J.C.MacSwell

5 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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.

 

For frick sake Swansont, can you not tell this paragraph is opinion?

2 hours ago, swansont said:

“Then please, for the frikkin’ love of Zeus, please, point out who these athletes are?  Are there transgender athletes competing who are not undergoing HRT?

 

For frick sake Swansont how many times have I answered, directly to you, the reasons I believe you don't see more transgender athletes?

3 hours ago, swansont said:

 Are there transgender athletes competing who are not undergoing HRT?

 

Yes.

18 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Here, a rather precise analysis is warranted as such a sweeping statement (as mentioned multiple times) can mask important differences caused by transitioning. It is complicated by the fact that performance is not an inherent ability but also depends on the sport, training and the how the performance improves with training. It also does not help that elite athletes are a tiny fraction of an already highly selective group, so it is small wonder that there is even less data available. In fact, a study on elite transgender athletes at this point would essentially likely only consist of a handful of people, scattered across different types of sports, which would likely be rather useless. Things are even further complicated as longitudinal studies are needed as the effects of transitioning on the body can take a long time. 

As also mentioned before, data is therefore lacking and a lot is still based on extrapolation rather than high quality data. 

Depending on the length and cohort investigated, the results can be fairly different. For example, here is a review on a cohort of non-athletes:

https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgad414

Here, they found that the "innate advantage" of transgender woman after 4 years amounted to a statistical advantage of push-ups, but in none of the other measures. 

 

As mentioned multiple times, I realize hormone therapies and other surgeries and/or drug treatments can reduce, eliminate, or overcompensate for any or all of the inherent advantages.

I was quite aware of it prior to the start of this thread. 

41 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I am not sure what your point is. The whole discussion regarding transgender athletes is whether and how folks that have undergone gender-affirming procedures can participate. If they don't transition, there is little question where they participate, is there?

Transgendering does not require any gender affirming procedures or treatments. 

Nor should it. 

Would you not call a girl she if she was born male but declined any gender affirming treatments?

Gender is a choice, and has been for some time now. The term used to be considered to be essentially the same as biological sex but no longer is. How is it that you've failed to make the full connection?

No wonder you have misunderstood so many of my posts.

32 minutes ago, swansont said:

Well-established? Where and when did this happen?

Read my post again, including the part you didn't quote and think about what that might mean.

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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.

Even your link alludes to the inherent advantages...in particular the very part you quoted.

39 minutes ago, swansont said:

"Available evidence indicates trans women who have undergone testosterone suppression have no clear biological advantages over cis women in elite sport."

Can you not infer from that, that it is understood that without testosterone suppression or some other form of handicap inherent advantages would remain?

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

I may be mistaken but I suspect a great many of them object because they are afraid they are going to lose relative standing. If trans women were only half as competitive as cis women I doubt very many would be complaining. 

I also doubt that "a great many" cis women see transsexuality as a "delusion".

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.

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Is historicity important and should it never be changed? You seem to use that word a lot, as though it's immutable, like the now-antique US Constitution. People that are yet to be born won't care if something isn't useful  to them  anymore, or gets commandeered for other purposes. What happened to the original meaning of 'gay' and the associations regarding rainbows. They were just rainbows.

That small subset of individuals will require categorizing and there will have to be a trinary, quaternary, whatever number of sets to include them, if they can't belong to the the binary set. Either way the binary system becomes a figment of history.

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.

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

Not precisely, no.

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. 

Just now, dimreepr said:

Well, he didn't explain it very well... 😉

Ricky Gervais level clarity is pretty tough to match.

29 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

That's entirely up to him, society will just keep evolving, regardless.

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)

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You've taken that out of context, like you do with all of your excuses; you've obviously missed the part where he explains why he's not being transphobic and that there will be a certain amount of irony in the following joke's... 😉 

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.

6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Cheers for clarifying that. The problem at hand here is the use of 'normal' 

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.

13 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

...and the arbitrary application of limits...

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.

Just now, zapatos said:

I was trying to use colorful language. 

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....

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

But competitively there would be no issue.

I also question whether the Women's World Cup would take a big hit just because a few players used to have a penis.

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

Keywords: ambiguous genitalia; androgen insensitivity; disorders of sexual development; hyperandrogenism; polycystic ovary syndrome; testosterone."

10 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Stop using it to support your positions then.

