J.C.MacSwell

It might sound like the same thing to some here, but I think a great many of them see trans females potentially taking over the top spots. Most in say, the top hundred are not so much concerned about being knocked down a couple places so much as having their ultimate goal taken away by some with a well established inherent advantage. Equally, I have no doubt that trans females that feel they should be allowed to compete in the women's categories would be concerned that any compensatory handicaps would be overly onerous on their potential performance so as to eliminate there chances of success, even if they were willing to risk the drug treatments that could make them eligible.

My point is that while the science of biology might gain understanding, definitions may change, and society may change, none of that will change the actual biology, drug treatments or surgical treatments notwithstanding. Well that's good. Hopefully you will be able to forgive those that consider you transphobic and therefore probably racist for not being able to convince yourself otherwise.

Ricky Gervais level clarity is pretty tough to match.

In the near term, we will continue to adapt, but not much evolving will take place. Regardless of changes in language those who we historically considered of a particular biological sex, will continue to be so, difficulties in ascertaining that for a small subset of individuals due to the limitations of the science of biology notwithstanding. (adding just to be fair...I do know your use of the term evolving was correct in the context intended...just hoping to make a related point)

I think you might have missed the part where Mistermack has explained that he's not transphobic either. His unwillingness to bend to pressure to accept changes to the meaning of some words from there historically accepted context doesn't change that, nor should he be obligated to IMO. Just my $0.02, overpriced as it may be.

It is a term I tend to avoid in contexts such as this one. I often say "no one has ever accused me of being normal" or claim "I'm the only normal person I know" when it comes up in some conversations. Right. And when you see round numbers used like 2.5, 5.0 and 10.0 nmol/L in rules you can tell right away it's not just science behind it. It's practically an admission that they really aren't sure what they're doing.

The IOC has just been much slower in realizing that requirements for drug treatment are similarly intrusive. Okay...I guess you succeeded... I would say you got a rise out of me...but that might seem a little inappropriate LOL. ...someone might tell me to cut it out....

Whether trans athletes are allowed to compete in the female category, or not, it has long been established that surgical treatments will not be a requirement.

Here is a US government study: (can't seem to reduce font size after cutting and pasting but note bolding by me) From https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30136295/ "Abstract Objective: The purpose of this narrative review was to summarize available data on testosterone levels in normal, healthy adult males and females, to provide a physiologic reference framework to evaluate testosterone levels reported in males and females with conditions that elevate androgens, such as disorders of sex development (DSD), and to determine the separation or overlap of testosterone levels between normal and affected males and females. Methods: A literature review was conducted for published papers, from peer reviewed journals, reporting testosterone levels in healthy males and females, males with 46XY DSD, and females with hyperandrogenism due to polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Papers were selected that had adequate characterization of participants, and description of the methodology for measurement of serum testosterone and reporting of results. Results: In the healthy, normal males and females, there was a clear bimodal distribution of testosterone levels, with the lower end of the male range being four- to fivefold higher than the upper end of the female range(males 8.8-30.9 nmol/L, females 0.4-2.0 nmol/L). Individuals with 46XY DSD, specifically those with 5-alpha reductase deficiency, type 2 and androgen insensitivity syndrome testosterone levels that were within normal male range. Females with PCOS or congenital adrenal hyperplasia were above the normal female range but still below the normal male range. Conclusions: Existing studies strongly support a bimodal distribution of serum testosterone levels in females compared to males. These data should be considered in the discussion of female competition eligibility in individuals with possible DSD or hyperandrogenism. Keywords: ambiguous genitalia; androgen insensitivity; disorders of sexual development; hyperandrogenism; polycystic ovary syndrome; testosterone."

I did say essentially that for normal ranges there was a clear gap, though not as an argument for testosterone controlling treatments I didn't say that, but it would be fair to infer that my understanding is that any overlap is slight and represents unusual conditions for either the female individuals, the male individuals or both. I'll have to check your link as it seems to disagree with that but it won't change my position as my position was never based on that. Here is where I think I first brought it up as questions for CY: Page 70 where I further argued it was no continuum but a clear gap between normal male and female ranges

When exactly, in this 2+ year old thread, have I ever advocated for using testosterone levels as a division between men and women? I've consistently spoken against testosterone targets and the use of target suppressive treatments for that purpose. If you want to decide which "side" I'm on, it's the one against drug treatments for performance enhancement or suppression, but for clean sports., regardless of whether anyone is of either sex (discernable by science or not), and regardless of their choice of gender.

So you've decided you're against cis-women? Your arguments are starting to make more sense knowing that.

I'm going to go out on a limb here...and guess that you think it's you... Does everyone need to be on a side?

Thank you. I try to explain myself as best I can, and hope to make my biases clear to see. They are welcome to play against each other. No one is stopping them (safety reasons in a small minority of situations that might arise aside)

Democracies of course aren't immune to it either. One of the problems with democracies is that they can vote an authoritarian regime in, but can't necessarily then vote it out. Future elections can become a facade.

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)

Sad. But unfortunately true.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. +1 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.

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.