J.C.MacSwell

Yes. Have you read any of the links in this thread? No. Not that one. That was against 15 year olds. I take that one with a grain of salt. Formal games are played against teenagers. Age around 17 years old with the skill level chosen so the women won't be dominated. It happens in ice hockey also, regularly when getting ready to compete at the highest women's level. We are talking about biological males competing against biological females. Can you not even admit that?

You seem to think the worst motives of anyone who doesn't agree with your position. I don't blame transgender athletes for choosing to change, or if adults "altering their chemistry". Altering their chemistry is between them and their doctor. I do blame you, and your ilk, for forcing them to change their chemistry and/or incentivizing changing it, and for belittling the importance of female sports. At the point a doctor is targeting an individual's chemistry to meet a rule rather than the best for the individuals health...they are no longer acting as a doctor. Unless of course...the observer actually watches sports. I mean...you had no clue whatsoever at the start of this thread that the top Women's Soccer Team in the World (The US Team), most obviously a team of elite athletes, could be dominated by a top male teenage team. You haven't observed jack.

Oversimplifying your take. would that be like allowing school integration, gay or interracial marriage, washroom of choice use, or drinking from the same fountains, but only if certain individuals altered there body chemistry to meet conditions you deemed necessary, or alter their skin tone enough that you deem acceptable? Of course you would not, so why are you doing the equivalent here? Why are you on board with it? Why do you find it totally fine? Can you not see that it's a terrible compromise, both unhealthy and impossible to do fairly, and that competitive female sports are in fact threatened, with or without it? Or do you have some psychological impediment to understanding any of that?

In the category of their choice? Because any remaining male anatomical and physiological advantages can't be accurately evaluated and handicapped. Nor should it be, when the handicap[s resort to any unhealthy use of drugs.

Thanks. So diminishing to 4%. Much more in line with what I would expect. And again with swimming, guessing "superficially" that buoyancy is the main factor in the male advantage diminishing faster with distance, and eventually leading to a female advantage. We both agree their is a trend, regardless if you eventually prove correct with regard to running (I doubt it) Can we not also agree these stem from anatomical and physiological differences of males and females? What are they basing it on otherwise? Can we not also agree that averages are less critical than the elite range of the distribution? Who cares if Hussein Bolt, for example, is at a natural disadvantage against top female marathoners? Is there a distance he should potentially be allowed to run competitively against top females? All of this should be decided, ideally, on the playing field, keeping the "judging" of individual cases out of it. Obviously that ideal can't be perfect, with the difficulties in categorizing intersex athletes. For typical transgenders it really isn't that hard, outside of having to tell a small but vulnerable part of our population they can't play in the category of their choice. They are human. They are transgenders. It's not a term I would have expected you would want to promote for them, reinforcing that they are different from "normal" humans. (I'm not suggesting you think that way) Plus the term is kind of taken: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhuman#:~:text=Transhuman%2C or trans-human%2C,beyond those of standard humans. "Transhuman, or trans-human, is the concept of an intermediary form between human and posthuman.[1] In other words, a transhuman is a being that resembles a human in most respects but who has powers and abilities beyond those of standard humans.[2] " Just my opinion. Carry on using the term if you don't see the harm. I'm certainly not a good judge of what people might find offensive a priori.

With respect, I don't think that's a suitable term.

Had to look it up...I was thinking "wouldn't that be during ejaculation?"😀

Definitely post it. I don't want to see the book...

I think most of the top coaches, and many of their athletes, would take the Cole's Notes version on the biology and science, and after weighing it against their experience...get most of it pretty close to correct. Right. So where is the data? What is the distribution used for the claim you are supporting?

I think there is some truth to what you are saying but I think it mostly due to the fact that, on average, female athletes are lighter than men. This may diminish male advantage as you point out, but if you look at elite level records it's fairly obvious that males still maintain a significant advantage. In any case your link really didn't support your/their conclusion, other than assure us they had taken in a lot of data. It may be that women do have a physiological advantage, but it certainly hasn't been proven, and the link doesn't give the evidence to support it. But even if World Records are only indicative of highly trained athletes at elite levels as you suggest...those are the level of performances that should be considered for setting rules for the highest levels of competition. For recreational athletes the competitive subset of the rules are less critical.

