J.C.MacSwell

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

And it’s not the only variable. It doesn’t include how efficiently the body utilizes the testosterone, for one.

Agree. As I said from the beginning of this thread:

On 3/20/2021 at 8:01 AM, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

I think it is very important to encourage transgenders in sports, but I think it will be very difficult to fairly include trans women fairly at elite levels for many sports, possibly most sports. It's simply not just about testosterone, even if testosterone levels are a significant factor. 

2 hours ago, iNow said:

And tell me again when you “chose” to be classified as male?

Your point is what exactly? 

You've mentioned a few times that you want 6o be on the right side of history on this. What part of this social and drug experimentation in the name of inclusion do you like so far?

All you've come up with so far is to expand the problem by including any XY athletes that fit around the performance level of elite women, regardless of their gender.

But at least you recognize that gender is not, or should not be, the issue.

Right (except it's 99+ %) and is a good argument why XX athletes should get there own elite category. 

Choice of gender has no known effect on sports performance while chromosomes do.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

What does the testosterone range have to do with sex being a continuum?

The fact that there is a range supports the notion that there is a spectrum.

Particular and discernable medical conditions (that very very few have) aside, the XX and XY ranges don't overlap...in fact there is quite a huge gap between them.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

What does the testosterone range have to do with sex being a continuum?

The fact that there is a range supports the notion that there is a spectrum.

There are 2 very separate ranges with clearly no continuum between them.

Biology as a science is far from perfect but for the purposes of say, World Athletics for protecting elite female sports in a healthy manner (even while trying to accommodate transgender athletes where practical) ...the binary model (though not perfect) is useful...where any attempt at a continuum model (with a clear divide between XX and XY ranges) is far from it.

That said, allowing transgender females to compete if they can get in the female range and maintain it, threatens the health of the transgender athletes that wish to avoid exclusion more than it threatens elite female sports. Is that what you are in favour of?

7 hours ago, CharonY said:

And finally, because bodies react differently there is still no clear correlation between testosterone level and performance. Athlete surveys don't show that top performers have the highest levels, and there seem to differences between disciplines (power lifters were among the lowest in testosterone in the male group, iirc).

 

There is however, a very very clear correlation between the top performers in the XX range and the top performers in the XY range in the vast majority of sports.

54 minutes ago, iNow said:

Well that’s progress then. Enjoy your night bud ✌🏼

Having said that, remember that I don't agree with forcing or enticing intersex athletes to take any drug treatments they otherwise have no interest in taking. You enjoy yours also.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Sorry, cross-posted, and added some more details. But overall I think that the authors attempted to simplify the model, which, in for all purposes has worked fairly well. But more recent research focusing on aspects of sexual selection and evolution of sex has put some dampers on prior assumptions. I am no expert in this field, so I cannot interpret the whole situation accurately, but depending on how good the data and experiments are, (some of which are at least mentioned in the paper I linked above), there might be a broader rethinking needed.

But that is nature of science, the more details we get, the more we chisel on grand old concepts.

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?

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

And what if, in close consultation with their doctors and family and for reasons wholly and entirely unrelated to athletic competition, they’d already reduced their testosterone in this manner?

If their hormone levels were ALREADY WITHIN the allowed thresholds for female sport, and have been for years and years, would you still persist in advocating for this blanket ban against even offering them the chance to qualify for participation?

Assuming "for years and years" includes prior to puberty that might be very similar to some intersex athletes, so on a case by case basis I can see giving them the same consideration.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

And trans athletes should be allowed to make this decision, as well. 

I would argue that intersex athletes should not be allowed to make that decision either, but where practical some, on a case by case basis, be accommodated in some other manner (even at elite levels) such as we discussed quite some time ago in this thread.

When I was competing (up to early nineties) I had quite a list of drugs, both over the counter and prescription, that I was not allowed to take. These were considered both unhealthy (long term) and performance enhancing (or could potentially mask other drugs that were) but to the degree they are only taken (or extra taken) to qualify I don't see any difference in principle.

In any case having an XY athlete have to reduce testosterone to 2.5 nmol/l is pretty onerous even if it's on the extreme high range of those with XX. It all but excludes them, and is an unfair and unhealthy target...should not be used for any level of sports IMO.

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

This is circular reasoning. Most of us are one sex if you only have already limited the options to two. We’re back to biology-for-beginners, ignoring the more nuanced picture.

