Transgender athletes

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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)

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

[iNow]

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

World Athletics is banning intersex athletes in some events if they don't reduce their testosterone levels below 2.5Nmol/L.

I appreciate this clarification.

The source of my confusion was that I don’t equate what you’ve stated above with “forcing them to seek conversion treatments they don’t want.”

What they’ve done is set a threshold. Competitors still have a choice whether or not that’s a requirement they wish to an align with. 

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. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

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.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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)

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

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.

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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.

 

I'm no expert on transgenders, I think I know one (we talk but I've never asked) and she had tits; I'm pretty sure most of them want to see biological changes...

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

[StringJunky]

53 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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.

In the converse, there's plenty of trans-males accepting testosterone that undergo the full transition. Sex hormone therapy is a widely accepted method on both sides of the transition spectrum outside sports. It's not hard to extrapolate that to sports.

Testosterone targets only reflect the knowledge of today, not in the future, as more information is collected and understood in the context of elite sports.

Only empirical testing and observation will find meaningful ways of inclusion.

That answers your earlier question to me that I and others have repeated quite a few times.

Edited August 5, 2023 by StringJunky

[mistermack]

45 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

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

This gets a negative every time you repeat it. You know perfectly well that they are not prevented from playing, they are prevented from playing against women. 

If you argue that they are women, and so can play against women, that's fair enough, but this repetition of "let them play" is false every time. 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

If you argue that they are women, and so can play against women, that's fair enough, but this repetition of "let them play" is false every time. 

Wait what now? 

If that's your excuse for logic, it's little wonder you struggle with the concept.

[mistermack]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If that's your excuse for logic, it's little wonder you struggle with the concept.

I admit, I do struggle with your version of it.

[dimreepr]

Think about it, Reg (what did the Roman's ever do for us?)...

[J.C.MacSwell]

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.

 

Edited August 5, 2023 by J.C.MacSwell

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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.

 

Of course it's a no, because 'they' will always be wrong, despite reason (you've said it before); you've yet to explain why you support this particular "ism" of thought... 🧐

[J.C.MacSwell]

20 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Of course it's a no, because 'they' will always be wrong, despite reason (you've said it before); you've yet to explain why you support this particular "ism" of thought... 🧐

You've yet to explain why you think your version of fairness can possibly work for females above recreational level sports.

[iNow]

5 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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

I know you don’t, but I did, which is why I pointed it out.

6 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You seem to struggle with moderate positions.

Well, that’s rather extreme. I don’t think I struggle in the way you are suggesting. 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You've yet to explain why you think your version of fairness can possibly work for females above recreational level sports.

Of course not, they haven't played 'yet'; how can you possibly explain a game that hasn't been played?

But if you really want to know what my version of fairness is, it's very Darwinian, "let them fight"... 😉

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

I know you don’t, but I did, which is why I pointed it out.

Well, that’s rather extreme. I don’t think I struggle in the way you are suggesting. 

At least I didn't bring up the Nazis....

...oops!

We're in good company though...Phi brought them up recently IIRC and that probably wasn't the first time in this thread.😀

20 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Of course not, they haven't played 'yet'; how can you possibly explain a game that hasn't been played?

 

Assuming I'm getting your context correctly:

Why do you feel the experiments with inclusion should be done at elite levels?

[iNow]

It important IMO to recall the broader context in which this discussion is taking place. Right wing populism is spreading across the world. Voters seem in greater numbers to be supporting fascist tendencies. Books are being banned from schools and neighbors are bloodying each other over simple differences in policy. Racism is up. Jewish community members are being attacked. Behavioral norms are being ignored while untraceable guns and homemade ammunition are being found at insane levels.

And also, trans people are being targeted and attacked. Extreme violence. Their elected leaders are using them as scapegoats, setting mobs against them. Telling them which bathroom they are and are not allowed to use despite each of us having unisex bathrooms in each of our homes. Doctors are being attacked for caring for these patients, and schools are adding to ostracization by banning them from sports… or even TALKING about these subjects in states like mine and Florida… 1st amendment free speech rights be damned!

Violence, extreme depression, lack of acceptance, and unacceptably high levels of suicide rule the day. It is this backdrop against which we’re discussing some elite sports categories, and I’m here advocating for acceptance and inclusion.

Perhaps you see my position as extreme, but then again perhaps more people who think like me need to speak up in support of what’s right to counter the very one-sided nature of the conversation happening on this subject. I used to speak with similar passion in support of gay marriage, and climate change, and evolution… and thankfully I’ve been on the right side of history every time.

