Jump to content

J.C.MacSwell

Senior Members
  • Posts

    6019
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    32

Posts posted by J.C.MacSwell

  1. 1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

    But more to the point, does that mean if you could write the rules, you'd let them play?

    If you mean letting XY athletes play at elite XX levels, then with the few possible XY intersex exceptions and few XY transitions before puberty, both of which would be looked at on an individual basis, sport dependant with onus to prove no XY advantage and with any drug treatments for health reasons only...then no.

    Edit: Though the onus of proof would be on the intersex athlete, in the grey area where possible they could still be accommodated as discussed much earlier in this thread...as I suggested Caster Semenya might share a podium spot if she was unable to prove no XY advantage, and no XY advantage could be reasonably proven.

     

  2. Well Dim, I don't think I've ever really taken my cue from anyone on this matter.

    I seem to be ahead of the IOC on rejecting the use of testosterone targets with their known health risks, yet readily accepting transgenders (and others) preference of identity without requiring any biological changes.

     

    That simply hasn't stopped me from recognizing that some XX athletes can become elite athletes if given the opportunity, even if their measurable performance would never match those of many XY athletes that never reach elite levels.

  3. 6 hours ago, CharonY said:

    How would you know if someone was transgender, if they are not transitioning?

    They simply declare that they have transgendered, or let me know they now identify as male or female.

     

    From the IOC policy statement in 2015 (note that the new guidelines have moved away from the testosterone requirements 2.2, 2.3. and 2.4, though they still allow sporting organizations to use them, including more restrictive versions of them)

    "2. Those who transition from male to female are eligible to compete in the female category under the following conditions:

    2.1. The athlete has declared that her gender identity is female. The declaration cannot be changed, for sporting purposes, for a minimum of four years.

    2.2. The athlete must demonstrate that her total testosterone level in serum has been below 10 nmol/L for at least 12 months prior to her first competition (with the requirement for any longer period to be based on a confidential case-by-case evaluation, considering whether or not 12 months is a sufficient length of time to minimize any advantage in women’s competition).

    2.3. The athlete's total testosterone level in serum must remain below 10 nmol/L throughout the period of desired eligibility to compete in the female category.

    2.4. Compliance with these conditions may be monitored by testing. In the event of non-compliance, the athlete’s eligibility for female competition will be suspended for 12 months."

    20 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

    Other than my greater insistence on trying to accomodate intersex athletes without forcing drug treatments on them that they don't want and don't need, I'm pretty much on the same page as World Athletics.

    Are they in full panic mode as well? Is the IOC by allowing the same?

    Is everyone in full panic mode? What is being tried at elite levels that you approve of?

    Why would my sense that things are heading in the direction of my position as to elite sports eligibility cause me panic, while you and others here can so calmly watch it go against your wishes?

    This is meant to mean that I don't agree with the current World Athletics requirement for intersex athletes that wish to compete against women. 

    12 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

     

    Though I am board with their stance on limiting inclusion of some trans athletes...World Athletics is banning intersex athletes in some events if they don't reduce their testosterone levels below 2.5Nmol/L.

     

     

    7 hours ago, iNow said:

     

    The way you kept typing it, you made it sound like they were abducting straight male boys out of middle and high school, sending them to nazi style camps, then forcing them to inject hormones all so they could go out with their hulking over muscled bodies and win some track and field events in the female categories. 

    I don't think I ever typed it in the way you are suggesting.

    1. Generally speaking, the intersex wishing to compete in the elite female categories are not straight male boys.

    2. Testosterone reducing treatments are quite the opposite of performance enhancing drugs

    You seem to struggle with moderate positions. You seem to start to understand (whether you agree with it or not), but then revert back to assuming some extreme.

  4. 27 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

    An anxiety of yours with minimal/negligible evidence to show for it to date.

    That's 0.0032% of Olympians since 2003. Storm in a thimble, or what?

    Way to miss the point yet again.

    What Olympics since 2003 allowed female transgenders to compete without testosterone reducing treatments?

    Are you advocating for testosterone targets to be continued? (don't answer, just snipe unless you want to make your position clear)

  5. 1 hour ago, zapatos said:

    No need to attack everyone just because one person called you a name. While my proposed solutions may be "hand wave" they are the best I'm capable of. I am in no position to lay out specific policy to the IOC. They have qualified people dedicated to this issue. I have 'me' part-time with feedback coming from other part-time participants.

