J.C.MacSwell

After I forget to do that...I can no longer edit to add them...not sure why but edit is no longer available to me.

We can start with your claim that "This whole thing boils down to either accepting or rejecting that trans women are women" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#:~:text=Scientific claims that do not,see%3A Argument from ignorance). Personalization of issues Tight social groups and authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies 1,665 in 1,666 people are have xx or xy chromosomes. Very approximately half are xx and half xy. Claiming that as a "false dichotomy" for the purpose of allowing generally advantaged xy chromosome individuals to compete in the category of those with xx chromosomes counts as well: Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims Use of obscurantist language, and use of apparently technical jargon in an effort to give claims the superficial trappings of science. Is there a reason I can't edit, to make it clear when I am quoting the Wiki article and when I am adding my own comments? I apologize for any lack of clarity, but I have not been able to edit for some time now.

Why don't you attack Holmes' argument rather than accuse him of not arguing in good faith? This is not true.

A lot can be done toward the social acceptance of that, without resorting to pseudo-science.

Fair enough. They are obviously at a disadvantage if they have to compete against men, for much the same reasons MtF competitors could have advantages against women. Wouldn't that change if they had their own category? Was this "artificial dichotomy" not being used in CY's suggested solution? What exactly is the comparison as to whether a transgender has a remaining biological advantage?

I would like to know your answer also. Is there something about FtM individuals that you feel makes them unlikely to want to compete?

You've suggesting subjecting transgenders to tests to place them in " open" or "women's" category. What criteria are you using to decide who these transgenders are? Why are cisgender women, to the degree you feel you can define them, going to free from the same scrutiny? Why can they not be told they cannot compete in the "Women's" category? Is this all clear in your mind?

I think a better question is "how is it that educated and intelligent people can become so polarized in their thinking that they consider the judging of weight divisions to be equally arbitrary to judging category placement based on someone's perceived ability stemming from "biological advantage" remaining after transitioning. From CY's suggestion: (bolded by me, apologies to Swansont for any "cherry picking" that might suggest) “Men’s” divisions could be eliminated and replaced with “open” divisions. Any athlete could be allowed to compete in that division. 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. Instead, this acknowledges – and takes seriously – that she identifies as a woman, but that respect for the principles of fair competition requires that she not be allowed to compete in the women’s division. Again I will state that this could be a workable solution for recreational level sports, dependant on the good will of all involved. Beyond that...not a hope in Hell.

Setting weight classes can be arbitrary but, having done that, you have a reasonably strict and definable control for who gets to play in what category. (methods used by competitors to make weight notwithstanding). No "expert", politically motivated or otherwise, gets to put their hand on the scale. No one gets to feel ostracized, banned or picked on. How does your proposal come anywhere close to that?

Give me a break. How does that compare to judging as described in your article? Does subjective vs quantitative mean nothing to biologists? You're one of the most thoughtful and intelligent posters on this board. What is it that compels an argument like that one? Science?

+1. This is the toughest part of the subject. As much as science should be clear on most of this, it obviously cannot be on some athletes. I admired Caster Semenya run, despite the questions she truly was an elite athlete. I didn't know where to place her other than being against the ruling that she had to artificially suppress her testosterone levels.

The weight categories are decided by a scale. Paralympics are admittedly arbitrary and accepted by competitors. It's fundamentally different unless you can't accept the division of Men's and Women's Sport to be fundamentally different. If you hold that view, I can respect that, but don't agree with it. Biological women deserve their own category...or they don't.

I did comment on it. It's a very good article and worth reading, but while the solution may be well intended...it simply can't work for the highest levels of sport. It would be onerous and left to pre-judgement of natural advantages in sports decided in fractions of seconds or centimetres. It would essentially involve some no doubt politically appointed "expert" pre-judging an athletes "womaness". How de-humanizing would that be to some of our most vulnerable, transgender individuals? How unfair to women's Sport? Or imagine at High School level...someone deciding which transgenders must compete in "open' class and which in "other"... It's already hard enough having to decide on biological women: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/16/sports/intersex-runner-surgery-track-and-field.html#:~:text=Surgery to Compete.-,It Has Not Gone Well.,of naturally elevated testosterone levels.&text=The Uganda Athletics Federation named her athlete of the year.

So when the testosterone only (for Olympic athletes) and identity only (for High School athletes) fails...you admit I knew better than advocates of each?

Which ones literally stated I had no particular expertise?

There are some that would cry cultural appropriation.

Again. Elite female athletes cannot always compete equitably with 16 and 17 year old boys. The fastest female 100m runners in the World can be beat by some 16 year old boys. Unfair to cisgender women. No amount of testosterone will allow the fastest women athletes to compete with the fastest men. It's not just about testosterone. (or simply willingness to identify) This will be a failed experiment, hurting both cisgender females, and transgendered athletes who will likely be treated unfairly. Hopefully they will be treated as respectfully as possible...and the animus properly directed at the pseudo scientific idiocracy.

...and what's with not handicapping the sprinters with fast twitch muscles? Why do they get to start at the same time as the others? I'm not saying you don't have a legitimate view point. No one should be forced to give a damn about Women's sport or drug testing to keep it clean and healthy. If you don't that's fine.

In what way does gay marriage encroach on the rights of others? What legitimate threat stems from it?

Might be reasonable at recreational level sports if it can be accepted. I don't see it even remotely working at serious competitive levels.

I think the upcoming Olympics may put an end to the notion that testosterone control alone can level the playing field (never mind identifying alone as per High School athletics in some States). It could possibly also end the notion of a lack of bias in science if it agrees with political correctness.

I think most of the benefits remain in not admitting to it...

...and it might be less symmetric than that...but H de V's point still holds.