Transgender athletes

[zapatos]

36 minutes ago, mistermack said:

What is this huge and vital difference, between "opining what might happen" and "opining what will happen" ?

 

I'm not here to give you remedial english lessons. Don't complain to me when you cannot even be bothered to clearly express your thoughts or base any of your assertions on evidence. Debate takes some work, and you don't seem up to the task.

[iNow]

3 hours ago, mistermack said:

Men HAVE to be refused entry to womens events, otherwise there will be no womens sport. So womens sport, by definition and the force of reality, depends on refusing and banning men. Otherwise, you might just as well have one open category, that any sex can compete it. 

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. 

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

The first is your opinion, and we can ignore it or relate to it as we will.

The  second is you magically knowing what's actually going to happen,

That's absolute laughable rubbish. They are both clearly expressing my opinion. You would have to be a bit backward, to understand it any other way because it's clearly stated that way.  Backward, or deliberately nit picking for it's own sake. Of course, I'm saying it's the second. 

If I say, "nobody's going to want to watch blah blah blah" this is how english speaking people give an opinion in english. Of course you can come along and nit-pick on the wording and say "how do you know NOBODY will want to watch it? " . At my school, we did that for laughs until we reached our teens. 

I did expect more adult posting on here.

[dimreepr]

23 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Why not? what if the heavy weight boxer decides to identify as a twelve year old girl? If there is no limit to what a person can identify as and such they would be in their rights to enter the category which aligns with the identification of their own choosing, so how can we stop it happening? 

That's a strange argument, ATM such people are potentially certifiable (that's how); we're talking about people who just feel more comfortable as a different sex, to what others perceived them to be.

15 hours ago, mistermack said:

That's absolute laughable rubbish. They are both clearly expressing my opinion. You would have to be a bit backward, to understand it any other way because it's clearly stated that way.  Backward, or deliberately nit picking for it's own sake. Of course, I'm saying it's the second. 

If I say, "nobody's going to want to watch blah blah blah" this is how english speaking people give an opinion in english. Of course you can come along and nit-pick on the wording and say "how do you know NOBODY will want to watch it? " . At my school, we did that for laughs until we reached our teens. 

I did expect more adult posting on here.

Ohh FFS, grow up... 🥱

Edited July 13, 2023 by dimreepr

[Phi for All]

17 hours ago, mistermack said:

That's absolute laughable rubbish. They are both clearly expressing my opinion. You would have to be a bit backward, to understand it any other way because it's clearly stated that way.  Backward, or deliberately nit picking for it's own sake. Of course, I'm saying it's the second. 

If I say, "nobody's going to want to watch blah blah blah" this is how english speaking people give an opinion in english. Of course you can come along and nit-pick on the wording and say "how do you know NOBODY will want to watch it? " . At my school, we did that for laughs until we reached our teens. 

I did expect more adult posting on here.

Part of me understands why you want your opinions to be held to less rigorous standards, but part of me thinks you just want to be able to make bald assertions without having to do the work to persuade us of your superior position. I, for one, don't want anybody to feel like they can make claims that won't go uncontested. From my perspective, NOT challenging you would be tacit approval of your claim. I hope you can see that it's waaaay more than picking nits.

[Intoscience]

On 7/12/2023 at 2:38 PM, iNow said:

Or, at the VERY least updated ever so slightly so as to stop needlessly excluding this already marginalized, ostracized, and too frequently victimized community of trans folks.

I'm in support of any mechanism which enables fair participation for all people, non to be excluded!

At the same time the focus has to be on "fair" whether based on ability, physical size/prowess or any other advantage/disadvantage. Else you will get exclusion of outcome, minority groups dominating.  

On 7/12/2023 at 2:31 PM, Phi for All said:

So the "general consensus" is what you go by to determine what being a man is for you? You let society tell you how you feel about your gender identity? I think many people do, so you aren't alone. 

It just seems baaaaaaad to me.

I'm not sure what you are getting at? I have no problem with people being free to identify what gender or any other definition they want to use. But I don't see how this would work in competition? 