    I don't think I attacked anyone, but in any case that comment wasn't intended to reflect on everyone. Although you've made it clear you don't agree with my position you have at least taken the effort to understand it.

    To some degree I would say the same with respect to INow, though he has yet to address some of the shortcomings in his proposals that would be of obvious concern to the IOC et al.

    2 hours ago, iNow said:

    Who is doing that, exactly?

    This reads like like a strawman, but I'm reluctant to jump to this conclusion and will instead ask for clarity around this "forcing hormone treatments to win at sports" idea you keep mentioning.

    Even if you can come up with an example or three, it's comments like these which I believe lead others to suggest a tone of panic over nothing. 

    Though I am board with their stance on limiting inclusion of some trans athletes...World Athletics is banning intersex athletes in some events if they don't reduce their testosterone levels below 2.5Nmol/L.

    This has already been discussed in this thread fairly recently but even if missed I don't understand the claims I might panic over anything.

    2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

    All we've been suggesting is possible paths to resolution, not the details, which can only be found with empirical methods and experience. Is that so hard to understand? If you call that 'handwaving' then further discussion is pointless. 

     

    No hard details are required to understand that replacing elite level female athletics with a second tier of mixed XX and XY athletes, is either prone to be dominated by non elite XY athletes outnumbering elite XX athletes...or simply creating an even lower recreational level for all participants. (which is absolutely fine on it's own but not as a replacement for elite female athletics)

    If the inclusion being sought is for recreational athletics I haven't seen anyone objecting lately...the likes of Mike Tyson pummeling females aside.

  6. 2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    I've had a think about what it tells me, either your X, something I can't say, cus you'd report me, or Y, you've got a spreadbet on how many page's this will get to, or XY, you're a troll.

    If I've been a troll for the purpose of trying to get those with hand wave solutions to address the concerns of the IOC, World Athletics, the United Nations Human Rights Council, and the World Medical Association...I certainly haven't been a very successful one...

  7. 5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    Another diversion instead of an answer, it tells me a great deal...

    After all my long winded and repetitive attempts at explanation that you failed to understand, I'm glad you could glean so much from so little.

  8. 5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

    Nothing is being forced on anyone. If the price of entry to a swanky restaurant is white coat and tails with a top hat, one is required to comply. Otherwise, one can wear  what  one likes elsewhere.

    If all your friends get to go in with the nice white coat and tails and they insist you wear ones that are obviously contaminated you might find reason to object with the policy.

  9. 1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

    It's looking like you are going into panic-mode, and quickly compiling  a litany of obstacles. It doesn't matter if we here don't have all the answers now... Rome wasn't built in a day. If it takes decades for the stakeholders and regulators to find equitable solutions, that's ok.

    We only have to look at the timeline of homosexuality in the UK, since its eventual absorption into the UK's social fabric after 1967, to see the timescales probably  involved.

    Society and nature is constantly in flux. It's only when we look over several decades of societal development do we see more distinct periods of our behavioural evolution, and thus large-scale changes of attitude emerging from each era.

     

    I don't think responsible social adjustments are amenable to remote, hypothetical modelling. It needs to be small, empirical steps, in the field, with concomitant assessment.

    Other than my greater insistence on trying to accomodate intersex athletes without forcing drug treatments on them that they don't want and don't need, I'm pretty much on the same page as World Athletics.

    Are they in full panic mode as well? Is the IOC by allowing the same?

    Is everyone in full panic mode? What is being tried at elite levels that you approve of?

    Why would my sense that things are heading in the direction of my position as to elite sports eligibility cause me panic, while you and others here can so calmly watch it go against your wishes?

  10. 2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    So what do you suggest we do at this point. Give up or keep trying?

    1. Keep trying to solve the problem of intersex inclusion without resorting to testosterone targets or other deviations from healthy sports regulations.

    and 2. Otherwise ban XY athletes from participating in elite XX sports until there is a clear or at least promising path to inclusion that doesn't threaten elite XX sports or the health of any athletes that wish to participate.

