Transgender athletes

[swansont]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I certainly don't understand how US states limiting access to access to health care justifies any XY inclusion in XX sports

Why do you feel international sports organizations should take that into account?

I’m not seeing the connection to what I posted. We had all this emphasis on context in this tangent, and iNow’s post was not in the context of sports. It was a much broader view.

I was merely pointing out some hyperbole.

I don’t feel a need to defend something I didn’t say.

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 8/6/2023 at 9:16 AM, dimreepr said:

Well for one, the elite levels are pushing the envelope within the chosen field of play, so that's where the best data is; let's not forget that the elite level is, by definition, designed to route out the outlier's of human physiology. (edit, which we're happy to celebrate, as long as the women don't look like men) 

I hope you don't think this question in any way turns the tables, if anything it puts more pressure on you to come back with at least one reason why my reason/ing is wrong?

 

No. This is a fair point. However, there is nothing to stop transgenders, or anyone else, competing against top level females. If the data is the goal it can be gained from experiments outside of and with no risk to standard top level competition.

[CharonY]

8 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Model 3. Evolutionary driven biologically constructed DNA characteristics, tendencies, roles: This model is the sticking point. This model starts with the basis of 2 distinct sexes - male & female. The distinction is built fundamentally into the biology of each person and though there maybe abnormalities or slight differences the fundamentals are set and unchangeable (at least post puberty). Unfortunately the set genetically characteristics no matter cannot be altered and thus those that standout as significant difference between male and female may play a part in advantageous/disadvantageous tendencies (elite sports levels). This model is not so easy to map onto the other models, especially so if a person wishes to identify way outside of their genetical makeup. 

Here, you are somewhat wrong. You should check back on JCM's post regarding the definition and binary nature of biological sex and perhaps also the link I provided that questions some of the tenets there. It is important to note that an evolutionary/biological system cannot be mapped exclusively to humans, it has to cover biology as we know it.

Thus, in the evolutionary view, the common definition is based around anisogamy, which means the different in types of gametes produced in a population. Here, we have a binary distinction (large gametes like ova, small gametes like sperm). The physical build of the producers does not play into it, as there is no direct connection between types of ovaries and a particular build, for example. In fact, some species change over their lifetime whether and what kind of gametes are being produced (a specific example that was provided in the prior discussion). Therefore, although the Goymann et al claim that biological sex is binary, they do state that 

Quote

To quote Paul Griffiths again, the biological sex concept “has not been developed to assign a biological sex to every individual organism at any stage of its life”. In fact, it often fails to do so. This reflects biological reality, because biological sex is a process rather than a condition.

In other words, if we use it as a condition to categorize each and every individual, we are in fact misusing the concept of biological sex.

And this goes back to the issue that in the society we have learned to conflate concepts like gender and biological sex to a degree that the latter is often also applied outside of the precise valid scope. To some degree it is inevitable, as many areas (especially medical sciences) obviously have a human-centric view, which kinds of ignores the broader scope of biology. But if we want to talk about biology and especially evolution, we are forced to be more precise about it (it is a bit like trying to apply classical physics to quantum phenomena, at some point it becomes wildly inaccurate). The challenge here is that science here runs counter to intuition.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Here, you are somewhat wrong. You should check back on JCM's post regarding the definition and binary nature of biological sex and perhaps also the link I provided that questions some of the tenets there. It is important to note that an evolutionary/biological system cannot be mapped exclusively to humans, it has to cover biology as we know it.

Thus, in the evolutionary view, the common definition is based around anisogamy, which means the different in types of gametes produced in a population. Here, we have a binary distinction (large gametes like ova, small gametes like sperm). The physical build of the producers does not play into it, as there is no direct connection between types of ovaries and a particular build, for example. In fact, some species change over their lifetime whether and what kind of gametes are being produced (a specific example that was provided in the prior discussion). Therefore, although the Goymann et al claim that biological sex is binary, they do state that 

In other words, if we use it as a condition to categorize each and every individual, we are in fact misusing the concept of biological sex.