“Sex refers to a set of factors that determine whether an individual is considered biologically female, male, or intersex. These factors include chromosomes, genes, internal and external sex organs, hormones, and secondary sex characteristics (such as breasts for females or facial hair for males).”

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sa-visual/visualizing-sex-as-a-spectrum/

If you limit it to chromosomes, you have two options that cover ~98%. If you include genes and hormones, etc, you have a spectrum.

Bolding emphasis mine:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bies.202200173#:~:text=Biomedical and social scientists are,rather than a binary trait.

"Biological sex is binary, even though there is a rainbow of sex roles

Abstract

Essentially, human sex is binary, with a very limited grey area.

47 minutes ago, swansont said:

If you limit it to chromosomes, you have two options that cover ~98%. If you include genes and hormones, etc, you have a spectrum.

99+%. Most with intersex traits are still XX or XY.

On 7/17/2023 at 10:21 PM, iNow said:

This feels too easy. No, I don’t favor detrimental drug treatments.

 

First off, thanks for the reply. I think most here would agree with this, though of course many drugs have side effects and the risk/reward needs to be weighed.

On 7/17/2023 at 10:21 PM, iNow said:

I do, however, favor regimens designed in partnership with parents and doctors to support trans individuals in more healthily realizing their true selves in a more wholistic and empathetic manner. 

I am skeptical though certainly no expert on this, in fact far far from it, but agree in principle. On an individual basis I'm not sure if there can be better advise, though of course the best results are limited by the choices of the individuals involved.

On 7/17/2023 at 10:21 PM, iNow said:

As to whether or not that treatment confers some competitive advantage depends entirely IMO on 1) the nature, frequency, and intensity of the treatment, and 2) in the specific sport and the nature of the class/division being sought within that sport (i.e. the details matter here and I prefer avoiding broad all encompassing generalizations).

Generally speaking (for trans females) the treatments confer a distinct competitive disadvantage (regardless of whether they are considered healthy overall for the individual), the main exception being if they help meet some arbitrary testosterone target that enables qualifying to compete in female events rather than male events.

Treatments that go further to meet unrealized testosterone targets are generally assumed to give further competitive disadvantage, and are generally suspected to be unhealthy in many cases. The athlete has to make a decision as to whether qualifying is worthwhile, and there health providers/doctors are stepping outside their mandate if they assist with that. World Athletics now recognizes that, or so it seems, with regard to trans female athletes, but doesn't recognize that, or so it seems (they recognize it but leave it to the athlete to meet increasingly stringent testosterone targets), for intersex athletes and those that transgendered prior to puberty (Tanner stage 2 or 12 years of age, whichever comes first) that wish to compete in the female category.

27 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

You’ve been falsely claiming that sex as a hard binary trait and that counter examples should all be ignored, while others are accurately stating that it exists along a spectrum. 

 

For 98+% of mankind, that's not accurate. Gender is one thing, sexual orientation is another, but most of us are one, and only one sex. There is absolutely no reason to include transgenders based on that reasoning. There are a number of debatable other reasons...but not that one.

Life isn't binary. We can categorize most life into plants and animals...but the fact that there are fungi as well doesn't mean you can categorize your pet hamster as a cherry tree. Similarly the fact that intersex athletes exist does not mean those with XY advantages should participate in elite XX sport...if they are to be included it needs to be for a different reason, or set of reasons.

43 minutes ago, iNow said:

And what if you were prevented from competing alongside your peers in the sport that you’re passionate about due solely to that “choice” someone else made FOR you at birth?

Would you perhaps be more on my side of the equation of this issue than you are right now today? 

I might INow. Someone might have to tell me "sorry about this...but you have to play in this other division. You don't qualify for the one you prefer". (though transmales are currently allowed to play against other males with no extra restrictions...since they are considered to be at a disadvantage not an advantage, and can also play against females as they are considered to have no advantage)

I understand your point. But I've understood it for years. 

Now can I ask you whether or not you are in favour of using detrimental drug treatments to compensate for the known XY advantages in sports, in order to allow them to play in competitive fairness (as the IOC would define competitive fairness) against XX athletes?

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

What if it was assumed for you that you were female?

Assuming you feel exactly as you do today as an individual, as JCM in your current form and your current experiences, is it reasonable to also assume you might seek to change it to male given how you perceive yourself?

Yes. 

Or possibly lesbian...?

I really have a single perspective, so I don't even know.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Out of curiosity, how old were you when you “chose” your gender?

