Transgender athletes

[Intoscience]

20 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It's quite telling that the defence has yet to answer the very simple question, why do you object to them playing with someone who doesn't object to being played with?

It's also quite telling that the offense has yet to define what a woman is. I'm still waiting for someone to refute that a "woman" is an adult biological female. Defined by her chromosomes, genitalia, bone structure & muscle density (post puberty), along with the inherent mechanisms (functional or not) to grow, carry and give birth to offspring. 

Cis gender women have objected and as a result been told to shut their mouths, stop complaining and stop being transphobic. The swimmer Lia Tomas is an example of such, where a lowly ranked "male" swimmer transgendered and then out competed high ranked "female" swimmers and even though the women competing protested Lia was still awarded the winner's medal in fear of rebuttal. 

Edited July 27, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

It's also quite telling that the offense has yet to define what a woman is. I'm still waiting for someone to refute that a "woman" is an adult biological female. Defined by her chromosomes, genitalia, bone structure & muscle density (post puberty), along with the inherent mechanisms (functional or not) to grow, carry and give birth to offspring. 

Repeating doesn't make so. The subject is not amenable to Twitter-length responses.

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

It's also quite telling that the offense has yet to define what a woman is.

In what way?

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I'm still waiting for someone to refute that a "woman" is an adult biological female. Defined by her chromosomes, genitalia, bone structure & muscle density (post puberty), along with the inherent mechanisms (functional or not) to grow, carry and give birth to offspring. 

Why would i refute that statement, it's a correct definition for loads of women; but what about the women born without a womb or some other needed single part?

Or the people who want to be bald?

Besides that still doesn't answer my question, it's yet another excuse to avoid it, which is quite telling... 🤒

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Cis gender women have objected and as a result been told to shut their mouths, stop complaining and stop being transphobic.

You're going to have to back that up...

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

The swimmer Lia Tomas is an example of such, where a lowly ranked "male" swimmer transgendered and then out competed high ranked "female" swimmers and even though the women competing protested Lia was still awarded the winner's medal in fear of rebuttal.

Link please... 

Edited July 27, 2023 by dimreepr

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 hours ago, iNow said:

Of course I could if I dug around for them, but as this is just a discussion forum unlikely to change the parts of the world I’d like to see changed, I see the ROI of such an effort as nearly zero and consequently also have zero plans right now to use my time doing so. 

Cato took a swing at it last fall though: https://www.cato.org/regulation/fall-2022/transgender-athletes-fair-competition-public-policy#analyzing-performance-factors

First of all. That's an excellently written article that frames much of the competitive side of the debate quite nicely, even if the assumptions are very simplistic.

+1

It builds a model that adds up Natural ability (factor N), Effort level in training and competition (factor E), and effects of hormone Therapy (factor T), that assumes N + E + T = P,  P adding up to performance. (note that T can be positive or negative)

I think it can be a useful model going forward in this discussion and to some degree outline why this is not just politically difficult but technically difficult and probably impossible for elite levels as intended for female sports.

Edited July 27, 2023 by J.C.MacSwell

[mistermack]

It's a pointless exercise debating how to make a level playing field. Handicapping contestants might be interesting from a horseracing point of view, for gambling purposes, but it's not very interesting from a human competition angle. 

It's obvious that there's an overlap between women's performance and men's in a great many sports. Does that mean that slower men should be competing against quicker women? Because you could easily select male athletes who are likely to be pretty level on performance with top women. 

But that would be a ludicrous spectacle, having less able men competing against top women. But that's basically what allowing transgender athletes to compete against women would be doing. 

If you are going to have a separate class for women, then it needs to be women, not men, who qualify for it.

Transgenders don't have to be excluded, they can compete in the "open" section. And why not allow women to compete in that too, if they want? Call it an open class, and make it open to any human. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

58 minutes ago, mistermack said:

It's a pointless exercise debating how to make a level playing field. Handicapping contestants might be interesting from a horseracing point of view, for gambling purposes, but it's not very interesting from a human competition angle. 

