J.C.MacSwell

What would be the scientific test for that? How should the rules be enforced, if not simply accepting an individual's claim? What was Bruce Jenner's gender identity back in 1976? Unknown? It seems most of the definitions I google are trying more to justify rather than describe the working use of the term. With the definition you choose (seem motivated) to use, no one can prove their gender identity.

I think you misunderstand what gender currently means. It means how an individual chooses to identify. There is no other test. You can argue whether anyone has a choice or free will, or not, but that can't be proven. We have decided to accept an individuals choice, as we understand choice. So you can take two identical twins, with essentially the same genes and hormone numbers and one can identify female and the other male and that is accepted as their respective genders. If you believe you can go further than that and find a physical something that might motivate the choice, that doesn't change the above and with respect to sports you still need to connect it to athletic potential for it to be meaningful to those that must make and put in practise rules for elite competition. Elite female sports has developed because of a clear and significant gap in the top performances of XY and XX athletes...not because of any clear or significant gap in choice of gender, or motivation for that choice. Bruce Jenner was at one time considered by many the best XY athlete in the World and clearly enjoyed XY advantage, however difficult to say exactly why. Caitlyn Jenner is now perhaps the best known transgender on the planet. Whether there was something innate driving her decision, or not, it seems unlikely to have given her as Bruce Jenner any substantial disadvantage...though who knows...it's pretty much impossible to ascertain just as it is even more impossible to prejudge athletic potential sufficiently for the purpose of elite sports any time soon. For what it's worth, I tend to agree with much of Caitlyn Jenner's position on this topic.

You are suggesting there is something inherent driving the gender identification motivation? Do you have a reason to believe there is a connection between that and sports potential?

Right. The risk players know their choice of colour will have no effect on the game. No need to complain about a current lack of evidence.

There is no known difference in athletic potential, or reason to believe there is, caused by any XY athlete's choice to change gender.

Right. Those are the types of solutions that could be used where possible, at least for the intersex, without requiring them to take unwanted treatments if they wish to compete. I wonder if Laurel Hubbard would have preferred that, in whole or in part, rather than being forced to conform (forced if she wished to compete as a female) to an arbitrary testosterone target. ...and if her only threat was to also get a medal without displacing anyone...how much more welcome might she have felt.

As I have mentioned many times in this thread, right from the early on in it, you need to be able to anticipate the results of any rules you might make. I don't know how many times I have pointed this out to Swansont when he keeps asking "where are they?" while citing current low numbers and ignoring obvious evidence that XY athletes have known advantages. As they move away from testosterone targets, as they should, the numbers will surely go up... as society becomes more accepting of transgenders, as it should, the numbers surely will go up... ...unless of course there are other rules in place to prevent it.

You said my concerns were not justified citing the current ratio as 2200 to 1, did you not?

...with questionable testosterone targets in place to maintain that? With unfair social stigmas toward transgenders to maintain that? Explain exactly how either is a healthy goal if you believe 2200 to 1 should be maintainable.

Am I? How many of those (bolded) are competing without serious restrictions? (I'm fairly certain the answer is none, even if they've gone through HRT in the past, any requirement to which is a serious restriction in itself) Much of the debate is about whether the restrictions are enough (or overly onerous) to make for fair competition. There should be no debate as to whether the current restrictions are healthy. Many on the many sides of the debate don't believe they are healthy, and certainly none of the methods used to reduce testosterone to target levels are considered to be without risk. Many here would seem to be satisfied if testosterone targets were continued to be used and adjusted over time. Attempt to find some compromise between inclusion and athlete health. When transgender athletes succeed, or fail, what exactly will have been tested?

Right. But at this point in the science of biology I believe that for the human species, 99+% of us can be clearly divided into biologically male or biologically female regardless of more overlap in secondary sex characteristics, and that division is so significant with regard to physical sports that there are demonstrable differences between the top performances of the two groups, in the range of 6-12% in many events. With gender, as we now define the term gender, no such clear division for top performers exists, notwithstanding medical science's ability to intervene. Essentially this means that unless XX athletes are given their own space, they cannot be competitive at elite level without very serious restrictions put on any inclusion of XY athletes.

