Jump to content

J.C.MacSwell

Senior Members
  • Posts

    6102
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    34

Posts posted by J.C.MacSwell

  1. 6 hours ago, swansont said:

    “Semenya, who has always been legally identified as female” (from the provided link; emphasis added)

    She isn’t transgender - as you note, she is intersex - but this is an example of the issue of only having two categories being part of the problem, why there is difficulty in classifying people, and underscores the issue of whether we are discussing sex or gender.

     

     

    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.

    2 hours ago, swansont said:

    The governing body uses gender as the determining factor for which group one should be in, not sex. Her gender is female. According to the IAAF’s rules, she’s a woman, competing in women’s races. 

    https://theconversation.com/ten-ethical-flaws-in-the-caster-semenya-decision-on-intersex-in-sport-116448

    (sports used to use anatomical determination, which is presumably what the doctor used to assign her female at birth)

    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.

  2. 52 minutes ago, swansont said:

    That’s certainly a major issue.

     

    I don’t see where real events were cited.

     

     

    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."

  3. 7 minutes ago, swansont said:

    I’m pretty sure nobody has plummeted to their death from trans people competing in athletics, and since they have been, there should be existing evidence.

    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?

  4. 1 minute ago, swansont said:

    I didn’t ask about potential outliers. I am asking, yet again, for evidence that should already exist. 

    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?

  5. 4 minutes ago, swansont said:

    And, I would add, where are these outliers?

    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?

     

  6. 32 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

     

     It's a huge stretch to imagine the demise of an entire sport just because the "wrong" person won, in fact it's ludicrous.

     

     

    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?

  7. 5 hours ago, iNow said:

    Please elaborate on what you mean by "less potential," why this matters, and then finally why we are supposedly not allowed to consider them elite. 

    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.

    5 hours ago, iNow said:

     

    Yes, you keep saying this. I'm not buying it. 

    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".

     

  8. From over 2 years ago (directed at CY at that time)

     

    On 7/3/2021 at 2:41 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

    You've suggesting subjecting transgenders to tests to place them in " open" or "women's" category.

    What criteria are you using to decide who these transgenders are? Why are cisgender women, to the degree you feel you can define them, going to free from the same scrutiny?

    Why can they not be told they cannot compete in the "Women's" category?

    Is this all clear in your mind?

     

  9. 7 hours ago, iNow said:

     

    I am trying to summarize all of this by saying "not all trans athletes born XY are physically more capable than those born XX."

    Some might be, but not all... and your posts thus far don't seem to include that important nuance or acknowledgement. It's been suggested in this and nearly every other trans-related thread in which you've participated.... this idea that the trans athlete is a hulking brute who will dominate and hurt the poor defenseless lady folk. 

    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.

  10. 6 minutes ago, iNow said:

    How is this any different than it already is today? The better players elevate to the next level. We don’t let Labron James play on the junior varsity basketball team, either. So what?

     

    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)

    30 minutes ago, iNow said:

    You continue operating on this fallacious premise that all trans athletes are massive Hulked out she monsters who can bench press dump trunks. 

    Where have I suggested anything of the sort? And since you won't find anything...what compels you to say that?

  11. 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.

     

    14 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    Okay. So maybe I'm misunderstanding you but when you say "...experiment all you like, but leave elite XX sports as originally intended and exclude XY individuals", it sounds like you are saying you've concluded that trans women should not compete with cis women. If that is what you are saying, why can't we experiment with it?

    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)

     

  12. 29 minutes ago, iNow said:

    What is it about my position supporting merit-based entry and classification systems across sports divisions that is so difficult for you to comprehend?

     

    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?

    9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    But this statement assumes that there are no possible reasonable solutions to allowing trans women to compete at the elite level, right? If so, are you convinced that all possible solutions have been reviewed/attempted/whatever and found wanting?

    No. It assumes my interpretation of INow's "solution" that he assures me is incorrect and he will hopefully elaborate on.

  13. 3 minutes ago, iNow said:

    I’m not here to draw the lines. I’m here to remind you that it’s entirely possible to do so without any reference to sex and gender. 

    Said another way, there is no reason transgendered individuals should be prevented from competing alongside the cisgendered folks already doing so. 

    ...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.

  14. 50 minutes ago, iNow said:

    I am fine with merit based approaches. Old fashioned binary leagues are lazy. 

    That said, it can also be both. 

    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?

    EdAyusuWAAATAlO?format=jpg&name=small

    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.