I would say it was assumed or chosen for me and I never felt the need to choose to change it.

Why?

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

When?

31 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

My use of "elite" is to differentiate high level sports that women fought for about a hundred years ago to get there own chance to participate in, from more recreational levels that women have had access to for pretty much time immemorial.

31 minutes ago was my latest attempt.

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I have no idea, you haven't answered me yet.

I tried Dim.

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

That's still not why, are you being deliberately obtuse?

No. That is why I use the term "elite". Unless you know something about me that I don't, you should accept that.

What in Hell do you think I mean by it?

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

But that's still not why, so please try harder.

My use of "elite" is to differentiate high level sports that women fought for about a hundred years ago to get there own chance to participate in, from more recreational levels that women have had access to for pretty much time immemorial.

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So, why haven't you answered any of my question's, directly?

I challenge you to provide a single example, in this entire thread...

41 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 

You argue that recreation level sport is fine, and my question is, why does the word elite change the argument? 

31 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I believe there is more room for competitive inclusion depending on the seriousness of the competition...

16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So, why haven't you answered any of my question's, directly?

I challenge you to provide a single example, in this entire thread...

If semantics is your only weapon, "then I can't even talk to you"... 🥱

I think I've been at least as clear as anyone here as to stating my position, though I don't expect everyone to see it.

Anyone else here against the use of drug treatments to compensate for XY advantages in Sports?

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

OK (sigh) for fine read "Also note that, from the very beginning of this thread, I have never been against trying to accommodate transgenders in recreational level sports."

You could try to actually answer my question's, with a reason, rather than resorting to an excuse to dodge.

I've made no attempt to dodge.

If you can't understand the difference between "trying to accomodate" and "fine with" in my answers, then I don't know how to go about clarifying further...but I'll try if you stop assuming it's dodging.

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Way to miss the point. 🙄

You argue that recreation level sport is fine, and my question is, why does the word elite change the argument? 

I didn't claim it was fine. I believe there is more room for competitive inclusion depending on the seriousness of the competition, and at fully recreational levels for many sports it would be completely inappropriate to question someone's choice of gender with regard to participation.

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So?

Nothing to see here folk's, it's entirely irrelevant to the question posed, again... 😣

Sorry if I am unable to help you understand my position.

22 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

And the only way to do that, is to let them play and 'then' analyse the results; banning them first is just putting the cart before the horse... 

Elite women's sport for many began about 100 years ago and biological males were excluded.

Can you suggest any results that can be analysed that don't show a clear advantage of having XY chromosomes? It seems that unless XY athletes are artificially handicapped they have clear advantages at elite levels.

One could argue that it would be fair to include lesser XY athletes, but that is not the definition of competitive fairness that most elite sports organizations want to use, as there are concerns  that it would crowd out elite women athletes. (unethical obligations on XY athletes wanting to participate aside)

17 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's difficult to understand what difference the word 'elite' has on the argument; can you clarify please?

 

Certainly:

"High performance sport or elite sport is sport at the highest level of competition. In sports administration, "high-performance sport", where the emphasis is on winning prestigious competitions, is distinguished from "mass sport" or "recreational sport", where the emphasis is on attracting the maximum number of participants."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-performance_sport

Just now, CharonY said:

Are you serious? Do you think that all the data in the papers I linked were gained from harmful interference?

Yes. Of course I'm serious. Note that I framed it as a question. 

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

 

For others, there is data suggesting various levels of adjustments are feasible. For example, in archery, data suggests that transwomen might compete with cis-women on equal footing after two years of treatment:

The data you linked to seems pretty clear that there is a definite cis-male over cis-female advantage. What is less clear is how much remains after treatment.

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

There are other studies underway that test multiple performance measures (e.g. multiple muscle measures, lung performance, heart performance etc.) in transgender athletes, which would provide better information on what sports might or or might not need adjustments. As such, little has changed from the start of the discussion in which it has been mentioned that better data is needed.

What type of "adjustments"?

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

Folks are investigating this issue, and I do not think it is helpful to use sweeping assertions without having the data. Muscle strength alone or even just looking at outliers (i.e. top performers) is insufficient to discuss the broader range of sports (after all, not all athletes are fall into the narrow range of record holders).

Also note that, from the very beginning of this thread, I have never been against trying to accommodate transgenders in recreational level sports.

For the purposes of arguments for including or excluding them at elite levels, you need to compare with top performers.

