Jump to content

Transgender athletes


Curious layman

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I might have missed some intermediate posts, but fundamentally, when we talk about transgender inclusion, we are talking about some level of some level of HRT. AFAIK, folks that have not undergo some level of gender affirming therapy do compete based on their assigned sex (which usually is based on presence of external genitalia), rather than the gender they are representing. 

That being said, I found some articles discussing something that we have been circling around in this thread for a fair bit, is the idea of using "athletic gender". The basic idea is to designate athletes to a gender for sports performance only and using a quantitative criteria based performance. Originally the idea was focused on testosterone levels, but has been expanded (similar to our discussions here).

But the basic idea is the same, use quantitative parameters to create categories.

 

My interpretation: "After review, for the purposes of this sport, you are assigned <insert gender>". That does sound practicable.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

I might have missed some intermediate posts, but fundamentally, when we talk about transgender inclusion, we are talking about some level of some level of HRT. AFAIK, folks that have not undergo some level of gender affirming therapy do compete based on their assigned sex (which usually is based on presence of external genitalia), rather than the gender they are representing. 

That being said, I found some articles discussing something that we have been circling around in this thread for a fair bit, is the idea of using "athletic gender". The basic idea is to designate athletes to a gender for sports performance only and using a quantitative criteria based performance. Originally the idea was focused on testosterone levels, but has been expanded (similar to our discussions here).

But the basic idea is the same, use quantitative parameters to create categories.

 

So you will call anyone male that outperforms a set criteria? Call everyone female that performs below it? Regardless of gender or biological sex? Every elite male becoming an elite female towards the end of their careers as their performance declines?

How does doping control work in all this?

Who sets the performance parameters?

Who judges the athletes and puts them into categories?

Who gets to tell the better transexual females that the've been judged to be male?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So you will call anyone male that outperforms a set criteria? Call everyone female that performs below it? Regardless of gender or biological sex? Every elite male becoming an elite female towards the end of their careers as their performance declines?

You seem to be weirdly hung up on nomenclature. As these categories do not exist yet, I do not know what one might call them. For all the relevance, you could call them Category 1 and 2. And it might surprise you, but featherweights do not actually weigh the same as a feather.

In addition, there is no reason why age cannot be a factor (there are age categories in sports already.

For the rest of your question, you almost make it sound that sports does not have any regulations. Who determines eligibility of athletes ? Who sets and enforces weight classes? Who determines what is considered doping and how it is enforced.... right now? If that was an issue, we wouldn't have sports in the first place.

Moreover, one of the argument of separation is to ensure safety of the athletes. So in that regard, doesn't it make more sense to separate them according to measurable parameters such as body weight, muscle to weight ratio and so on rather than just by genitalia or karyotype or whether they can bear children? The latter three parameters generally do not cause injury in among competitors, as far as I am aware of.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So you will call anyone male that outperforms a set criteria? Call everyone female that performs below it? Regardless of gender or biological sex? Every elite male becoming an elite female towards the end of their careers as their performance declines?

How does doping control work in all this?

Who sets the performance parameters?

Who judges the athletes and puts them into categories?

Who gets to tell the better transexual females that the've been judged to be male?

This is a work in progress, and those questions can be addressed empirically, as and when they become an issue in the course of trying things out.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

You seem to be weirdly hung up on nomenclature. As these categories do not exist yet, I do not know what one might call them. For all the relevance, you could call them Category 1 and 2. And it might surprise you, but featherweights do not actually weigh the same as a feather.

In addition, there is no reason why age cannot be a factor (there are age categories in sports already.

For the rest of your question, you almost make it sound that sports does not have any regulations. Who determines eligibility of athletes ? Who sets and enforces weight classes? Who determines what is considered doping and how it is enforced.... right now? If that was an issue, we wouldn't have sports in the first place.

Moreover, one of the argument of separation is to ensure safety of the athletes. So in that regard, doesn't it make more sense to separate them according to measurable parameters such as body weight, muscle to weight ratio and so on rather than just by genitalia or karyotype or whether they can bear children? The latter three parameters generally do not cause injury in among competitors, as far as I am aware of.

 

WTF?

 

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

This is a work in progress, and those questions can be addressed empirically, as and when they become an issue in the course of trying things out.