This doesn't seem to be true at elite levels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramarathon Men[edit] Event Record Athlete Date Place 50 km 2:43:38 Thompson Magawana (RSA) 12 Apr 1988 Claremont, South Africa 100 km 6:09:14 Nao Kazami (JPN) 24 Jun 2018 Yubetsu-Saroma-Tokoro, Japan 100 miles 11:28:03 Oleg Kharitonov (RUS) 20 Oct 2002 London, United Kingdom 1000 km 5d 16:17:00 Yiannis Kouros (GRE) 26 Nov – 2 Dec 1984 Colac, Australia 1000 miles 10d 10:30:36 Yiannis Kouros (GRE) 20–30 May 1988 New York City, USA 6 hours 97.200 km Donald Ritchie (GBR) 28 Oct 1978 London, United Kingdom 12 hours 163.785 km Zach Bitter (USA) 14 Dec 2013 Phoenix, USA 24 hours 303.506 km Yiannis Kouros (GRE) 4–5 Oct 1997 Adelaide, Australia 48 hours 473.495 km Yiannis Kouros (GRE) 3–5 May 1996 Surgères, France 6 days 1036.800 km Yiannis Kouros (AUS)[a] 20–26 Nov 2005 Colac, Australia ^ Kouros had Australian citizenship for part of his running career. Nationalities here are as given in the IAU records table. Women[edit] Event Record Athlete Date Place 50 km 3:07:20 Alyson Dixon (GBR) 1 Sep 2019 Brașov, Romania 100 km 6:33:11 Tomoe Abe (JPN) 25 Jun 2000 Yubetsu-Saroma-Tokoro, Japan 100 miles 12:42:40 Camille Herron (USA) 11 Nov 2017 Vienna, IL, USA 1000 km 7d 16:08:37 Paula Mairer (AUT) 29 Sep-6 Oct 2002 New York City, USA 1000 miles 12d 14:38:40 Sandra Barwick (NZL) 16–28 Oct 1991 New York City, USA 6 hours 85.492 km Nele Alder-Baerens (GER) 11 Mar 2017 Münster, Germany 12 hours 149.130 km Camille Herron (USA) 9–10 Dec 2017 Phoenix, Arizona, USA 24 hours 270.116 km Camille Herron (USA) 26–27 Oct 2019 Albi, France 48 hours 397.103 km Sumie Inagaki (JPN) 21–23 May 2010 Surgères, France 6 days 883.631 km Sandra Barwick (NZL) 18–24 Nov 1990 Campbelltown, Australia

Current model for the Universe I think has it that if it is infinite now, it also was at the big bang, only denser at that point. The Observable Universe has never been infinite.

You're probably right...but that's more glass half empty...

I'm pretty sure the raccoons that take over after we mess up will evolve to the point they have a fighting chance. That's my glass half full...😀

There are a lot of people of various backgrounds, from many parts of the world, that come to post here. For many it takes time to understand what the Mods here deem acceptable and what they do not, and accept that the arbitrary rules are fair or could be. In fact up to that point many might argue, and many have, that they aren't. It's not always clear that no disrespect was stated or intended, when it's pretty clear no respect was intended, and different words hold different connotations for many people. "Ignorance" is one of them. Just my $0.02 and probably overpriced.

Maybe is puzzling to you...yet not addressed by anyone here...because no one here made such a bizarre claim...at least that I'm aware of. The fact that elite teenage boys teams could dominate your National women's soccer and ice hockey teams has been discussed...sorry if seemed to you that someone thought any biologically male team could. Or why even have the category in the first place? Let's go back to the 1800s. After all...nice girls don't want to compete.

No worries, I'm sure some will find it's reel good...

I do have to admit there's more than a bit of fertilizer in there...

None of us are going to admit it's here...if that's what you're thinking...😛

+1. How does it work in the interim, prior to the impacts becoming clear?

Has there been any better suggestions? From CY's suggested solution: "Then, transgender athletes could be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Based on their athletic ability, a tournament organizer could determine which division is most fair for them to compete in, “women’s” or “open.” For trans women athletes, at issue is their athletic ability, not their womanhood. If a tournament organizer determines that a trans woman athlete is too good to compete against other women because of her biological advantage, requiring her to compete in an “open” division does not undermine her humanity." What if she feels it does? And why should she feel it would not? What fountain does she get banned to, if she's to good for one but not good enough for the other?

No one can answer this accurately enough to judge which transgenders should be allowed to compete in CY's suggested "Women's" category at competitive levels. The baseline is elusive enough prior to judging on a case by case basis as described. You think anything suggested here is fair to trans athletes? Do you thinks it's fair to have someone judge whether they are "women enough" to compete? How about allowing them to compete...and then telling them they are no longer eligible after realizing the maintained more "biological advantage" than previously judged? How about making sure they are handicapped so onerously they cannot win? Would that be any better? Do you think it's fair to ask a transgender athlete to alter their body chemistry if they wish to compete? I can see no path to success on this. I can see it failing and all the so called "experts" abandoning it like rats off a sinking ship...I mean they meant well...hoped it would work out...and the athletes getting pointed at are adults and did choose to subject themselves to the drug regimes required to compete ...so not their fault. Except it would be.

Just for the record...what side are you on for climate change? The complete denial side, or the "I've only got 12 more years to pat myself on the back" side?

Who said it was zero? Do you feel those 200,000 with neither XX or XY chromosomes should effect the consideration as to whether some with XY chromosomes (where XY chromosomes have proven and demonstrable advantage at the highest levels of sport) in the category generally reserved for those with XX chromosomes (where XX chromosomes have proven and demonstrable disadvantage at the highest levels of sport)? What do those 200,000 have to do with the question of whether the two distinct divisions should overlap in sports competition?

Thanks INow!