J.C.MacSwell

Kid grows up. Doesn't like the results. Gets to sue them. Onus on them to defend based on the circumstances and actual science (none of the "we thought testosterone suppression would be sufficient to make sport fair" level "science")

...or as is now arbitrarily encouraged by FINA rules...under 12 year olds.

My premise stems from holding "first, do no harm" or "primum non nocere,") as the default position over any questionable medical practices.In other words they should be damn sure they know what they are doing when doing something where lesser interventions are reasonable. I agree. My statement did seem to suggest any participants involved should be culpable. But the ones making the decisions need to be held accountable, to the degree they are involved in those decisions, or allowing those decisions. It can't all be put on the 8 and 9 year olds.

I'm not suggesting they need be held accountable to me. But if and when the child actually becomes old enough to make their own decisions, would you not agree they should have the right to sue anyone that participated in any interventions to the natural path their bodies were on, if those interventions proved to be adverse? Is this claim from the same crowd that claimed testosterone alone should be sufficient (and recommended by some of that crowd) to allow trans women to compete fairly with other women? (are you sure they are not letting politics and their emotions get in the way of the science?) From the abstract, let's follow the data a little bit more: (13.73–19.04 years; M = 16.59, SD = 1.19) who received gender-affirming hormones were assessed at least 2 times: before the start of treatment and at least 3 months after treatment. Results: After gender-affirming hormones, a significant increase in levels of general well-being and a significant decrease in levels of suicidality were observed. So that limited data had older children and youths participating and taking gender-affirming hormones. I see no mention of puberty blockers (which seems fairly late to be effective in that group) I'm not against drug interventions when critically necessary, or for that matter older children or adults transitioning (despite claims by those against that the data shows no improvement), but I am against over prescribed medications (and OT drug use for sports performance enhancement or making arbitrary testosterone targets)

The new policy states transgender women must prove they had not experienced male puberty "beyond Tanner Stage 2 [of puberty] or before age 12, whichever is later" Essentially this will disclude trans women from elite female swimming. It may also influence a guideline for competitive sports above recreational. Although there surely can be rare and reasonable medical interventions prior to 12 years old, anyone else messing with childrens biology before 12 to the degree required need to be held accountable for any and all adverse effects IMO.

This might be a good time to point out that as far as Row vs Wade goes...I prefer to Row when the water is deeper,and Wade when there's not enough water to float the boat.

Because it's a bad argument. I think they should be legal in some cases and in some cases not. I can therefore agree with arguments from each side. Capiche?

thus the "or" But in that case I maintain they are hanging the very people they believe they are helping, out to dry. Let's not forget that many pseudo biologists had: 1. Been claiming to be experts in biology and sport 2. been claiming that trans women could compete fairly in physical sports on testosterone suppression alone. 3. Suggested it could be done in a healthy manner for the trans women 4. Actually had their ideas given credence my sports bodies, despite the obvious lack of science (and common sense when readily available facts are considered) behind it I say pseudo biologists despite their capabilities, with respect to actual biologists...a group they can include themselves in when they actually do science.and don't let their emotions and politics get in the way.

Sorry Alkonoklazt. I'm only being facetious. It's been a common theme in the thread by some posters that somehow it can be made fair to allow trans women to compete in elite sports in some practical manner without threatening women's sport, even though there are far more men that can compete at the elite women's level than there are women that can. Anyone that believes this to be true in physical sports understands little about the biology or is being extremely short sighted on the social impact on the transgenders being encouraged to compete (IMO of course). So I'm taking the position that trans men deserve there chance in men's sport every bit as much as it's claimed trans women do in women's sport. Why wouldn't they? As to the weak "it's only 6 individuals argument" it should be only a matter of time for there to be plenty more unless it's intended to maintain a social stigma against them competing...a very unhealthy situation for a vulnerable section of our populations.

What's wrong with different sized rackets? You sound like one of those "elitists" that would rather watch the likes of Usain Bolt in an all XY Olympic 100m mens final than allow trans men a fighting chance and a 0.91 second head start.

Well that's a fine kettle of fish...

If it's about percentages: What percentage participate hoping to someday advance to elite level, and in particular, what percent of females do so looking up to female role models? (I do get that potential trans individuals deserve the same...but if based on percentages as you suggest it should not be part of your focus)

@ Dim When knowingly avoiding the context, what's the point of posting?

Are fetuses lives included in that equation? Because unless you include just the mothers there is no evidence that making abortions illegal would cost more lives. Also, would you think it hypocritical to oppose clinical infanticide, if you were concerned many mothers might do themselves in while illegally killing their kids?

Fairness in the top 200...no problemo. For mens play: Those with no Y chromosomes play on the usual markings on their side of the court, but get to use the doubles markings on the other side if a Y chromosome individual is playing them. Markings can be adjusted until there are as many trans men in the top 200 as cisgender men. For womens play: Those with any Y chromosomes must use a smaller racket. Racket size can be adjusted until there are as many cisgender women in the top 200 as trans women. Easy-Peasy. Other associations may form to try to keep the balance differently, and possibly there might also be a Non-gender league that forms where only those with no Y chromosomes play in one division and those with one in another. Win for everyone as they can all choose what league they might wish to play in. Compensation and prize money to be determined by each association based on costs and revenues.

Statistically at least, the majority tend to favour the right of a women to choose earlier in pregnancy and the rights of the fetus to live later in pregnancy.

I heard cattle playing baseball against chickens was finally segregated by sex because the cows kept hitting fowl balls.

I only mentioned it as I remember pondering the thermodynamic potential (limited...but your mind wanders when watering rinks in the dead of winter) A small enough rink is great for very young kids and not too much work, especially with shade and a good white tarp. The older they get the bigger the rink they need...and the flat and level factor really kicks in and makes it hard. But on topic a good heat sink can make ambient a decent energy source.

I always thought it was pretty cool (no pun intended) that I could water my kids backyard rink and have it freeze at +2 celcius air temperature during a night with a clear sky. Not a chance when overcast at anything above 0. (relative humidity was also a factor) Hard to comment on the economics of it, but it was worth something to the kids....not that that has any relevance to your point.

I laughed out loud...but it helped that I googled Balzac before I actually got it. So I connected the comedy angle first. Sometimes it helps being slow...

Maybe. In the spirit of science we should give it a couple of test tickles.

There seems to be a fine line between barely acceptable and definitely not where potential comedy resides.

And here we thought you guys were too busy burning your cities and planning insurrections to notice...😄

A few caveats. Make the rules equally inclusive, and equally effective competitively, and equally incentivized, for trans males wanting to compete in male sports. Fair is fair. If we don't see trans males making inroads toward the top of the male podiums allow them to sue the rule makers for lack of equality. XX chromosome individuals struggling to compete in the female division should be able to transition and compete more favourably in the mens. Trans males are people too.

Does it go far enough? Probably not. (read as definitely not) But maybe it's something and maybe a turning point. Let's applaud all the "sellouts" that got something done. https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/12/politics/whats-in-senate-gun-reform-agreement/index.html