Transgender athletes

[J.C.MacSwell]

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.

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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

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

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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

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... 

[J.C.MacSwell]

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

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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

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? 

[J.C.MacSwell]

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)

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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)

So?

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

[J.C.MacSwell]

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.

Edited July 17, 2023 by J.C.MacSwell

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I didn't claim it was fine.

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."

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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

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

[J.C.MacSwell]

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.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I've made no attempt to dodge.

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

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

8 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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.

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

[J.C.MacSwell]

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?

 

[dimreepr]

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

[J.C.MacSwell]

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.

[dimreepr]

5 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.

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

In fact, this thread kind of mirror's the trouble 'real' women had back in the day...😉

Edited July 17, 2023 by dimreepr

[J.C.MacSwell]

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?

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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?

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

[J.C.MacSwell]

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

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

I tried Dim.

[dimreepr]

Just now, J.C.MacSwell said:

I tried Dim.

When?

[J.C.MacSwell]

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.

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

31 minutes ago was my latest attempt.

All you tried to do is justify, what you believe... 

That's a why of sorts, but not an answer. 

[iNow]

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

fully recreational levels for many sports it would be completely inappropriate to question someone's choice of gender with regard to participation.

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

[J.C.MacSwell]

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?

[TheVat]

Those of you who persist with this discussion are as hardy as tardigrades.  Impressive stamina.

 

The question of free choice probably would thrive more in a philosophy thread, is my guess.  Part of the feeling of choice is the awareness of having one.  It is probably more likely that, prior to sexual reassignment treatments, most humans tended to see their gender as locked in and would therefore be more likely to find ways to adjust to that, however awkwardly.  This spectrum of choice growing is also seen in various medical limitations:  when a surgery or medicine came along that could keep someone from being an invalid or confined to a wheelchair, the perception of choice changed and people tended to choose the medical intervention that allowed them the most unrestricted participation in the life around them.  

As Joseph Campbell et al have pointed out, for most of human history mythology was used as a metaphorical path to go in search of one's true inner nature and be that in the world.  It might be that our present culture will evolve new mythologies, allegories, legends, etc. that can help with that journey, side by side with medical procedures.  And there may be ancient ones that are revived, also, for that purpose of getting past dyphoria in one's body. 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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

Why?

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?

34 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Those of you who persist with this discussion are as hardy as tardigrades.  Impressive stamina.

That’s what she said. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

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.