Jump to content

Transgender athletes


Curious layman

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

they should be damn sure they know what they are doing when doing something where lesser interventions are reasonable.

No disagreement. It’s also not our decision to make for their family. It’s their decision, and their decision alone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

But the ones making the decisions need to be held accountable, to the degree they are involved in those decisions, or allowing those decisions. It can't all be put on the 8 and 9 year olds. 

I’m unclear what accountability might mean in practice here, and find the idea that parents and medical professionals aren’t already involved (that the 8 and 9 year olds are acting in isolation) unrealistic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’m unclear what accountability might mean in practice here, and find the idea that parents and medical professionals aren’t already involved (that the 8 and 9 year olds are acting in isolation) unrealistic. 

Kid grows up. Doesn't like the results. Gets to sue them. Onus on them to defend based on the circumstances and actual science (none of the "we thought testosterone suppression would be sufficient to make sport fair" level "science")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Kid grows up. Doesn't like the results. Gets to sue them. Onus on them to defend based on the circumstances and actual science (none of the "we thought testosterone suppression would be sufficient to make sport fair" level "science")

Isn't there a disclaimer signed ahead of any such medical intervention?

If the child is under age would this be signed by his legal guardians (his parents)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Is this claim from the same crowd that claimed testosterone alone should be sufficient (and recommended by some of that crowd) to allow trans women to compete fairly with other women?

 

I don't know. Please give me the name of that crowd you are talking about and I'll compare it to the link I provided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I beg to differ. Science was not that bad that that would be a reasonable argument. The argument was a political and emotional one.

Sorry but I'm a bit confused. What argument are you talking about? I provided a link about a claim, not an argument. How was that claim political and emotional? Do you have any evidence that the claim is false? I'm certainly happy to be better educated if I'm in fact mistaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Sorry but I'm a bit confused. What argument are you talking about? I provided a link about a claim, not an argument. How was that claim political and emotional? Do you have any evidence that the claim is false? I'm certainly happy to be better educated if I'm in fact mistaken.

Sorry. My mistake. I thought you meant the claim I referred to.

Now, from your link:

"If you decide to stop taking them, your body will go through puberty just the way it would have if you had not taken puberty blockers at all."

Closely followed  by contradictory statement:

"We are not sure if puberty blockers have negative side effects on bone development and height. Research so far shows that the effects are minimal. However, we won’t know the long-term effects until the first people to take puberty-blockers get older."

Seems your link was put together by a team of pseudo scientists and scientists...Nice to see them work toward a common goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So that limited data had older children and youths participating and taking gender-affirming hormones. I see no mention of puberty blockers (which seems fairly late to be effective in that group)

In the third study you linked to, they looked at puberty suppressors and gender-affirming hormones. In that group, kids around puberty (i.e. at the lower range) received suppressors, whereas the older ones received gender-affirming hormones (as it is not practice to provide them to per-pubteral patients).

The other studies focused more on pubertal suppression.

 

Quote

Of the sample, 16.9% reported that they ever wanted pubertal suppression as part of their gender-related care. Their mean age was 23.4 years, and 45.2% were assigned male sex at birth. Of them, 2.5% received pubertal suppression. After adjustment for demographic variables and level of family support for gender identity, those who received treatment with pubertal suppression, when compared with those who wanted pubertal suppression but did not receive it, had lower odds of lifetime suicidal ideation (adjusted odds ratio = 0.3; 95% confidence interval = 0.2–0.6)

Quote
METHODS:

A total of 55 young transgender adults (22 transwomen and 33 transmen) who had received puberty suppression during adolescence were assessed 3 times: before the start of puberty suppression (mean age, 13.6 years), when cross-sex hormones were introduced (mean age, 16.7 years), and at least 1 year after gender reassignment surgery (mean age, 20.7 years). Psychological functioning (GD, body image, global functioning, depression, anxiety, emotional and behavioral problems) and objective (social and educational/professional functioning) and subjective (quality of life, satisfaction with life and happiness) well-being were investigated.

RESULTS:

After gender reassignment, in young adulthood, the GD was alleviated and psychological functioning had steadily improved. Well-being was similar to or better than same-age young adults from the general population. Improvements in psychological functioning were positively correlated with postsurgical subjective well-being.

Edit: crossposted with a couple of other posts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Seems your link was put together by a team of pseudo scientists and scientists

Quite the contrary. Real scientists are conservative with their claims when there’s not yet enough data. There’s nothing pseudo about a scientist saying, “we don’t yet know so can’t say for certain, but thus far everything we’ve seen suggests minimal to zero effect.”

It takes a very skewed reader to translate that into “pseudoscience”

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Seems your link was put together by a team of pseudo scientists and scientists...Nice to see them work toward a common goal.

If you are going to attack someone please be so kind as to provide evidence. They are not "pseudo scientists" simply because you don't like what they said. 

If you have evidence they are pseudo scientists please provide it. Otherwise the honorable thing to do would be to retract your statement. 