I don't understand how someone's personal feelings about their gender identity has to do with rules in sport? 

20 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That's a strange argument, ATM such people are potentially certifiable (that's how); we're talking about people who just feel more comfortable as a different sex, to what others perceived them to be.

How is it strange, if anyone is free to decide what gender they want to identify as and thus then allowed to compete in what category that identity permits, then what is strange about that? It's just logic. 

I might decide to identify as a tortoise and thus from this day forward compete against other tortoises in the tortoise Olympics. Who's to stop me? 

Would you allow an abled body athlete compete in the Parra Olympics? Why not if a person identified as disabled? 

Why should all those people who "feel" they are disabled not be allowed to compete in the Parra Olympics? 

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I'm in support of any mechanism which enables fair participation for all people, non to be excluded!

At the same time the focus has to be on "fair" whether based on ability, physical size/prowess or any other advantage/disadvantage. Else you will get exclusion of outcome, minority groups dominating.

There's only one way for us to ever truely know who's 'more' right; it has to be, let them play first, and then gather the evidence to substantiate who's 'more' right, and if your 'more' right, then we adjust the rules to handicap their inclusion, simples...  🧐

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

How is it strange, if anyone is free to decide what gender they want to identify as and thus then allowed to compete in what category that identity permits, then what is strange about that? It's just logic. 

It's strange because it's not logical, in the context of the thread; no one is just allowed to declare themselves a male heavy weight boxing professional, especially when they're a twelve yo girl. 🙄

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I don't understand how someone's personal feelings about their gender identity has to do with rules in sport? 

Maybe it's because you're allowed to play... 

Fair warning (@mistermack) that's a thinker... 🤔

Edited July 14, 2023 by dimreepr

[mistermack]

22 hours ago, Phi for All said:

you want your opinions to be held to less rigorous standards

Do you have a citation for that, or do you read minds? 

 

22 hours ago, Phi for All said:

you just want to be able to make bald assertions

Do you have a citation for that, or do you constantly read minds? 

 

22 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I, for one, don't want anybody to feel like they can make claims that won't go uncontested.

Except you, apparently.

 

22 hours ago, Phi for All said:

From my perspective, NOT challenging you would be tacit approval of your claim.

Hence the above.

 

22 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I hope you can see that it's waaaay more than picking nits.

Well it feels like picking nits to me. 😄

[Janus]

Frankly, I'm a bit confused as to why people have turned this into so much of an issue.

1. I doubt that trans athletes are prevalent enough to make that huge of an impact.

2. In the end, we are talking about an activity that is recreational/entertainment in nature.

I mean, this reminds of of the folks who complained about the College football season being suspended during the pandemic, as they seemed to feel that their not being able to crowd into a stadium to watch the sport of their choice was the end of the world.

[mistermack]

10 minutes ago, Janus said:

Frankly, I'm a bit confused as to why people have turned this into so much of an issue.

It's been shown in research that humans instinctively have an exaggerated sense of fairness, even to their own detriment. Researchers would offer children differing amounts of treats, and the kids would refuse offers that were not considered fair, even if it meant that they would get more. They would rather get less or nothing, than see someone else get more, unfairly. And I believe that Chimps do the same thing. 

[iNow]

16 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I don't understand how someone's personal feelings about their gender identity has to do with rules in sport? 

When did you decide to have personal feelings to be a male? Have you ever been excluded from sports for “feeling” that way?

Calling them “personal feelings about their gender” is so dismissive as to be offensive, intoscience. The lack of understanding and empathy embedded here is profound.

Perhaps next you’ll reach out your hand and pat transgendered people on their foreheads.

7 hours ago, Janus said:

Frankly, I'm a bit confused as to why people have turned this into so much of an issue.

Because it’s no longer socially acceptable to agitate the masses by turning them against the blacks or the Jews or the gays or the whatever’s.

Now they use the trans and the woke and the left to dehumanize “the other” and make it easier to dismiss “them” and ignore their individuality.