 

At recreational level sport it's workable and many aspects of it are already in place, but of course you are correct for elite levels if females are to have elite levels similar in competitive fairness to men.

Elite female levels are what need protected and of course what transgender females are asking to join. No one is excluding them from playing sports, as I think you have mentioned a number of times.

I would add that it would be more conducive to transgender acceptance if they could be encouraged in sports outside of elite female levels where many have natural advantages.

Edited July 27, 2023 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Transgenders don't have to be excluded, they can compete in the "open" section.

Separate but equal isn’t equal at all

[mistermack]

 

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

Separate but equal isn’t equal at all

What does that mean?

[iNow]

Separate is, by definition, inherently unequal.

See also; Brown v Board of Education 

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think it can be a useful model going forward in this discussion

Agreed. Glad you received it the way I did. It can be tweaked, but gives an extremely useful framework from which to build. 

[mistermack]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Separate is, by definition, inherently unequal.

See also; Brown v Board of Education 

That doesn't make any more sense than the original. And I shouldn't have to do research to find out what your post means. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

Female and male elite sports are inherently unequal but a reasonable goal is equal access to sport.

The IOC's interpretation of that would of course not even attempt to give me equal access to elite sports as say Usain Bolt. That would be outside their mandate but left to recreational sports to accomodate my wishes.

The IOC of course, does have the mandate to provide for elite female athletes as well as men.

A hundred years ago the IOC did not have that obligation.

[iNow]

8 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The IOC's interpretation of that would of course not even attempt to give me equal access to elite sports as say Usain Bolt.

Rightly so, because you’re not a fast enough runner. You don’t qualify because you’re too slow, not because you happen to be trans. 

[swansont]

8 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The IOC's interpretation of that would of course not even attempt to give me equal access to elite sports as say Usain Bolt.

Access is opportunity to compete. Nothing guarantees you advance to a later round.

[J.C.MacSwell]

11 hours ago, swansont said:

Access is opportunity to compete. Nothing guarantees you advance to a later round.

No round for me.

As INow suggests, my lack of speed guarantees that the IOC, though they do support and encourage sport at many levels, would not be involved with me sprinting at any level I might consider entering.

My point is that the IOC's direct involvement with rule enforcement starts at elite levels.

When you consider INow's well written link with the N + E + T = P model, their version of competitive fairness is to test performance on N + E, while through drug testing hope to keep T at 0, not on testing for E alone by having T compensate (negatively or positively) for differences in N. (which Bolt has an abundance of and JC MacSwell lacks)

Any model where I am given an equal, and fair in a more absolute sense as Bolt (thereby testing for E alone), is outside of their mandate.

Edited July 28, 2023 by J.C.MacSwell

[dimreepr]

27 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

No round for me.

As INow suggests, my lack of speed guarantees that the IOC, though they do support and encourage sport at many levels, would not be involved with me sprinting at any level I might consider entering.

My point is that the IOC's direct involvement with rule enforcement starts at elite levels.

When you consider INow's well written link with the N + E + T = P model, their version of competitive fairness is to test performance on N + E, while through drug testing hope to keep T at 0, not on testing for E alone by having T compensate (negatively or positively) for differences in N. (which Bolt has an abundance of and JC MacSwell lacks)

Any model where I am given an equal, and fair in a more absolute sense as Bolt (thereby testing for E alone), is outside of their mandate.

Then we're agreed, we should let them, not us, play...

[J.C.MacSwell]

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Then we're agreed, we should let them, not us, play...

We can all play. We just don't get to demand inclusion in elite sports, even if in theory a level could be found that might include everyone by correctly estimating N, and correct;y compensating with T.

[swansont]

56 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

No round for me.

As INow suggests, my lack of speed guarantees that the IOC, though they do support and encourage sport at many levels, would not be involved with me sprinting at any level I might consider entering.

That you would not qualify for your country’s olympic team doesn’t mean you can’t attempt to do so, and that’s what access is, and we’ve seen transgender people lose access is some places in the US, which means they would probably quash any chance of making an olympic team, even if they had the raw ability.

Access is not the same as competitive fairness.