No. This is a fair point. However, there is nothing to stop transgenders, or anyone else, competing against top level females. If the data is the goal it can be gained from experiments outside of and with no risk to standard top level competition.

I certainly don't understand how US states limiting access to access to health care justifies any XY inclusion in XX sports Why do you feel international sports organizations should take that into account?

So you believe my describing womens elite sports as having "worked fairly well" was too positive? How would you prefer I describe it?

No. Feel free to get my position straight at any time though.

When one argues that because the intersex exist then sex is non binary so the non intersex should be free to choose the binary division of their choice...one is already tied up in knots...

Exactly. Not perfect but worked fairly well.

When you quote someone it is their intended context that matters. You don't get to twist it. It certainly did not. The pursuit of separate but equal did work fairly well for women that wanted their own elite sports though. Not perfect, but well enough that many feel it's worth protecting.

I'm not going to help you pitch softballs to the extreme right...they just knock them out of the park... ...I know more times than not the hit is in foul territory, but that doesn't seem to stop them from parading around the bases claiming a home run... As you said earlier in this thread....something to the effect of cheap politics being easy and getting in the way of the real hard work Let's pretend the context wasn't obvious?

At least I didn't bring up the Nazis.... ...oops! We're in good company though...Phi brought them up recently IIRC and that probably wasn't the first time in this thread.😀 Assuming I'm getting your context correctly: Why do you feel the experiments with inclusion should be done at elite levels?

You've yet to explain why you think your version of fairness can possibly work for females above recreational level sports.

If you mean letting XY athletes play at elite XX levels, then with the few possible XY intersex exceptions and few XY transitions before puberty, both of which would be looked at on an individual basis, sport dependant with onus to prove no XY advantage and with any drug treatments for health reasons only...then no. Edit: Though the onus of proof would be on the intersex athlete, in the grey area where possible they could still be accommodated as discussed much earlier in this thread...as I suggested Caster Semenya might share a podium spot if she was unable to prove no XY advantage, and no XY advantage could be reasonably proven.

Well Dim, I don't think I've ever really taken my cue from anyone on this matter. I seem to be ahead of the IOC on rejecting the use of testosterone targets with their known health risks, yet readily accepting transgenders (and others) preference of identity without requiring any biological changes. That simply hasn't stopped me from recognizing that some XX athletes can become elite athletes if given the opportunity, even if their measurable performance would never match those of many XY athletes that never reach elite levels.

They simply declare that they have transgendered, or let me know they now identify as male or female. From the IOC policy statement in 2015 (note that the new guidelines have moved away from the testosterone requirements 2.2, 2.3. and 2.4, though they still allow sporting organizations to use them, including more restrictive versions of them) "2. Those who transition from male to female are eligible to compete in the female category under the following conditions: 2.1. The athlete has declared that her gender identity is female. The declaration cannot be changed, for sporting purposes, for a minimum of four years. 2.2. The athlete must demonstrate that her total testosterone level in serum has been below 10 nmol/L for at least 12 months prior to her first competition (with the requirement for any longer period to be based on a confidential case-by-case evaluation, considering whether or not 12 months is a sufficient length of time to minimize any advantage in women’s competition). 2.3. The athlete's total testosterone level in serum must remain below 10 nmol/L throughout the period of desired eligibility to compete in the female category. 2.4. Compliance with these conditions may be monitored by testing. In the event of non-compliance, the athlete’s eligibility for female competition will be suspended for 12 months." This is meant to mean that I don't agree with the current World Athletics requirement for intersex athletes that wish to compete against women. I don't think I ever typed it in the way you are suggesting. 1. Generally speaking, the intersex wishing to compete in the elite female categories are not straight male boys. 2. Testosterone reducing treatments are quite the opposite of performance enhancing drugs You seem to struggle with moderate positions. You seem to start to understand (whether you agree with it or not), but then revert back to assuming some extreme.

Way to miss the point yet again. What Olympics since 2003 allowed female transgenders to compete without testosterone reducing treatments? Are you advocating for testosterone targets to be continued? (don't answer, just snipe unless you want to make your position clear)