J.C.MacSwell

Since that's an accusation that you can't substantiate outside of what you describe as an irrelevant niche, I'm going to report this as a personal attack.

Apologies for not being clear. What part of of this social and drug experimentation in the name of inclusion in elite female sports do you like so far?

Thank you. Two years in, I'm finally getting my point across....Any attempt at levelling the XY vs XX playing field based on testosterone alone is all but certain to fail...while placing onerous and unnatural testosterone targets on a vulnerable group. Which link and where in it? I certainly would not agree with that. What part of high school XY athletes out performing XX National Teams needs to be misunderstood not to realize that's incorrect?

With XY individuals vastly outnumbering XX individuals at and around current elite women's level, how long would it take to ask why this level is elite at all and why does this category exist? That folks, outlines the threat to elite women's sports when XY athletes are included, or included with some vague self refereed gender categorization...unless of course onerous levels of testosterone targets with associated health risks are imposed.

Agree. As I said from the beginning of this thread: Your point is what exactly? You've mentioned a few times that you want 6o be on the right side of history on this. What part of this social and drug experimentation in the name of inclusion do you like so far? All you've come up with so far is to expand the problem by including any XY athletes that fit around the performance level of elite women, regardless of their gender. But at least you recognize that gender is not, or should not be, the issue.

Right (except it's 99+ %) and is a good argument why XX athletes should get there own elite category. Choice of gender has no known effect on sports performance while chromosomes do.

Particular and discernable medical conditions (that very very few have) aside, the XX and XY ranges don't overlap...in fact there is quite a huge gap between them. There are 2 very separate ranges with clearly no continuum between them. Biology as a science is far from perfect but for the purposes of say, World Athletics for protecting elite female sports in a healthy manner (even while trying to accommodate transgender athletes where practical) ...the binary model (though not perfect) is useful...where any attempt at a continuum model (with a clear divide between XX and XY ranges) is far from it. That said, allowing transgender females to compete if they can get in the female range and maintain it, threatens the health of the transgender athletes that wish to avoid exclusion more than it threatens elite female sports. Is that what you are in favour of? There is however, a very very clear correlation between the top performers in the XX range and the top performers in the XY range in the vast majority of sports.

Having said that, remember that I don't agree with forcing or enticing intersex athletes to take any drug treatments they otherwise have no interest in taking. You enjoy yours also. 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?

Assuming "for years and years" includes prior to puberty that might be very similar to some intersex athletes, so on a case by case basis I can see giving them the same consideration.

I would argue that intersex athletes should not be allowed to make that decision either, but where practical some, on a case by case basis, be accommodated in some other manner (even at elite levels) such as we discussed quite some time ago in this thread. When I was competing (up to early nineties) I had quite a list of drugs, both over the counter and prescription, that I was not allowed to take. These were considered both unhealthy (long term) and performance enhancing (or could potentially mask other drugs that were) but to the degree they are only taken (or extra taken) to qualify I don't see any difference in principle. In any case having an XY athlete have to reduce testosterone to 2.5 nmol/l is pretty onerous even if it's on the extreme high range of those with XX. It all but excludes them, and is an unfair and unhealthy target...should not be used for any level of sports IMO.

Bolding emphasis mine: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bies.202200173#:~:text=Biomedical and social scientists are,rather than a binary trait. "Biological sex is binary, even though there is a rainbow of sex roles Abstract Biomedical and social scientists are increasingly calling the biological sex into question, arguing that sex is a graded spectrum rather than a binary trait. Leading science journals have been adopting this relativist view, thereby opposing fundamental biological facts. While we fully endorse efforts to create a more inclusive environment for gender-diverse people, this does not require denying biological sex. On the contrary, the rejection of biological sex seems to be based on a lack of knowledge about evolution and it champions species chauvinism, inasmuch as it imposes human identity notions on millions of other species. We argue that the biological definition of the sexes remains central to recognising the diversity of life. Humans with their unique combination of biological sex and gender are different from non-human animals and plants in this respect. Denying the concept of biological sex, for whatever cause, ultimately erodes scientific progress and may open the flood gates to “alternative truths.”" Essentially, human sex is binary, with a very limited grey area. 99+%. Most with intersex traits are still XX or XY.

First off, thanks for the reply. I think most here would agree with this, though of course many drugs have side effects and the risk/reward needs to be weighed. I am skeptical though certainly no expert on this, in fact far far from it, but agree in principle. On an individual basis I'm not sure if there can be better advise, though of course the best results are limited by the choices of the individuals involved. Generally speaking (for trans females) the treatments confer a distinct competitive disadvantage (regardless of whether they are considered healthy overall for the individual), the main exception being if they help meet some arbitrary testosterone target that enables qualifying to compete in female events rather than male events. Treatments that go further to meet unrealized testosterone targets are generally assumed to give further competitive disadvantage, and are generally suspected to be unhealthy in many cases. The athlete has to make a decision as to whether qualifying is worthwhile, and there health providers/doctors are stepping outside their mandate if they assist with that. World Athletics now recognizes that, or so it seems, with regard to trans female athletes, but doesn't recognize that, or so it seems (they recognize it but leave it to the athlete to meet increasingly stringent testosterone targets), for intersex athletes and those that transgendered prior to puberty (Tanner stage 2 or 12 years of age, whichever comes first) that wish to compete in the female category. For 98+% of mankind, that's not accurate. Gender is one thing, sexual orientation is another, but most of us are one, and only one sex. There is absolutely no reason to include transgenders based on that reasoning. There are a number of debatable other reasons...but not that one. Life isn't binary. We can categorize most life into plants and animals...but the fact that there are fungi as well doesn't mean you can categorize your pet hamster as a cherry tree. Similarly the fact that intersex athletes exist does not mean those with XY advantages should participate in elite XX sport...if they are to be included it needs to be for a different reason, or set of reasons.

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?

Yes. Or possibly lesbian...? I really have a single perspective, so I don't even know.

I would say it was assumed or chosen for me and I never felt the need to choose to change it. Why?

31 minutes ago was my latest attempt.

I tried Dim.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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)

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

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.