Transgender athletes

[StringJunky]

23 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

In the near term, we will continue to adapt, but not much evolving will take place. Regardless of changes in language those who we historically considered of a particular biological sex, will continue to be so, difficulties in ascertaining that for a small subset of individuals due to the limitations of the science of biology notwithstanding.

Is historicity important and should it never be changed? You seem to use that word a lot, as though it's immutable, like the now-antique US Constitution. People that are yet to be born won't care if something isn't useful  to them  anymore, or gets commandeered for other purposes. What happened to the original meaning of 'gay' and the associations regarding rainbows. They were just rainbows.

That small subset of individuals will require categorizing and there will have to be a trinary, quaternary, whatever number of sets to include them, if they can't belong to the the binary set. Either way the binary system becomes a figment of history.

Edited July 31, 2023 by StringJunky

[J.C.MacSwell]

Just now, dimreepr said:

Well, he didn't explain it very well... 😉

Ricky Gervais level clarity is pretty tough to match.

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Ricky Gervais level clarity is pretty tough to match.

Is it though?

Women are very bad driver's... 😲

[mistermack]

I really don't care if people label me transphobic. In my own opinion, I'm bullshit phobic, not trans phobic, but anyway, labelling is a lazy substitute for thinking and argument, in my opinion. 

And people who resort to it are generally the ones who don't post much of any real interest. 

It's funny that the same people react with horror to any hint of a "woke" label. Even if it's not referencing them. 

-----------------------------------------------

I would like to stick to reality, so here's a challenge. Do you truly believe that a bit of surgery and some hormones really changes a man into a woman? If so, exactly why?

-----------------------------------------------

[geordief]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Is it though?

Women are very bad driver's... 😲

Very good text editors  though.

[iNow]

Just now, mistermack said:

Do you truly believe that a bit of surgery and some hormones really changes a man into a woman? If so, exactly why?

Not precisely, no. What I think is that our historical binary categories of male and female don't map accurately on to the real world around us, that a great MANY humans don't fit these arbitrary criteria, and that a refusal to update our thinking is needlessly causing pain, anguish, and suicidation among kids and adults just trying to be themselves and be accepted by the world around them. 

Like I said, you used color as dismissive example earlier in the thread. You said Red is trying to identify as Yellow. Haha. Funny stuff, rah rah... but even the color red exists along a spectrum yet you're trying to suggest only one specific wavelength equals red but NO OTHERS, and all just because you say so.

If someone tells us they are female, it does us no harm to accept that as true even if your own perception is that male would be a better descriptor. That's not our choice to make. It's theirs.

If someone tells you their name is Kunta Kinte, then stop calling them boy and Toby. It's really not hard... unless you force it to be out of ignorance and spite. 

[mistermack]

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

Not precisely, no. What I think is that our historical binary categories of male and female don't map accurately on to the real world around us, that a great MANY humans don't fit these arbitrary criteria, and that a refusal to update our thinking is needlessly causing pain, anguish, and suicidation among kids and adults just trying to be themselves and be accepted by the world around them. 

But I personally have already said a number of times that I don't dispute peoples' right to present as any gender they want, and I have a good friend who does just that with no problems on my account. 

But when it comes to how other people react to that presentation, that's up to them. In the case of female athletes, a great many of them object to the sport that they've dedicated their life to, being hijacked just to pander to what they view as a delusion in some men. If Lia Thomas had REALLY been turned into a woman, she wouldn't have bounced up from a very average performer to near-legendary performance, she's be the same kind of woman as she was a man. It's because she's still a man that she performs so exceptionally as a woman. Indeed, the necessity to even talk about handicapping trans athletes proves the point, that they are still men who need to be artificially clobbered down to women's level.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Is historicity important and should it never be changed? You seem to use that word a lot, as though it's immutable, like the now-antique US Constitution. People that are yet to be born won't care if something isn't useful  to them  anymore, or gets commandeered for other purposes. What happened to the original meaning of 'gay' and the associations regarding rainbows. They were just rainbows.

That small subset of individuals will require categorizing and there will have to be a trinary, quaternary, whatever number of sets to include them, if they can't belong to the the binary set. Either way the binary system becomes a figment of history.

My point is that while the science of biology might gain understanding, definitions may change, and society may change, none of that will change the actual biology, drug treatments or surgical treatments notwithstanding.

 

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

Not precisely, no.

Well that's good. Hopefully you will be able to forgive those that consider you transphobic and therefore probably racist for not being able to convince yourself otherwise. 