I would have to look back, but you have put up a statistic whereby there was a very distinct delineation, with a clear gap between men and women's testosterone... 

I did say essentially that for normal ranges there was a clear gap, though not as an argument for testosterone controlling treatments

10 hours ago, StringJunky said:

like they they were so far apart they would never connect. 

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:

On 7/22/2023 at 9:56 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

I certainly don't think this is just all about testosterone levels but here is a question:

If human biological sex is a continuum, why is there such a huge gap between the testosterone level ranges of XY vs XX individuals?

And a follow up would be...why is it so difficult for XY individuals to reduce their testosterone levels to that of XX levels?

Page 70 where I further argued it was no continuum but a clear gap between normal male and female ranges

6 hours ago, StringJunky said:

How did you work that out? You've got these archaic pigeon-holes that you keep clinging on to that are well passed their use-by date.... but science soldiers on.

From: Testosterone Levels in Athletes Data Point Educator

Caption: Blood testosterone levels for 676 Olympic-level elite athletes. Individual athletes, represented by blue dots, are grouped by their biological sex (“Men” or “Women”) and sport (1-Powerlifting, 2-Basketball, 3-Soccer, 4-Swimming, 5-Marathon, 6-Canoeing, 7-Rowing, 8-Cross-Country Skiing, 9-Alpine Skiing, 10-WeightLifting, 11-Judo, 12-Bandy, 13-Ice Hockey, 14-handball, and 15-Track and Field).

Blood samples were collected on a voluntary basis within two hours after the athletes had competed in their events. Sports missing from the plots did not have enough volunteers to be included in the study. None of the athletes were known to be intersex or to have used performance-enhancing drugs.

https://www.biointeractive.org/sites/default/files/TestosteroneAthletes-Educator-DP.pdf

The 10nm/L limit for female athletes would allow  a whole bunch of men to compete as women using that criterion. The assertion in  posts that you have made, that there is a definitive chasm between male and female athletes clearly doesn't reflect reality.

Part of the problem, I think, is comparing *gross average upper and lower ranges made by many subject-related articles and those don't reflect the true distribution, as more clearly described by these graphs.

We need science to help the policy-makers determine the solutions.

*Gross - adjective. lacking fine distinctions or detail · adjective. visible to the naked eye (especially of rocks and anatomical features)? ·

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.

2 hours ago, iNow said:

In the battle over personal liberties and societal acceptance, not choosing a side is equivalent to choosing the wrong one. 

 

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

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but only one of us is right... 🧐

Sorry, that's a bit too binary; it should read "but one of us is more right, you know, given the evidence!!!"

I'm going to go out on a limb here...and guess that you think it's you...

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I see, I think you might be missing some recent context (in this thread) to the question you quoted, unless you've swapped side's. 

Does everyone need to be on a side?

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

 

This is what I've been talking about, your bias is obvious...

Thank you. I try to explain myself as best I can, and hope to make my biases clear to see.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

 

So, we're back to my question, why not them against them, if both them's want to play?

 

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)

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Well, culture wars and scapegoating have been the go-to for authoritarian regimes for a long time and they are making many successful revivals in recent times.

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.

Just now, swansont said:

You were claiming this, not me.

“No round for me.”

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)

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Of course. It’s far easier to turn us against each other with tribal culture war issues so we’re distracted while they act as grifters looting the civil coffers than it is to do the hard work of governance addressing famine, drought, climate change, poverty, economy, etc.  

Sad. But unfortunately true.

28 minutes ago, iNow said:

Since only like 12 humans get to elite level sports, my comments on this topic tend to focus more on lower less elite categories where state legislatures, local school districts, community sporting clubs, and many others are painting trans athletes as bogeymen who MUST be prevented from competition.

I know you're not in this camp, but I'd wager it comprises 99.99% of the athletes impacted by this issue. I'm not as interested as you seem to be in focusing on the marginal remaining 0.01% of the challenge.

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.

50 minutes ago, swansont said:

That you would not qualify for your country’s olympic team doesn’t mean you can’t attempt to do so, and that’s what access is, and we’ve seen transgender people lose access is some places in the US, which means they would probably quash any chance of making an olympic team, even if they had the raw ability.

Access is not the same as competitive fairness.

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.

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Then we're agreed, we should let them, not us, play...

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.

11 hours ago, swansont said:

Access is opportunity to compete. Nothing guarantees you advance to a later round.

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.