Clearly the work in progress is heading in a definite direction, and though anyone is welcome to try including trans female athletes at any level, at elite level there is nothing to suggest any real progress.

People can point the blame wherever they like, but so far no one can point out anything that even suggests a path toward workable solutions...as CY has so eloquently demonstrated...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

People can point the blame wherever they like, but so far no one can point out anything that even suggests a path toward workable solutions...as CY has so eloquently demonstrated...

So what do you suggest we do at this point. Give up or keep trying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

So what do you suggest we do at this point. Give up or keep trying?

1. Keep trying to solve the problem of intersex inclusion without resorting to testosterone targets or other deviations from healthy sports regulations.

and 2. Otherwise ban XY athletes from participating in elite XX sports until there is a clear or at least promising path to inclusion that doesn't threaten elite XX sports or the health of any athletes that wish to participate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Otherwise ban XY athletes from participating in elite XX sports until there is a clear or at least promising path to inclusion

So not just “do nothing,” but instead make it worse. Roger. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

WTF?

 

Clearly the work in progress is heading in a definite direction, and though anyone is welcome to try including trans female athletes at any level, at elite level there is nothing to suggest any real progress.

People can point the blame wherever they like, but so far no one can point out anything that even suggests a path toward workable solutions...as CY has so eloquently demonstrated...

It's looking like you are going into panic-mode, and quickly compiling  a litany of obstacles. It doesn't matter if we here don't have all the answers now... Rome wasn't built in a day. If it takes decades for the stakeholders and regulators to find equitable solutions, that's ok.

We only have to look at the timeline of homosexuality in the UK, since its eventual absorption into the UK's social fabric after 1967, to see the timescales probably  involved.

Society and nature is constantly in flux. It's only when we look over several decades of societal development do we see more distinct periods of our behavioural evolution, and thus large-scale changes of attitude emerging from each era.

 

9 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Otherwise ban XY athletes from participating in elite XX sports until there is a clear or at least promising path to inclusion that doesn't threaten elite XX sports or the health of any athletes that wish to participate.

I don't think responsible social adjustments are amenable to remote, hypothetical modelling. It needs to be small, empirical steps, in the field, with concomitant assessment.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We only need to look at  people absorbing and applying the hypothetical-at-the-time approaches promoted in 'Das Kapital' at a revolutionary rate to see that fully-constructed social theories can have disastrous social consequences.

Edited by StringJunky
Removed inappropriate example
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

It's looking like you are going into panic-mode, and quickly compiling  a litany of obstacles. It doesn't matter if we here don't have all the answers now... Rome wasn't built in a day. If it takes decades for the stakeholders and regulators to find equitable solutions, that's ok.

We only have to look at the timeline of homosexuality in the UK, since its eventual absorption into the UK's social fabric after 1967, to see the timescales probably  involved.

Society and nature is constantly in flux. It's only when we look over several decades of societal development do we see more distinct periods of our behavioural evolution, and thus large-scale changes of attitude emerging from each era.

 

I don't think responsible social adjustments are amenable to remote, hypothetical modelling. It needs to be small, empirical steps, in the field, with concomitant assessment.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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.

Nothing is being forced on anyone. If the price of entry to a swanky restaurant is white coat and tails with a top hat, one is required to comply. Otherwise, one can wear  what  one likes elsewhere.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Nothing is being forced on anyone. If the price of entry to a swanky restaurant is white coat and tails with a top hat, one is required to comply. Otherwise, one can wear  what  one likes elsewhere.

If all your friends get to go in with the nice white coat and tails and they insist you wear ones that are obviously contaminated you might find reason to object with the policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If all your friends get to go in with the nice white coat and tails and they insist you wear ones that are obviously contaminated you might find reason to object with the policy.

Excuse after excuse to hide the reason for your objection to the perfectly workable solution of, let them play first (test for possibility of monetising and fair competition, ITO 😉).

All of your replies, since I suggested that we put the brakes on this roundabout, have been nothing but spin/excuses.

One last try, because you're clearly inteligent; what is the reason you object to the above solution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Another diversion instead of an answer, it tells me a great deal...

After all my long winded and repetitive attempts at explanation that you failed to understand, I'm glad you could glean so much from so little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

After all my long winded and repetitive attempts at explanation that you failed to understand, I'm glad you could glean so much from so little.