[mistermack]

37 minutes ago, iNow said:

If someone tells us they are female, it does us no harm to accept that as true even if your own perception is that male would be a better descriptor. That's not our choice to make. It's theirs.

Firstly, in the context of elite women's sport it does do harm, and secondly, it is our choice, not theirs. They can choose how they present. We can choose how we react. That's a basic human freedom. If someone tells me he's Napoleon, I can go along with it, or not, it's up to me. If I don't, and it hurts his feelings, that's not my fault. He's the one with the delusion. 

[StringJunky]

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

My point is that while the science of biology might gain understanding, definitions may change, and society may change, none of that will change the actual biology, drug treatments or surgical treatments notwithstanding.

 

Well that's good. Hopefully you will be able to forgive those that consider you transphobic and therefore probably racist for not being able to convince yourself otherwise. 

Of course, the biological systems don't change in themselves, but when you add or subtract categories, more or less things are observable, therefore, the observed, measured, system changes. There is a new reality because we've had to alter the classifications to accommodate the new data.

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

In the case of female athletes, a great many of them object to the sport that they've dedicated their life to, being hijacked just to pander to what they view as a delusion in some men

I may be mistaken but I suspect a great many of them object because they are afraid they are going to lose relative standing. If trans women were only half as competitive as cis women I doubt very many would be complaining. 

I also doubt that "a great many" cis women see transsexuality as a "delusion".

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

I may be mistaken but I suspect a great many of them object because they are afraid they are going to lose relative standing. If trans women were only half as competitive as cis women I doubt very many would be complaining. 

I also doubt that "a great many" cis women see transsexuality as a "delusion".

It might sound like the same thing to some here, but I think a great many of them see trans females potentially taking over the top spots. Most in say, the top hundred are not so much concerned about being knocked down a couple places so much as having their ultimate goal taken away by some with a well established inherent advantage.

Equally, I have no doubt that trans females that feel they should be allowed to compete in the women's categories would be concerned that any compensatory handicaps would be overly onerous on their potential performance so as to eliminate there chances of success, even if they were willing to risk the drug treatments that could make them eligible.

[swansont]

21 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

a well established inherent advantage.

Well-established? Where and when did this happen?

 

Why do I find things like this, if it is well-established?

"Is there evidence that transgender women athletes have a physiological advantage?

Not according to Eric Vilain, a geneticist at the University of California, Irvine, who specializes in gender-based biology. Very little research has been published on transgender athletes, and what has been published didn’t provide enough results to create evidence-based policies, says Vilain, who does not identify as transgender. “It’s not black and white.”"

https://www.science.org/content/article/world-athletics-banned-transgender-women-competing-does-science-support-rule

(from April 2023)

 

"The research findings in the biomedical area are inconclusive. Studies which make conclusions on pre- and post-hormone replacement therapy (HRT) advantage held by trans women athletes have used either cis men or sedentary trans women as proxies for elite trans women athletes"

...

"Available evidence indicates trans women who have undergone testosterone suppression have no clear biological advantages over cis women in elite sport."

https://www.cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/pdf/transgenderwomenathletesandelitesport-ascientificreview-e-final.pdf

(2021 or later)

 

 

 

[CharonY]

45 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Most in say, the top hundred are not so much concerned about being knocked down a couple places so much as having their ultimate goal taken away by some with a well established inherent advantage.

Here, a rather precise analysis is warranted as such a sweeping statement (as mentioned multiple times) can mask important differences caused by transitioning. It is complicated by the fact that performance is not an inherent ability but also depends on the sport, training and the how the performance improves with training. It also does not help that elite athletes are a tiny fraction of an already highly selective group, so it is small wonder that there is even less data available. In fact, a study on elite transgender athletes at this point would essentially likely only consist of a handful of people, scattered across different types of sports, which would likely be rather useless. Things are even further complicated as longitudinal studies are needed as the effects of transitioning on the body can take a long time. 

As also mentioned before, data is therefore lacking and a lot is still based on extrapolation rather than high quality data. 

