If he can't, then, by his definition, he's a woman.


    Where did he give a definition where you can honestly conclude that?

  • 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.