7 hours ago, mistermack said:

It's been shown in research that humans instinctively have an exaggerated sense of fairness, even to their own detriment

And you appear to be suggesting that it’s the historically protected cisgendered folks who are suffering from systemic and institutionally imposed unfairness?

[Janus]

8 hours ago, mistermack said:

It's been shown in research that humans instinctively have an exaggerated sense of fairness, even to their own detriment. Researchers would offer children differing amounts of treats, and the kids would refuse offers that were not considered fair, even if it meant that they would get more. They would rather get less or nothing, than see someone else get more, unfairly. And I believe that Chimps do the same thing. 

But that's not an excuse for succumbing to those instincts. One would think, as rational beings, we should be able to overcome them. 

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, Janus said:

But that's not an excuse for succumbing to those instincts. One would think, as rational beings, we should be able to overcome them. 

I would say that we're far from rational beings. We're capable of rational thinking, some of us, some of the time, but if we were rational beings we would probably be extinct by now. What rational person would go to the trouble we do, to reproduce?

In the experiment with children mentioned above, I believe the over-the-top attitude to unfairness only persists to a certain age, but we still carry remnants around with us as adults. 

You only have to see the riots that can happen, if a football side loses because of an "unfair" refereeing decision. The rational being can evaporate in an instant.

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, Janus said:

Frankly, I'm a bit confused as to why people have turned this into so much of an issue.

You and me both, sister...

19 hours ago, mistermack said:

It's been shown in research that humans instinctively have an exaggerated sense of fairness, even to their own detriment. Researchers would offer children differing amounts of treats, and the kids would refuse offers that were not considered fair, even if it meant that they would get more. They would rather get less or nothing, than see someone else get more, unfairly. And I believe that Chimps do the same thing. 

A grown ups sense of fairness is still there, still innate, it's just more sophisticated than a child.

A rational adult can see the nuances of such an appeal to fairness, if I may get back to topic, above and beyond, "that monkey got more than me for the same shit that I did. 😣" 

20 hours ago, Janus said:

I mean, this reminds of of the folks who complained about the College football season being suspended during the pandemic, as they seemed to feel that their not being able to crowd into a stadium to watch the sport of their choice was the end of the world.

No, "it's more important than that" an old English football cliché.

The thing is, they do think that; for a reason/excuse that eludes me.

There is no rational reason, which is why rational argument is so ineffective.

Hence page 65 and a confused Dr Who...

 

 

[iNow]

20 hours ago, mistermack said:

What rational person would go to the trouble we do, to reproduce?

The one who likes the way orgasms feel. 

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

The one who likes the way orgasms feel. 

There's more to it than buying a box of tissues, you know !

[J.C.MacSwell]

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.

[zapatos]

53 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If there were no elite women's sports no one here would know her name.

I don't know if that is true or what point you are trying to make even if it is true.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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)

It’s not been determined what the source of this difference is, AFAICT. This 2% “advantage” is how much faster she is against contemporary competition, while “the difference testosterone makes between males and females in all events is estimated to be up to 12% (all other items being equal)”

But that 12% might be some other value, depending on the event, and is an average. The sports medicine article argues that there is no testosterone advantage, because such intersex individuals’ cells don’t respond to testosterone 

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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

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).

For sports requiring explosive strength there is likely an advantage that might not be overcome by transition. Also, a careful look at full-contact sports makes a lot of sense for safety issues.

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:

https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2021.1938692

 

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.

 

 

 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You suggest taking any gender requirement out:

Not necessarily. It’s one of the possible options, though. My main point is the rules are arbitrary. We can and should alter them IMO. 

11 minutes ago, CharonY said:

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)

Especially not in US public schools where legislators across the entire country are actively banning trans competitors (aka “kids”) from participating. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

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? 

[CharonY]

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How do you get better data? 

Research.

[J.C.MacSwell]

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."

[CharonY]

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

Do you think we should just assume things rather than quantify and measure actual differences?