I've had a think about what it tells me, either your X, something I can't say, cus you'd report me, or Y, you've got a spreadbet on how many page's this will get to, or XY, you're a troll.

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I've had a think about what it tells me, either your X, something I can't say, cus you'd report me, or Y, you've got a spreadbet on how many page's this will get to, or XY, you're a troll.

If I've been a troll for the purpose of trying to get those with hand wave solutions to address the concerns of the IOC, World Athletics, the United Nations Human Rights Council, and the World Medical Association...I certainly haven't been a very successful one...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If I've been a troll for the purpose of trying to get those with hand wave solutions to address the concerns of the IOC, World Athletics, the United Nations Human Rights Council, and the World Medical Association...I certainly haven't been a very successful one...

All we've been suggesting is possible paths to resolution, not the details, which can only be found with empirical methods and experience. Is that so hard to understand? If you call that 'handwaving' then further discussion is pointless. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

trying to accomodate intersex athletes without forcing drug treatments on them that they don't want and don't need,

Who is doing that, exactly?

This reads like like a strawman, but I'm reluctant to jump to this conclusion and will instead ask for clarity around this "forcing hormone treatments to win at sports" idea you keep mentioning.

Even if you can come up with an example or three, it's comments like these which I believe lead others to suggest a tone of panic over nothing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If I've been a troll for the purpose of trying to get those with hand wave solutions to address the concerns of the IOC, World Athletics, the United Nations Human Rights Council, and the World Medical Association...I certainly haven't been a very successful one...

No need to attack everyone just because one person called you a name. While my proposed solutions may be "hand wave" they are the best I'm capable of. I am in no position to lay out specific policy to the IOC. They have qualified people dedicated to this issue. I have 'me' part-time with feedback coming from other part-time participants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

No need to attack everyone just because one person called you a name. While my proposed solutions may be "hand wave" they are the best I'm capable of. I am in no position to lay out specific policy to the IOC. They have qualified people dedicated to this issue. I have 'me' part-time with feedback coming from other part-time participants.

I don't think I attacked anyone, but in any case that comment wasn't intended to reflect on everyone. Although you've made it clear you don't agree with my position you have at least taken the effort to understand it.

To some degree I would say the same with respect to INow, though he has yet to address some of the shortcomings in his proposals that would be of obvious concern to the IOC et al.

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Who is doing that, exactly?

This reads like like a strawman, but I'm reluctant to jump to this conclusion and will instead ask for clarity around this "forcing hormone treatments to win at sports" idea you keep mentioning.

Even if you can come up with an example or three, it's comments like these which I believe lead others to suggest a tone of panic over nothing. 

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.

This has already been discussed in this thread fairly recently but even if missed I don't understand the claims I might panic over anything.

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

All we've been suggesting is possible paths to resolution, not the details, which can only be found with empirical methods and experience. Is that so hard to understand? If you call that 'handwaving' then further discussion is pointless. 

 

No hard details are required to understand that replacing elite level female athletics with a second tier of mixed XX and XY athletes, is either prone to be dominated by non elite XY athletes outnumbering elite XX athletes...or simply creating an even lower recreational level for all participants. (which is absolutely fine on it's own but not as a replacement for elite female athletics)

If the inclusion being sought is for recreational athletics I haven't seen anyone objecting lately...the likes of Mike Tyson pummeling females aside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

No hard details are required to understand that replacing elite level female athletics with a second tier of mixed XX and XY athletes, is either prone to be dominated by non elite XY athletes outnumbering elite XX athletes...or simply creating an even lower recreational level for all participants. (which is absolutely fine on it's own but not as a replacement for elite female athletics)

An anxiety of yours with minimal/negligible evidence to show for it to date.

Quote

Since the first policy for transgender athletes at Olympic level was introduced in 2003, we have seen more than 63,000 athletes become Olympians. Only two transgender women have made it to the Olympics in this time, and only one competed in Tokyo 2020 (the other was a reserve).29 Jun 2022

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/29/sports-trans-participation-transgender-women-swimming#:~:text=Since the first policy for,the other was a reserve).

That's 0.0032% of Olympians since 2003. Storm in a thimble, or what?

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

An anxiety of yours with minimal/negligible evidence to show for it to date.

That's 0.0032% of Olympians since 2003. Storm in a thimble, or what?

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.