I don't care if you are right, but I care that we make reasonable and fair arguments here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

If you are going to attack someone please be so kind as to provide evidence. They are not "pseudo scientists" simply because you don't like what they said. 

If you have evidence they are pseudo scientists please provide it. Otherwise the honorable thing to do would be to retract your statement. 

I don't care if you are right, but I care that we make reasonable and fair arguments here.

I did...or rather...your link did. 

https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/pseudoscience

"Pseudoscience is a proposition, a finding or a system of explanation that is presented as science but that lacks the rigor essential to the scientific method. Pseudoscience can also be the result of research that is based on faulty premises, a flawed experimental design or bad data.

The term pseudoscience can refer to a single claim or statement that is purported to be backed by science or data but doesn't stand up under scientific scrutiny"

 

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

Now, from your link:

"If you decide to stop taking them, your body will go through puberty just the way it would have if you had not taken puberty blockers at all."

Closely followed  by contradictory statement:

"We are not sure if puberty blockers have negative side effects on bone development and height. Research so far shows that the effects are minimal. However, we won’t know the long-term effects until the first people to take puberty-blockers get older."

Seems your link was put together by a team of pseudo scientists and scientists...Nice to see them work toward a common goal.

How is the bolded a scientific statement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, zapatos said:

I think I see the fundamental difference in our thinking here. You believe it is about winning, while we believe it is about being welcome to compete.

Yes, I don't have a problem with open events. Open events offer people the opportunity to participate against those that they would not normally have the chance to.

I do this very thing myself in my chosen sport where I will enter the open class thus competing against the elite athletes. I do so with the understanding that I have no chance whatsoever of ranking anywhere of any significance. I do so for the enjoyment not for the competition of trying to win. This matters not because my sport is my hobby not my profession.

However if I want to compete to win then I have to enter the category where my peers are on a fairly equal standing (theses days in my case - age based). When I was much younger and was able to compete at the highest level, and get paid for doing so, then it was important that the category I entered was such that I was competing with a realistic chance to win. Where my hard work, efforts and years of dedication allowed me to show off my skills and be rewarded for it in the process.

So in essence my stance is that open competitions are welcome and should be available for all that want to participate and/or compete. But for professional events then it's important that categories are set so as not to discriminate against those that are unfairly disadvantaged. Where those that have the dream of becoming the best (usually determined by winning) at what they do can exhibit their skills and be rewarded in the process for doing so. I believe this is what the general public would want and actually what they would demand for their hard earned money.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How is the bolded a scientific statement?

You are the one saying it is pseudoscience and therefore the onus is on you to support your claim. If you think the claim is

"the result of research that is based on faulty premises, a flawed experimental design or bad data", 

then please show how the premise or experimental design is faulty, or the data is bad.

You haven't proved your claim by asking me to prove the opposite.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of comparatives we are somewhat limited by the reality that human experimentation is forbidden.  Darn! (JK)  We cannot, for example, give a random group from the general population puberty blockers and compare their outcomes to trans people who got PBs.  

I say this, not to advocate illegal mad scientist experiments, but to point out that it's hard to say if delaying puberty has positive psychological markers for everyone, not just possible candidates for GRA.  

IIRC, there are some studies that correlated later puberty (not artificially delayed) with better academic performance.  I think most were questionable in their conclusions because later puberty also correlated with certain ethnic/cultural groups, and thus there were confounding factors from cultural valuations on certain study habits, as well as socioeconomic factors.  And later puberty (the natural kind) also correlates with greater average stature, among males, which in some countries correlates with more job promotions and success.  Again, I'm just trying to point out how muddy the waters are when we try to isolate causal determinants of happiness and well-being.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

You are the one saying it is pseudoscience and therefore the onus is on you to support your claim. If you think the claim is

"the result of research that is based on faulty premises, a flawed experimental design or bad data", 

then please show how the premise or experimental design is faulty, or the data is bad.

You haven't proved your claim by asking me to prove the opposite.

AGAIN, from your link

Pseudoscientific statement (you can call it what you like...just don't claim it's scientific):

"If you decide to stop taking them, your body will go through puberty just the way it would have if you had not taken puberty blockers at all."

Closely followed  by more honest scientific statement:

"We are not sure if puberty blockers have negative side effects on bone development and height. Research so far shows that the effects are minimal. However, we won’t know the long-term effects until the first people to take puberty-blockers get older."

Now, you can debate whether an intervention is worth taking the risk and whether it's warranted, but you can't support the bolded as a scientific statement.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

AGAIN, from your link

Pseudoscientific statement (you can call it what you like...just don't claim it's scientific):

"If you decide to stop taking them, your body will go through puberty just the way it would have if you had not taken puberty blockers at all."

Closely followed  by more honest scientific statement:

"We are not sure if puberty blockers have negative side effects on bone development and height. Research so far shows that the effects are minimal. However, we won’t know the long-term effects until the first people to take puberty-blockers get older."