Depending on the length and cohort investigated, the results can be fairly different. For example, here is a review on a cohort of non-athletes:

Quote

Existing literature comprises cross-sectional or small uncontrolled longitudinal studies of short duration. In nonathletic trans men starting testosterone therapy, within 1 year, muscle mass and strength increased and, by 3 years, physical performance (push-ups, sit-ups, run time) improved to the level of cisgender men. In nonathletic trans women, feminizing hormone therapy increased fat mass by approximately 30% and decreased muscle mass by approximately 5% after 12 months, and steadily declined beyond 3 years. While absolute lean mass remains higher in trans women, relative percentage lean mass and fat mass (and muscle strength corrected for lean mass), hemoglobin, and VO₂ peak corrected for weight was no different to cisgender women. After 2 years of GAHT, no advantage was observed for physical performance measured by running time or in trans women. By 4 years, there was no advantage in sit-ups. While push-up performance declined in trans women, a statistical advantage remained relative to cisgender women.

https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgad414

Here, they found that the "innate advantage" of transgender woman after 4 years amounted to a statistical advantage of push-ups, but in none of the other measures. 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

32 minutes ago, swansont said:

Well-established? Where and when did this happen?

Read my post again, including the part you didn't quote and think about what that might mean.

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Equally, I have no doubt that trans females that feel they should be allowed to compete in the women's categories would be concerned that any compensatory handicaps would be overly onerous on their potential performance so as to eliminate there chances of success, even if they were willing to risk the drug treatments that could make them eligible.

Even your link alludes to the inherent advantages...in particular the very part you quoted.

39 minutes ago, swansont said:

"Available evidence indicates trans women who have undergone testosterone suppression have no clear biological advantages over cis women in elite sport."

Can you not infer from that, that it is understood that without testosterone suppression or some other form of handicap inherent advantages would remain?

[mistermack]

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

I may be mistaken but I suspect a great many of them object because they are afraid they are going to lose relative standing. If trans women were only half as competitive as cis women I doubt very many would be complaining. 

I wouldn't have disagreed with that, but I just looked up chess, as a game that has no physical advantage for men, and what did I find? There IS  a women's division, and although women CAN compete in major tournaments, they don't get anywhere, and no woman has made the top 100 players as yet. They do have a women's competition to encourage female participation. ( I have no idea if transgender women can play in the women's division )Why Is Chess Separated By Gender? Raising the Bar For Women In Chess - Hercules Chess   

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

I also doubt that "a great many" cis women see transsexuality as a "delusion".

What's a delusion, for me, is the claim that a man can become a woman, through surgery and drugs. I suspect the female athletes would also view that as a delusion. If not, then they ARE real women, and there can be no valid objection to them competing with other women.

Edited July 31, 2023 by mistermack
link

[CharonY]

Just now, J.C.MacSwell said:

Read my post again, including the part you didn't quote and think about what that might mean.

Even your link alludes to the inherent advantages...in particular the very part you quoted.

Can you not infer from that, that it is understood that without testosterone suppression or some other form of handicap inherent advantages would remain?

I am not sure what your point is. The whole discussion regarding transgender athletes is whether and how folks that have undergone gender-affirming procedures can participate. If they don't transition, there is little question where they participate, is there?

[J.C.MacSwell]

18 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Here, a rather precise analysis is warranted as such a sweeping statement (as mentioned multiple times) can mask important differences caused by transitioning. It is complicated by the fact that performance is not an inherent ability but also depends on the sport, training and the how the performance improves with training. It also does not help that elite athletes are a tiny fraction of an already highly selective group, so it is small wonder that there is even less data available. In fact, a study on elite transgender athletes at this point would essentially likely only consist of a handful of people, scattered across different types of sports, which would likely be rather useless. Things are even further complicated as longitudinal studies are needed as the effects of transitioning on the body can take a long time. 

As also mentioned before, data is therefore lacking and a lot is still based on extrapolation rather than high quality data. 

Depending on the length and cohort investigated, the results can be fairly different. For example, here is a review on a cohort of non-athletes:

https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgad414

Here, they found that the "innate advantage" of transgender woman after 4 years amounted to a statistical advantage of push-ups, but in none of the other measures. 

 

As mentioned multiple times, I realize hormone therapies and other surgeries and/or drug treatments can reduce, eliminate, or overcompensate for any or all of the inherent advantages.

I was quite aware of it prior to the start of this thread. 

41 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I am not sure what your point is. The whole discussion regarding transgender athletes is whether and how folks that have undergone gender-affirming procedures can participate. If they don't transition, there is little question where they participate, is there?

Transgendering does not require any gender affirming procedures or treatments. 

Nor should it. 

Would you not call a girl she if she was born male but declined any gender affirming treatments?

Gender is a choice, and has been for some time now. The term used to be considered to be essentially the same as biological sex but no longer is. How is it that you've failed to make the full connection?

No wonder you have misunderstood so many of my posts.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Read my post again, including the part you didn't quote and think about what that might mean.

“Most in say, the top hundred are not so much concerned about being knocked down a couple places so much as having their ultimate goal taken away by some with a well established inherent advantage.”

