Transgender athletes

[mistermack]

40 minutes ago, swansont said:

So I guess it’s the middle-school biology answer.

Ok, so you don't like my answer. Surprise surprise. Now, let's hear yours.

What does make one a woman?  Do you have a comprehensive set of criteria?

[Phi for All]

26 minutes ago, mistermack said:

What does make one a woman? 

The only person who tells me what makes me a man is me. Is it different for you? Who tells you what makes you a man?

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

 

I am trying to summarize all of this by saying "not all trans athletes born XY are physically more capable than those born XX."

Some might be, but not all... and your posts thus far don't seem to include that important nuance or acknowledgement. It's been suggested in this and nearly every other trans-related thread in which you've participated.... this idea that the trans athlete is a hulking brute who will dominate and hurt the poor defenseless lady folk. 

The second bolded is BS. I've said this since the beginning. Not all XY individuals are physically more capable than those born XX, trans athletes included. Look at the bell curve graphs in a very recent post of mine and try to actually understand what I am saying.

These XY individuals with less potential than elite XX athletes are not elite athletes. Why do you think they should compete as elite athletes while your flawed ideas will exclude athletes that have the same XY chromosomes but are actually, even if not elite, still much better athletes? Same chromosomes, same choice of gender.

Look at the right of the XX bell curve (it's female for height but I'm assuming most here can see what I am saying). Look how few XX individuals are at or around that level...and how many XY individuals are in the same area. Draw your line anywhere around there and women's elite sports is all but eliminated.

Edited July 10, 2023 by J.C.MacSwell

[swansont]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

What does make one a woman?  Do you have a comprehensive set of criteria?

No, I don’t. I doubt one exists. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

From over 2 years ago (directed at CY at that time)

 

On 7/3/2021 at 2:41 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

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?

 

[iNow]

51 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

These XY individuals with less potential than elite XX athletes are not elite athletes.

Please elaborate on what you mean by "less potential," why this matters, and then finally why we are supposedly not allowed to consider them elite. 

53 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Draw your line anywhere around there and women's elite sports is all but eliminated.

Yes, you keep saying this. I'm not buying it. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 hours ago, iNow said:

Please elaborate on what you mean by "less potential," why this matters, and then finally why we are supposedly not allowed to consider them elite. 

Depending on the sport their are only a small percentage of XY individuals that are able to compete at the highest levels. It takes sufficient training and fortune, but they also have to be somewhat gifted.

This is considered fair in a competitive sense, As I've said since the beginning of this thread, this is a very subjective definition of fair, but it's fair in the sense that that's how competitive athletes want to compete. It's how they want to challenge themselves....against the best. That is basically the IOC's definition of competitive fairness, and for most high level sports.

If you don't get this, if you want to use your own definition of fair, that's fine, but if the definition strays from that then the most competitive athletes generally won't be interested. Certainly many people might be interested in a sense of recreational sports, but not in the most competitive sense.

XX individuals wanted the same opportunity...to compete against, and measure themselves against... the best XX individuals. This is the basis of elite women's sport. Women's world record's are based on that.

Some, but very few, of these potentially elite athletes are also potentially transgender. Bruce Jenner, for example, was certainly potentially both.

Most XY individuals of course are neither. You are certainly welcome to call them elite, make them your heroes (the ones you deem eligible, while excluding others that are better), but few people are likely to actually do this. Few without some personal will want to watch them play. If the stands are full, it's parents, family members and friends...or maybe classmates out to support their high school team...and the stands that are full are generally not that big. 

Now you, who probably have little interest in watching them, want some of these non elite XY athletes to compete in elite sports even though they are not competitive at elite levels against elite XY athletes, And you want them to be considered elite by competing against the best XX athletes. This is not the competitive definition of fair elite athletes are interested in.

5 hours ago, iNow said:

 

Yes, you keep saying this. I'm not buying it. 

Can you not see on the height graph that in the area of the few tallest women...there are many men around that height?

If you are incapable of seeing that, or understanding the implications in regard to elite women's sport if opened up to include XY athletes...then of course you are not going to buy any of this...but I assure you that if you get your way you won't be liking the results...you certainly won't be buying tickets to watch.

You will be spending your discriminating dollars elsewhere, after your system has excluded the better XY athletes, and excluded the better transgender athletes, when you get your arbitrary line actually drawn.

Being able to point to some transgender women on the elite women's playing field, and calling them elite when by most competitive definitions they are not...doesn't solve the problem. 

But at least you aren't advocating for the unhealthy use of drugs to handicap them to "let them play".

 

[mistermack]

9 hours ago, Phi for All said:

The only person who tells me what makes me a man is me. Is it different for you? Who tells you what makes you a man?