  15. 20 hours ago, zapatos said:

    On a side note, did anyone else notice that on this and similar topics, most of the people from the more 'liberal' countries  are taking a relatively more conservative position, and the participants from the more 'conservative' country are taking a relatively more liberal position? I know it means nothing but it kind of made me chuckle. 😁

    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.

    On 7/8/2023 at 4:21 PM, iNow said:

     

    And to repeat my previous position, I support merit based approaches to divisions in elite sports… you either meet the criteria for that group or you do not. Gender and pubic plumbing need not ever enter the equation. 

    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.

     

     

  16. 3 hours ago, swansont said:

    I think you said all but a handful of trans athletes choose not to compete at an elite level, and I want to know where they went. 

    Since it’s a choice, they must have the ability to do so. They must have done so at some point. Winning, if they are to compete at an elite level.

     

     

     

    On 7/5/2023 at 9:11 PM, swansont said:

    So this is to protect the transgender community? Couldn’t they just choose not to compete

    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.

    16 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

     

    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.

     

     

    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.

    3 hours ago, swansont said:

    There are athletes who have complained about the damage that drugs they are allowed to (and expected to) take do to them. Shaquille O’Neal has been quite open about taking anti-inflammatory drugs and painkillers in order to play basketball. It’s common among gridiron football players (Toradol, for one). Aaron Rodgers admitted to taking ayahuasca, a schedule 1 drug. Not prohibited by the NFL.

    It seems that protecting the players happens when not doing so impacts the bottom line. The NFL covered up concussion issues for years until it was too obvious that it was an issue. They don’t want PEDs because of the notion that it’s cheating, and that’s an image problem. 

     

     

    So we agree that drugs are an issue in elite sport, and the unhealthy use of them should not be incentivised or encouraged?

  17. 1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

    I'm just suggesting that YOU think about it, I like to choose my own drug...

    Jesus, I can't believe you're still arguing that your drug is better than everyone else's; it's clearly off topic, grow a pair... 😉

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

  18. 50 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    Hmmm 🤔, that's an interesting turn of phrase, are you suggesting that transexuals should be protected from themselves? Because that's kinda your vibe in this thread... 🧐

    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?

    On 7/5/2023 at 8:07 AM, dimreepr said:

    A question I think you should ask yourself @J.C.MacSwell.

    Sport is an arbitory measure of a specific quality, and like Cruft's the tighter the measure, the more likely it's going to spit out an aboration of some sort (cough, incest ect.).

    Open Cruft's to every dog and see the benefits for every dog.

     

    Is that a question? If so can someone translate it for me?

  19. 12 hours ago, swansont said:

    Any evidence of this hidden horde of trans athletes that choose not to compete at elite levels?

    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.

     

    12 hours ago, swansont said:

    Until last year trans athletes in the US could compete in NCAA sports with no restrictions, AFAICT (testosterone testing was then implemented) Exactly one has won a championship, and that was last year. That’s the extent of college competition that could ascend to the elite level. That’s out of 32 trans athletes competing in college in the US. 15 in high school (2 girls)

    NCAA sports, for women especially, already include many athletes at World elite level.

    12 hours ago, swansont said:

    What does this have to do with trans athletes? i.e. people who are not using performance-enhancing drugs?

    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.

  20. 6 minutes ago, swansont said:

     

    So this is to protect the transgender community? Couldn’t they just choose not to compete

    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?

  21. 1 hour ago, swansont said:

    How will this handful of participants “set back” women’s sports? We don’t need hypotheticals here - some sports organizations have permitted trans women to compete. Are they winning all the trophies? Are cis women not competing anymore?

    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. 

  22. 1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

    Why do WE need to compromise? 'It's' either accurate or not... 🧐

    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.

  23. 2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    Officially, fairness = same effort = same reward; 'them' only enters the equation when I 'might' loose, something...

    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.

  24. 8 minutes ago, iNow said:

    Here yet again (like reparations) we have a rando coming in merely to stir the pot and cause discord among folks who otherwise get along just fine. It’s amazing how easy some ppl make it for these folks to do so. 

    That was just a "back at ya" tongue in cheek...No worries...I still look forward to your comments.

     

    15 minutes ago, iNow said:

    So now one anecdote qualifies for “them” generalizations? Gotcha. I’m obviously in way over my head. 🙄

    "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.

  25. 1 hour ago, iNow said:

    Thank you for confirming you’re unable to name any specific individuals or actual groups engaging in these behaviors. 

    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.

    1 hour ago, iNow said:

    Who is this horrible “they” in reality, though? This sounds more like another fictional bogeyman / made up enemy than an actual group of people with any meaningful power to effect change. 

     

×
×
  • 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.