I think it means you think there are other people, particularly athletes, who are worried. But that doesn’t change the question; you state this as if it were a fact.

 

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Even your link alludes to the inherent advantages...in particular the very part you quoted.

Can you not infer from that, that it is understood that without testosterone suppression or some other form of handicap inherent advantages would remain?

Then please, for the frikkin’ love of Zeus, please, point out who these athletes are?  Are there transgender athletes competing who are not undergoing HRT?

 

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

If not, then they ARE real women, and there can be no valid objection to them competing with other women.

Unless you can clearly define "real women" then using labels is no more than an approximation. People are what they are, no matter what slot others want to put them in. Who cares if they call themselves real women, if you call them real women, or someone calls them trans women. They are simply people and they want to be accepted as people, whatever their differences from the average.

I believe the focus should be on figuring out if there is an equitable way to allow people to compete. Arguing over 'real' or 'delusional' is a distraction.

[iNow]

9 hours ago, mistermack said:

If I don't, and it hurts his feelings, that's not my fault. He's the one with the delusion. 

Transgender individuals authentically telling us how they identify are not delusional. 

EDIT: Not because of their transgender identification, anyway. 

Edited August 1, 2023 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It might sound like the same thing to some here, but I think a great many of them see trans females potentially taking over the top spots. Most in say, the top hundred are not so much concerned about being knocked down a couple places so much as having their ultimate goal taken away by some with a well established inherent advantage.

 

For frick sake Swansont, can you not tell this paragraph is opinion?

 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

“Then please, for the frikkin’ love of Zeus, please, point out who these athletes are?  Are there transgender athletes competing who are not undergoing HRT?

 

For frick sake Swansont how many times have I answered, directly to you, the reasons I believe you don't see more transgender athletes?

 

3 hours ago, swansont said:

 Are there transgender athletes competing who are not undergoing HRT?

 

Yes.

[mistermack]

6 hours ago, zapatos said:

Unless you can clearly define "real women" then using labels is no more than an approximation.

Well, that's not true. As has been gone into before, there are a tiny minority of intersex people, but they don't affect what's under discussion, because we're not discussing what IS a real woman, we're discussing what's NOT. And that's a man, with XY genetic makeup, born with penis and balls, who's lived past puberty as a male. My case is that is NOT a real woman, and can't be made into a real woman artificially. It would be an artificial woman, produced from a man, using medical artifice. 

 

4 hours ago, iNow said:

Transgender individuals authentically telling us how they identify are not delusional. 

No, they're not. But using the Napoleon example, If I say to you, I identify as Napoleon and I'm happy living my life that way, I'm not necessarily deluded. But if I believe I AM Napoleon, then that's deluded.

[StringJunky]

10 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Gender is a choice, and has been for some time now. The term used to be considered to be essentially the same as biological sex but no longer is. How is it that you've failed to make the full connection?

No wonder you have misunderstood so many of my posts.

Mismatched gender identification is a dysphoria that can have pathological effects on the individual and their life if not addressed. 

Quote

Dysphoria (from Ancient Greek δύσφορος (dúsphoros) 'grievous'; from δυσ- (dus-) 'bad, difficult', and φέρω (phérō) 'to bear') is a profound state of unease or dissatisfaction. It is the semantic opposite of euphoria. In a psychiatric context, dysphoria may accompany depression, anxiety, or agitation.

 

[Intoscience]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

Transgender individuals authentically telling us how they identify are not delusional. 

EDIT: Not because of their transgender identification, anyway. 

How they choose to identify is irrelevant to how they were born. Ironically generally any form of dysmorphia or phobia is considered a mental issue. However, gender dysmorphia seems to be the exception to the rule. 

Inconsistencies as per. 

The binary system is considered archaic, yet trans women are desperately seeking acceptance as women rather than men. So if there is no distinction between male & female then why are they identifying as women? If there is no male or female just a spectrum then why have any label at all why seek confirmation?  

On 7/29/2023 at 11:27 AM, StringJunky said:

Now  we are being an A-Hole are we... what happened to 'transgender'? You username is very much an inaccurate misnomer. You are no more scientific than I am Taylor Swift.

Why are you getting irate? All I asked was what the definition of what a male & female are. 

I want to know if there is a distinction (which I believe there is since the vast majority of the population are male or female)? 

I also then want a sensible, workable system to include transgender in sports in a fair manner. A system that is both fair for all competitors and also enjoyable for audiences of such events. 

All I've heard so far is basically - sod the females, they should stop complaining and just let the blokes who are now considered women to play to.