Just now, CharonY said:

Research.

Human experiments?

From Swansont's article on Semenya: 

"9. It can’t be implemented

The World Medical Association has advised doctors not to administer testosterone-lowering interventions, describing the regulation as “contrary to international medical ethics and human rights standards”.

Their use would be “off label” and is for purposes other than the athlete’s health. The rules involve “strict liability” which means the athlete is responsible for any failure to comply, even if unintentional and outside of the athlete’s control."

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

There are other studies underway that test multiple performance measures (e.g. multiple muscle measures, lung performance, heart performance etc.) in transgender athletes, which would provide better information on what sports might or or might not need adjustments. As such, little has changed from the start of the discussion in which it has been mentioned that better data is needed.

How do you get better data? 

On 7/11/2023 at 11:30 PM, iNow said:

 

What is a “typical extent” in context of this alleged advantage?

If something is “typical,” then surely large numbers are involved. Yet you’ve been asked several times for evidence and examples and she’s still the only one you’ve cited AFAICT. 

XY advantage over XX athletes is well documented. I've referred to plenty of examples of it including the ability of good high school age soccer players being competitive with your Women's national Team. 

World Records for XX athletes vs XY athletes have been discussed.

Caster Semenya, according to Swansont's article, had just a 2% advantage where 12% would be closer to expected (in line with current World record times)

On 7/12/2023 at 3:50 PM, iNow said:

I'm not here to define the criterion for each division of sports. I'm merely working to convince opponents that changes to criteria which do a better job of including trans individuals are both possible and appropriate. 

Can you produce any evidence that it's possible and appropriate at elite levels? 

We seem to be in agreement on possible inclusion for recreational sports when it's safe to do so.

But for elite women's sport?

You suggest taking any gender requirement out:

It's certainly possible with inappropriate requirements of drug treatments that handicap XY individuals significantly enough to compensate....or is that your idea of appropriate?

Should non elite XY athletes that are close to the elite level of elite XX athletes be allowed to compete? While excluding the many better ones?  Do you deny the obvious fact that there are many, many XY individuals at that level compared to very few women? How many teenage soccer teams could be made in the US capable of beating your Women's national Team? How many under 18 teams in the US or Canada can compete more than favourably with the American or Canadian women's national Teams?

Plenty of evidence and yet you choose to ignore it. 

On 7/12/2023 at 11:27 AM, zapatos said:

While I believe this method would theoretically work I'm not sure it is practical. Male/Female is a simple demarcation and it is one that is pounded into people's brains, especially females, from early childhood. Men take advantage of women in many ways starting at a very early age. In elite sports women (mostly) get to break away from the influence of men and compete on a more or less level playing field. I cannot imagine that women (or most men) would accept giving up that precious space.

Sports organizations are trying to figure out a way to let trans women compete in women's sports. Meghan Rapinoe has even spoken out in favor of trans inclusion. IMO it seems much more likely we can find a reasonable, "acceptable" solution by keeping the men/women categories and including trans players into those categories by using well thought out, discussed, scientifically based, sport specific, tested and proven rules. As a side advantage, it essentially provides confirmation that trans women are WOMEN since that is the category they would compete in.

https://www.si.com/fannation/soccer/futbol/news/megan-rapinoe-on-transgender-participation-in-sports

Meghan Rapinoe has advocated for both inclusion and "equal pay". If there were no elite women's sports no one here would know her name.

9 hours ago, swansont said:

What’s the evidence that she has an advantage? It’s not automatically the case.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/39/10/695.full.pdf

“Individuals with this condition have a 46XY genotype (the typical male chromosomal make up), but fail to develop male sex characteristics because their cells cannot respond to the circulating male hormone (testosterone) in their bodies. Although the presence of the Y chromosome makes these individuals genetically male, they are phenotypically female—that is, they have a female morphotype and physiology—and they are usually raised socially as females. The presence of the Y chromosome (and more importantly, circulating testosterone) confers no physical advantage on them.”

 

 

The best evidence is that she is very fast and very successful. But of course you are correct that for any one individual it is somewhere between extremely difficult and impossible to ever ascertain it accurately.

Which is why I claim your suggested methods of inclusion will never be competitively fair...in the context I did my best to describe competitively fair.

That said, I am not against reasonable and best attempts to include some intersex athletes....but as per the opinion given in your link, I don't think this should be seen as any reason to include transgender females...that being a separate issue.