[J.C.MacSwell]

50 minutes ago, swansont said:

That you would not qualify for your country’s olympic team doesn’t mean you can’t attempt to do so, and that’s what access is, and we’ve seen transgender people lose access is some places in the US, which means they would probably quash any chance of making an olympic team, even if they had the raw ability.

Access is not the same as competitive fairness.

Who is denying them access? If their N + E is sufficient, they are welcome to try out for XY or open competition, just as I would be. What is being denied is access to elite female sports, which was intended to test N + E for females in the same manner as elite sport for males, not based on testing for E alone with T compensating for any discrepancy in N.

Setting aside the fact that correctly identifying N accurately for any individual is currently not possible, testing for E alone has never been the goal of elite sports. It isn't what females are trying to pursue, transgender athletes included. They are asking to challenge their natural abilities as well as their efforts, That's the nature and intent of elite sports, and even recreational level sports to a lesser degree.

You are denying females access to that if you make rules to test for E alone, regardless of how fair you might think that might be.

[iNow]

49 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Who is denying them access?

Since only like 12 humans get to elite level sports, my comments on this topic tend to focus more on lower less elite categories where state legislatures, local school districts, community sporting clubs, and many others are painting trans athletes as bogeymen who MUST be prevented from competition.

I know you're not in this camp, but I'd wager it comprises 99.99% of the athletes impacted by this issue. I'm not as interested as you seem to be in focusing on the marginal remaining 0.01% of the challenge.

[Phi for All]

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

Since only like 12 humans get to elite level sports, my comments on this topic tend to focus more on lower less elite categories where state legislatures, local school districts, community sporting clubs, and many others are painting trans athletes as bogeymen who MUST be prevented from competition.

Could this be a symptom of rising fascism? I'm struck by the similarities in the percentage of population between transgender people in the US and Jews in Germany prior to WWII. A good bogeyman should be a small, marginalized group that people distrust already through misunderstanding and fear.

[J.C.MacSwell]

28 minutes ago, iNow said:

Since only like 12 humans get to elite level sports, my comments on this topic tend to focus more on lower less elite categories where state legislatures, local school districts, community sporting clubs, and many others are painting trans athletes as bogeymen who MUST be prevented from competition.

I know you're not in this camp, but I'd wager it comprises 99.99% of the athletes impacted by this issue. I'm not as interested as you seem to be in focusing on the marginal remaining 0.01% of the challenge.

So what's the best route to encouraging the 99.99%, so they get to challenge themselves to the degree they wish without stigma? None of the current attempts by either camp are helpful in that IMO, whether by good intention or otherwise by some of those in each camp,

Solve that and I bet there are many more than 12 that can excel to that level, especially without the arbitrary testosterone targets or other -T's forced upon them beyond the -T's their health providers consider acceptable risks and to their overall benefit.

Edited July 28, 2023 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

47 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Could this be a symptom of rising fascism?

Of course. It’s far easier to turn us against each other with tribal culture war issues so we’re distracted while they act as grifters looting the civil coffers than it is to do the hard work of governance addressing famine, drought, climate change, poverty, economy, etc.  

38 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So what's the best route to encouraging the 99.99%, so they get to challenge themselves to the degree they wish without stigma?

Start with the premise that we both can AND should do this, accept that allies come in many forms and those relationships must be nurtured, and refuse to give up.

Perseverance, tenacity, and stamina in battling back the forces of ignorance and hatred against trans people. 

Edited July 28, 2023 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Of course. It’s far easier to turn us against each other with tribal culture war issues so we’re distracted while they act as grifters looting the civil coffers than it is to do the hard work of governance addressing famine, drought, climate change, poverty, economy, etc.  

Sad. But unfortunately true.

Edited July 28, 2023 by J.C.MacSwell

[swansont]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Who is denying them access?

You were claiming this, not me.

“No round for me.”

[J.C.MacSwell]

Just now, swansont said:

You were claiming this, not me.

“No round for me.”

No round within the scope and control of the IOC.

(though in a very different sport they would have been interested in my one and only sports drug test, and taken action if it was positive)

Fortunately it was negative (T=0)