I rely on my education and science. And the bleedin obvious. If I found that I wanted gender reassignment treatment, I would happily go for it. But I'd still know that I was a genetic male, and wouldn't expect to compete against women in elite womens competition. I fantasise that I'm good enough to run the 100m olympics final. But I do realise that to do that, I would need to qualify. Just self-identifying won't make me an elite runner.

7 hours ago, swansont said:

No, I don’t. I doubt one exists. 

Sorry. Silly question. 😞

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, mistermack said:

I rely on my education and science. And the bleedin obvious. If I found that I wanted gender reassignment treatment, I would happily go for it. But I'd still know that I was a genetic male, and wouldn't expect to compete against women in elite womens competition. I fantasise that I'm good enough to run the 100m olympics final. But I do realise that to do that, I would need to qualify. Just self-identifying won't make me an elite runner.

But it would still make you a runner, just not a very good one by that metric, and how the f*&% would you know what it feels like? Just saying "I'd know" doesn't put your education at the elite level either, more at the level of putting your fingers in your ears and sticking your tongue out.

Besides the bleeding obvious is, "if it walks like a duck (has breasts) and quacks like a duck (has no willy), it's a bloody duck, ducky" 🙄

My apologies for the oversimplification, everyone else...

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Can you not see on the height graph that in the area of the few tallest women...there are many men around that height?

If you are incapable of seeing that, or understanding the implications in regard to elite women's sport if opened up to include XY athletes...then of course you are not going to buy any of this...but I assure you that if you get your way you won't be liking the results...you certainly won't be buying tickets to watch.

You will be spending your discriminating dollars elsewhere, after your system has excluded the better XY athletes, and excluded the better transgender athletes, when you get your arbitrary line actually drawn.

How does an outlier in any sport threaten the sport?

Even if we use F1 as an example, when one car dominates the cry goes up this is boring, it'll destroy the sport; meanwhile the fans of the team/sport increases. 

And in that example the outliers are 1 in 10ish, in trans athletes it's 1 in 10,000ish by the number of athletic sport's. 

 It's a huge stretch to imagine the demise of an entire sport just because the "wrong" person won, in fact it's ludicrous.

 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

32 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 

 It's a huge stretch to imagine the demise of an entire sport just because the "wrong" person won, in fact it's ludicrous.

 

 

The suggestion is to replace women's elite sport with a second tier, removing gender altogether as a criterion, but presumably somewhere around the level of the current elite women level. 

Far more XY athletes exist around that level, at it, just below it, and just above it.

How is that not the demise of elite women's sport?

 

And @JC MacSwell: What in Hell is wrong with you? Why has it taken over two years and you still can't get such a simple concept across to some of the quite intelligent people participating in this thread? Why does it instead sound like, between the lines, that you think all trans females are able to dominate all females, like some fictitious Swedish/Amazon hybrid women?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

How does an outlier in any sport threaten the sport?

And, I would add, where are these outliers?

[dimreepr]

45 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The suggestion is to replace women's elite sport with a second tier, removing gender altogether as a criterion, but presumably somewhere around the level of the current elite women level. 

Far more XY athletes exist around that level, at it, just below it, and just above it.

How is that not the demise of elite women's sport?

Not my suggestion, I just want to let everyone play and see where the cream rises...

How is that the demise of any sport?

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

And, I would add, where are these outliers?

I agree, but "they" seem to think there are some...

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

And, I would add, where are these outliers?

You seriously are unable to see potential XY outliers beyond the level of elite female sport?

Every single trans female that qualified for the last Olympics did so while struggling against unhealthy restrictions on their testosterone levels. Do you think they would not have been more successful without such rules in place?

 

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You seriously are unable to see potential XY outliers beyond the level of elite female sport?

Every single trans female that qualified for the last Olympics did so while struggling against unhealthy restrictions on their testosterone levels. Do you think they would not have been more successful without such rules in place?

How would I know?

More to the point, how would you know?

 

 

It's like insisting that anyone who wants to parcipitate in this thread, should have a recognised degree or equivalent level of understanding...

[swansont]

25 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You seriously are unable to see potential XY outliers beyond the level of elite female sport?

I didn’t ask about potential outliers. I am asking, yet again, for evidence that should already exist. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

I didn’t ask about potential outliers. I am asking, yet again, for evidence that should already exist. 

You want proof that someone jumping off a cliff holding 43 feathers in their hand will result in their demise before suggesting someone not try it?

Or is that too extreme an example of why not everything should be attempted without considering potential consequences?

[Intoscience]

On 6/30/2023 at 12:38 PM, dimreepr said:

And we're back to the start. 😣

Every Olympian has a physical advantage, in a very narrow window of opportunity; mine was wanking, I ripped the head off that thing... 😉 

But don't worry, I tucked the rest in and made a beautiful job of it, I'm so proud...