I encourage you to join me and others here simply saying, “workable solutions to this obviously exist… let’s start with that as our premise instead of starting with bans.” You thankfully are already open to this, but please recall that you’re also not the only person participating in all of this… especially against the aforementioned societal backdrop. 

[mistermack]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

let’s start with that as our premise instead of starting with bans.

That's ridiculous. A ban is absolutely essential, for women's sport to exist at all. 

There's been a ban on men competing since the very first day of women's sport so nobody is "starting with a ban".

To have sport without any bans is to have open sport, with most women playing way down the scale, and transgender athletes competing on an equal footing with men. 

[StringJunky]

13 minutes ago, mistermack said:

That's ridiculous. A ban is absolutely essential, for women's sport to exist at all. 

There's been a ban on men competing since the very first day of women's sport so nobody is "starting with a ban".

To have sport without any bans is to have open sport, with most women playing way down the scale, and transgender athletes competing on an equal footing with men. 

That plays into the oft-unspoken exclusionary feminist trope of separate but equal. That didn't work very well dealing with racism in the 20th century... did it?

Edited August 5, 2023 by StringJunky

[swansont]

9 minutes ago, mistermack said:

That's ridiculous. A ban is absolutely essential, for women's sport to exist at all. 

Women’s sports don’t exist? Odd that I haven’t noticed.

9 minutes ago, mistermack said:

There's been a ban on men competing since the very first day of women's sport so nobody is "starting with a ban".

Men have been banned from sports? Odd that I haven’t noticed.

 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

45 minutes ago, iNow said:

It important IMO to recall the broader context in which this discussion is taking place. Right wing populism is spreading across the world. Voters seem in greater numbers to be supporting fascist tendencies. Books are being banned from schools and neighbors are bloodying each other over simple differences in policy. Racism is up. Jewish community members are being attacked. Behavioral norms are being ignored while untraceable guns and homemade ammunition are being found at insane levels.

And also, trans people are being targeted and attacked. Extreme violence. Their elected leaders are using them as scapegoats, setting mobs against them. Telling them which bathroom they are and are not allowed to use despite each of us having unisex bathrooms in each of our homes. Doctors are being attacked for caring for these patients, and schools are adding to ostracization by banning them from sports… or even TALKING about these subjects in states like mine and Florida… 1st amendment free speech rights be damned!

Violence, extreme depression, lack of acceptance, and unacceptably high levels of suicide rule the day. It is this backdrop against which we’re discussing some elite sports categories, and I’m here advocating for acceptance and inclusion.

Perhaps you see my position as extreme, but then again perhaps more people who think like me need to speak up in support of what’s right to counter the very one-sided nature of the conversation happening on this subject. I used to speak with similar passion in support of gay marriage, and climate change, and evolution… and thankfully I’ve been on the right side of history every time.

I encourage you to join me and others here simply saying, “workable solutions to this obviously exist… let’s start with that as our premise instead of starting with bans.” You thankfully are already open to this, but please recall that you’re also not the only person participating in all of this… especially against the aforementioned societal backdrop. 

I'm not going to help you pitch softballs to the extreme right...they just knock them out of the park...

...I know more times than not the hit is in foul territory, but that doesn't seem to stop them from parading around the bases claiming a home run...

As you said earlier in this thread....something to the effect of cheap politics being easy and getting in the way of the real hard work

 

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

Women’s sports don’t exist? Odd that I haven’t noticed.

Men have been banned from sports? Odd that I haven’t noticed.

 

 

Let's pretend the context wasn't obvious?

[mistermack]

12 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Let's pretend the context wasn't obvious?

Bad faith posting, I'd call it.

[swansont]

33 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Let's pretend the context wasn't obvious?

I’m not sure why you think I didn’t understand the context. On the contrary, I think perhaps you don’t understand the context of transgender bans occurring in the US. It’s not just telling kids they can’t compete. Almost a third of transgender youth live in states that have banned gender-affirming care.

Banned as in there are no legal options. An actual ban. In that context, men are not banned from competing. They are restricted, in some cases, in which leagues they might compete. But they are not banned from competing, which means they would not be allowed to compete at all.

The claim is BS. It relies on the fallacy of equivocation. Do you really want to defend it?

Transgender women have been participating in women’s sports for a number of years. Women’s sports exists. The claim is BS as well.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Bad faith posting, I'd call it.

While one might defer to a subject matter expert, in this case I won’t.

[mistermack]

33 minutes ago, swansont said:

While one might defer to a subject matter expert, in this case I won’t.

Doesn't matter. I've enjoyed your squirming.