Now, you can debate whether an intervention is worth taking the risk and whether it's warranted, but you can't support the bolded as a scientific statement.

 

I can't tell if you really think that saying something is pseudoscientific is the same as providing evidence that something is pseudoscientific, or if you are just trolling me.

Either way you are wasting my time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JC is claiming that the 'absolute' statement, that there will be no difference what soever once you stop taking puberty blockers, is negated by the next statement that says there very well may be, and we don't know the extent.
That falsifies the first statement, so it is not true, and definitely not scientific.

36 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I can't tell if you really think that saying something is pseudoscientific is the same as providing evidence that something is pseudoscientific

He is not saying it is pseudoscientific, your link is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

I can't tell if you really think that saying something is pseudoscientific is the same as providing evidence that something is pseudoscientific, or if you are just trolling me.

Either way you are wasting my time.

 I provided evidence I believe you are capable of reading and understanding.

The claim made in the link, which I clearly bolded for all to see is unscientific. You tell me why you feel compelled to support it. The link doesn't support it. No one else here agrees with it, even if they believe the idea behind it, (drugging children to delay the onset of puberty) is a justifiable risk. (I myself don't exclude that as a possibility in some cases)

Am I being unkind calling the statement pseudoscience? Perhaps. But that's what it is as defined by the definition I put forward.

"Pseudoscience is a proposition, a finding or a system of explanation that is presented as science but that lacks the rigor essential to the scientific method. Pseudoscience can also be the result of research that is based on faulty premises, a flawed experimental design or bad data.

The term pseudoscience can refer to a single claim or statement that is purported to be backed by science or data but doesn't stand up under scientific scrutiny"

 

Compare with the recent FINA rule changes. (and hopefully get back OT)

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/20/sport/swimming-transgender-ruling-explainer-spt-intl/index.html

I think they effectively got it right for the elite swimming they are mandated to govern, though not without controversy.

Those who campaigned for change argued that people who have gone through male puberty have physical advantages and therefore women's competition needed to be protected.
Supporters of trans participation argue that not enough research has been done into the question of whether trans women have any advantage. Groups such as Athlete Ally have stated that FINA's new policy is "discriminatory, harmful, unscientific."

 

 

Edited by J.C.MacSwell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

AGAIN, from your link

Pseudoscientific statement (you can call it what you like...just don't claim it's scientific):

"If you decide to stop taking them, your body will go through puberty just the way it would have if you had not taken puberty blockers at all."

Closely followed  by more honest scientific statement:

"We are not sure if puberty blockers have negative side effects on bone development and height. Research so far shows that the effects are minimal. However, we won’t know the long-term effects until the first people to take puberty-blockers get older."

Now, you can debate whether an intervention is worth taking the risk and whether it's warranted, but you can't support the bolded as a scientific statement.

 

Jesus, that is quite a stretch and most of it is misunderstanding what is written there. The scientific evidence is that for the puberty process, the effects of puberty blockers is reversible. I.e. folks undergo puberty following the same trajectory once use of blockers are stopped. 

The other statement is not a contradiction but rather states that we do not have sufficient data (as the treatment is not in use for that long) to be sure whether something is going to happen years down the line. This is a potential worry as changes in development could have unknown long-term effects, but these required to be studied and have to weighed against the immediate detrimental effects (e.g. suicide attempts and other mental health issues).

It is recommended for folks during use of puberty blockers to have sufficient calcium, Vitamind D and have their BMI monitored.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Jesus, that is quite a stretch and most of it is misunderstanding what is written there. The scientific evidence is that for the puberty process, the effects of puberty blockers is reversible. I.e. folks undergo puberty following the same trajectory once use of blockers are stopped. 

The other statement is not a contradiction but rather states that we do not have sufficient data (as the treatment is not in use for that long) to be sure whether something is going to happen years down the line. This is a potential worry as changes in development could have unknown long-term effects, but these required to be studied and have to weighed against the immediate detrimental effects (e.g. suicide attempts and other mental health issues).

It is recommended for folks during use of puberty blockers to have sufficient calcium, Vitamind D and have their BMI monitored.

 

Are you sure you agree with the statement as written? (because you seem to be suggesting you do... and yet feel compelled to qualify it?)

"If you decide to stop taking them, your body will go through puberty just the way it would have if you had not taken puberty blockers at all."

Or do you just like to think you want to support the "scientists" that wrote it?

...and Jesus right back at ya if you think "body going through puberty" is somehow limited to not include skeletal growth.

25 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Jesus, that is quite a stretch and most of it is misunderstanding what is written there. The scientific evidence is that for the puberty process, the effects of puberty blockers is reversible. I.e. folks undergo puberty following the same trajectory once use of blockers are stopped. 

 

 

And what exactly does this mean? I suspect it means something different from what it seems to imply. (no possible harm and full completion of the process with no detrimental long term effects)

Edited by J.C.MacSwell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • 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.