Which is why sports have categories based on physical criteria, so everyone gets to compete fairly. At 170 pounds and average height I wouldn't want to be pitted in a physical combat sport against someone 6'4" and weighing in excess of 250 pounds with similar skill levels. Yeah sure I might get lucky and win the odd match but the odds would be heavily stacked against me wining. Over a period of time and a number of matches the score card would more than likely read 9-1 against me. in which case i would never get the opportunity to be ranked at the top of my sport without a category that allows me to compete on a level playing field. 

The whole point on tackling inclusion issues guarantee (or at least get as close as possible) to include everyone with a fair shot at winning.

I don't agree that unnatural changes using drugs should be allowed either way. Performance enhancing drugs are not permitted, why else should any other unnatural procedure be permitted? 

 By the way I didn't resurrect the thread, and nothing yet has convinced me to change my opinion on the matter.

[swansont]

Just now, J.C.MacSwell said:

You want proof that someone jumping off a cliff holding 43 feathers in their hand will result in their demise before suggesting someone not try it?

Or is that too extreme an example of why not everything should be attempted without considering potential consequences?

I’m pretty sure nobody has plummeted to their death from trans people competing in athletics, and since they have been, there should be existing evidence.

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

I’m pretty sure nobody has plummeted to their death from trans people competing in athletics, and since they have been, there should be existing evidence.

Too extreme an example for you to understand the point then?

How about admissions from the IOC and others that surgeries or testosterone reducing drug use experiments in the past were not well thought out and that mistakes were made in attempts at inclusion?

Edited July 11, 2023 by J.C.MacSwell

[Intoscience]

15 hours ago, mistermack said:

What does make one a woman?  Do you have a comprehensive set of criteria?

15 hours ago, Phi for All said:

The only person who tells me what makes me a man is me. Is it different for you? Who tells you what makes you a man?

So what is the definition between a man and a woman? 

Because the way I see it, if we can't all agree on what makes a man or a woman then how can we continue with this argument? 

 

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

I’m pretty sure nobody has plummeted to their death from trans people competing in athletics, and since they have been, there should be existing evidence.

JC is criticized for using outliers as examples (real events). Then you argue back with a ridiculous response. 

This forum is full of inconsistences. 

I might jump off a tall building in protest.  

[Phi for All]

5 hours ago, mistermack said:

I rely on my education and science. And the bleedin obvious. If I found that I wanted gender reassignment treatment, I would happily go for it. But I'd still know that I was a genetic male, and wouldn't expect to compete against women in elite womens competition. I fantasise that I'm good enough to run the 100m olympics final. But I do realise that to do that, I would need to qualify. Just self-identifying won't make me an elite runner.

Sorry. Silly question. 😞

You think it's a silly question? I think it's the only one worth answering. 

You rely on yourself to decide what being a man means to you, and denying that to others seems hypocritical. Do you disagree?

[TheVat]

16 hours ago, mistermack said:

 

What does make one a woman?  Do you have a comprehensive set of criteria?

Will put half a hotdog in a small storage dish rather than just finish eating it.

Sorted!  Now the thread can move on.

[Phi for All]

11 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

So what is the definition between a man and a woman? 

You mean difference? Not what I'm talking about right now.

I'm focused on who decides what it means to be a man for you. Is it you, or do you let others dictate what it means for you? And if you decide what being a man is for you, don't you think others deserve the same respect?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

So what is the definition between a man and a woman? 

Because the way I see it, if we can't all agree on what makes a man or a woman then how can we continue with this argument? 

That’s certainly a major issue.

 

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

JC is criticized for using outliers as examples (real events). Then you argue back with a ridiculous response. 

I don’t see where real events were cited.

 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

52 minutes ago, swansont said:

That’s certainly a major issue.

 

I don’t see where real events were cited.

 

 

Caster Semenya is certainly a real example of an XY athlete (46, XY) that has dominated XX athletes. Her case as an intersex athlete is one I'm sympathetic with and I see she has just won an appeal against the Swiss Court,

https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/66162083

It won't however, change  the recent restrictions on intersex athletes going forward according to World Athletics.

"While the judgement would appear to vindicate Semenya's long-held view that she has suffered discrimination, it's uncertain if or how the court's decision will impact the current restrictions on DSD athletes.

World Athletics has doubled down on its position in its efforts to protect fair competition in the female category, and is also keen for the Swiss courts to challenge the ECHR verdict.

There is a three-month window to lodge an appeal. In terms of competing - if that's what she wants - that leaves Semenya in a similar position to where she was before the ECHR ruling, unless she takes medication to suppress her testosterone or World Athletics is forced to change its position on DSD athletes, and it's not clear how that could happen.

As it stands, she still cannot compete in female track events."

Edited July 11, 2023 by J.C.MacSwell