J.C.MacSwell

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.

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.

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?

Sorry Dim, but I'm going to report this post.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

That was just a "back at ya" tongue in cheek...No worries...I still look forward to your comments. "They" are in part those mandated to work this out and set rules for each sport, and include many with clout on both sides of the debate. I think my generalizations and comments were pretty fitting overall, though maybe a little harsh or blunt (but never disrespectful to the transgender athletes themselves). Pretty hard to thread the needle of compromise given that the hole is obviously small (non existent hole for many sports IMO). It seems also that many seem to have decided on erring on the side of fairness to cis-women over inclusion for transgenders, and are slowly accepting that no compromise that is workable to yield both can be found...which is what I have expected all along and I have never considered this experiment to be good for women's sports or the transgender women involved.

Here is one example. Athletics has barred transgender women that went through puberty as males, and tightened restrictions on intersex athletes. (demanded the intersex athletes unnaturally suppress testosterone levels or be disqualified): https://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/summer/trackandfield/world-athletics-bans-trangender-women-1.6788581 Every sport will do it differently and even within athletics different events can be ruled differently. Another article Transgender women athletes' future in competition uncertain as sports organizations change rules, issue bans: Subtitle: Experts say not enough research to prove trans women athletes have unfair competitive advantage: (note where those "experts" referred to suggest the onus should be despite much science indicating the contrary) https://www.cbc.ca/sports/transgender-women-athletes-future-swimming-ban-1.6496497 from the article: "Days before FINA made its decision public, the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) — which oversees international cycling events, including road, track, mountain and BMX — changed its policy for trans women athletes. Rather than banning them from competing, UCI halved the maximum permitted testosterone level from 5 nmol/L — the limit currently in place for a number of other sports, including athletics — to 2.5 nmol/L, and it doubled the amount of time athletes must maintain low testosterone before they can compete, to 24 months." But thankyou INow, for confirming you have no idea what you are talking about.

Actually them as a group. On both sides of the argument that come up with absurdly unhealthy compromises. Changes are happening all the time. There have been considerable changes since this thread started.

Okay. Successfully treated with drugs for the purpose of meeting an arbitrary target not set by their doctors, for the purpose of qualifying for and competing in a sport they would otherwise not be eligible to compete in. Accurate? At a point well before they eliminate all XY advantages entirely, they will have sufficiently harmed the individual to make up the difference. That seems to be their goal. It's a pretty despicable goal IMO. Fortunately they aren't allowed to do that at High School level and below.

Can you suggest a term that means exactly that that you would be more comfortable with? It sounds like your "case" didn't have anything toward attacking my argument.

Yes. Fortunately surgery is no longer required. You're suggesting my post is disingenuous?

I don't do it. So no. The victims here are elite women athletes, those that might aspire to be, and the XY transgenders themselves that are encouraged to compete against XX females at elite levels and told to believe it's healthy and fair. Nice argument though, against my post..LOL.

The counterargument seems to be that if they can be successfully drugged to the point XY chromosome advantage seems to disappear then it would be unfair not to let them compete, the onus should be on anyone wanting to question it to prove any remaining advantage, and that at the same time anyone questioning it should be considered anti-LGBTQIA+.

A moderate Republican (many here would consider that some mythical creature...) would no doubt lose the Trump base, and anyone else might lose most of it...so enabling the most extreme Democrats to make demands of the Democrat agenda and make this much closer than it respectively could be or should be...so yes...it's possible. Trump himself? Can't see it but I was wrong last time.

Was that directed at my post? (much of it intended as sarcasm) I consider the US Women's Soccer Team elite (and deserve pay based on their ability to generate revenue, not on their eliteness...as high as it is...otherwise they would deserve no more than any other, say, Olympic Champion in other sports that generates considerably less) And for some that might have missed it...no the xy chromosome 15 year olds that can beat them are not elite athletes (but they could become one with equal dedication)

That comment, right there, demonstrates the threat to elite women's sports. Which I guess is fine if you consider them less than elite in any case, and that they should compete against other non elite athletes that, for one reason or another (including controlled drug use, whether healthy or not), happen to be at that same performance level overall, as arbitrarily judged by "experts" that think that is possible and reasonable. They've come along way baby! And high time they went back? Male sports are the real elite sports afterall...and as long as that's not threatened I guess everyone else should just take a seat and applaud...and of course enjoy the other more recreational levels that lesser athletes such as pretty much all with XX chromosomes can reasonably aspire to. Well done!

I guess the Russian Military and Wagner PMC can get back to normal..after all neither is to blame...NATO must have been behind it...

Why would I think Putin had the winning position vs Prigozhin? I don't think Prigozhin had enough support to take on the whole Russian military and political establishment without substantial defection to his side.

Putin likely had the winning position but wasn't absolutely sure, so offered him a draw thinking that should be enough to win the tournament? Of course...in chess you can generally trust your own pieces...

By that time though...might have to add Prigozhin He's probably halfway to Moscow already...(how long did it take him to take Bakhmut again?) Now...I certainly hope news of this doesn't discourage any Russian troops on the front lines in Ukraine, LOL.