  11. 3 hours ago, CharonY said:

    You seem to be weirdly hung up on nomenclature. As these categories do not exist yet, I do not know what one might call them. For all the relevance, you could call them Category 1 and 2. And it might surprise you, but featherweights do not actually weigh the same as a feather.

    In addition, there is no reason why age cannot be a factor (there are age categories in sports already.

    For the rest of your question, you almost make it sound that sports does not have any regulations. Who determines eligibility of athletes ? Who sets and enforces weight classes? Who determines what is considered doping and how it is enforced.... right now? If that was an issue, we wouldn't have sports in the first place.

    Moreover, one of the argument of separation is to ensure safety of the athletes. So in that regard, doesn't it make more sense to separate them according to measurable parameters such as body weight, muscle to weight ratio and so on rather than just by genitalia or karyotype or whether they can bear children? The latter three parameters generally do not cause injury in among competitors, as far as I am aware of.

     

    WTF?

     

    3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

    This is a work in progress, and those questions can be addressed empirically, as and when they become an issue in the course of trying things out.

    Clearly the work in progress is heading in a definite direction, and though anyone is welcome to try including trans female athletes at any level, at elite level there is nothing to suggest any real progress.

    People can point the blame wherever they like, but so far no one can point out anything that even suggests a path toward workable solutions...as CY has so eloquently demonstrated...

  12. 3 hours ago, CharonY said:

    I might have missed some intermediate posts, but fundamentally, when we talk about transgender inclusion, we are talking about some level of some level of HRT. AFAIK, folks that have not undergo some level of gender affirming therapy do compete based on their assigned sex (which usually is based on presence of external genitalia), rather than the gender they are representing. 

    That being said, I found some articles discussing something that we have been circling around in this thread for a fair bit, is the idea of using "athletic gender". The basic idea is to designate athletes to a gender for sports performance only and using a quantitative criteria based performance. Originally the idea was focused on testosterone levels, but has been expanded (similar to our discussions here).

    But the basic idea is the same, use quantitative parameters to create categories.

     

    So you will call anyone male that outperforms a set criteria? Call everyone female that performs below it? Regardless of gender or biological sex? Every elite male becoming an elite female towards the end of their careers as their performance declines?

    How does doping control work in all this?

    Who sets the performance parameters?

    Who judges the athletes and puts them into categories?

    Who gets to tell the better transexual females that the've been judged to be male?

  13. 34 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    Please explain.

     

    HRT is not fundamental to transitioning, it's an extra step that many transsexuals may choose to take, or choose to avoid.

    Generally this is done in consultation with the individual's health care providers, assessing the health risks involved of taking the treatments and/or the health risks of avoiding them.

    Any use of HRT beyond that to reach arbitrarily targets set by others represents outside interference, and often increases the health risks and decreases any health benefits whether long term or short term. (This statement is consistent with the current guidelines of the IOC, United Nations Human Rights Council, and the World Medical Association)

    1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

     

    I understand your position just fine, because if it isn't that you object to them playing, before any evidence can be collected, then wtf have we been talking about in the past 80 page's?🥱

     

    There was plenty of evidence to support my position well before this thread started. 80 pages in you fail to understand my position. Others have, even if they don't agree with it in whole or in part.

  14. 2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    Well, the only argument/objection you seem to have is a fundamental part of being a transsexual, namely HRT

    It isn't.

    3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    and however you try to spin that, it's just an excuse to object.

    So for me it's a dead end, so I'm not going to spin again, until I see an actual reason for your basic position on this...

    Your inability to understand my reasoning or position, and your assumptions that it's guided by malice toward transexuals, does absolutely nothing toward helping transexuals in sports or otherwise.

     

  15. 1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

    Well said +1

    I wonder if that will be enough to bring this sad little roundabout to a halt??? 🤒

    Since it proposes nothing toward resolving the issue with regard to sports participation, XY advantage or competitive fairness in female sports...why would it?

  16. 17 minutes ago, TheVat said:

    Just looking in.  So folks are still conflating physical and psychological gender?  Crikey, you will circle for eternity.

     

    Physical gender is a term only meaningful using the old definition of gender.

    Get with the times!

  17. 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. 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.

  19. 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?

  20. 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.

  21. 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. 

  22. 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)

  23. 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.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.