And this goes back to the issue that in the society we have learned to conflate concepts like gender and biological sex to a degree that the latter is often also applied outside of the precise valid scope. To some degree it is inevitable, as many areas (especially medical sciences) obviously have a human-centric view, which kinds of ignores the broader scope of biology. But if we want to talk about biology and especially evolution, we are forced to be more precise about it (it is a bit like trying to apply classical physics to quantum phenomena, at some point it becomes wildly inaccurate). The challenge here is that science here runs counter to intuition.

Right. But at this point in the science of biology I believe that for the human species, 99+% of us can be clearly divided into biologically male or biologically female regardless of more overlap in secondary sex characteristics, and that division is so significant with regard to physical sports that there are demonstrable differences between the top performances of the two groups, in the range of 6-12% in many events.

With gender, as we now define the term gender, no such clear division for top performers exists, notwithstanding medical science's ability to intervene.

Essentially this means that unless XX athletes are given their own space, they cannot be competitive at elite level without very serious restrictions put on any inclusion of XY athletes.

[zapatos]

38 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Essentially this means that unless XX athletes are given their own space, they cannot be competitive at elite level without very serious restrictions put on any inclusion of XY athletes.

I understand why you think there would need to be very serious restriction on XY athletes, but it feels to me as if you are overstating the impact on XX athletes. 

After a short search I found that there were perhaps 100 trans women competing in NCAA sports, compared to about 226,000 women competing in NCAA Women's Championship Sports.

Quote

Privacy laws make it tough to identify the exact number of transgender athletes competing in public school sports, but researcher and medical physicist Joanna Harper estimates the number can't exceed 100 nationwide.

"While we don't know the exact number of trans women competing in NCAA sports, I would be very surprised if there were more than 100 of them in the women's category," Harper told Newsweek.

https://www.newsweek.com/how-many-transgender-athletes-play-womens-sports-1796006

Quote

226,212 — The number of student-athletes competing in NCAA women's championship sports in 2021-22. That represents a 5% increase (10,726 student-athletes) from 2020-21, the largest percentage increase for women since 2000-01.

https://www.ncaa.org/news/2023/3/1/media-center-a-look-at-trends-for-women-in-college-sports.aspx#:~:text=226%2C212 — The number of student,for women since 2000-01.

To suggest that women cannot be competitive at elite level without serious restrictions on XY athletes seems to be an overstatement. Since there are about 2260 cis women to every one trans woman in the NCAA it seems likely most cis women will go their entire NCAA careers without ever going head-to-head with a trans woman.

 

Edited August 9, 2023 by zapatos

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I understand why you think there would need to be very serious restriction on XY athletes, but it feels to me as if you are overstating the impact on XX athletes. 

After a short search I found that there were perhaps 100 trans women competing in NCAA sports, compared to about 226,000 women competing in NCAA Women's Championship Sports.

 

 

Am I?

How many of those (bolded) are competing without serious restrictions? (I'm fairly certain the answer is none, even if they've gone through HRT in the past, any requirement to which is a serious restriction in itself)

Much of the debate is about whether the restrictions are enough (or overly onerous) to make for fair competition.

There should be no debate as to whether the current restrictions are healthy. Many on the many sides of the debate don't believe they are healthy, and certainly none of the methods used to reduce testosterone to target levels are considered to be without risk.

Many here would seem to be satisfied if testosterone targets were continued to be used and adjusted over time. Attempt to find some compromise between inclusion and athlete health. When transgender athletes succeed, or fail, what exactly will have been tested?

[zapatos]

13 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Am I?

 

Yes

13 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How many of those (bolded) are competing without serious restrictions? (I'm fairly certain the answer is none, even if they've gone through HRT in the past, any requirement to which is a serious restriction in itself)

Even if the answer was 100%, the cisgenders outnumber the transgenders 2200 to 1. How is that one person stopping those 2200 from being competitive? If I'm competing in the Pac-10 and you are competing in the ACC, how have you stopped me from being competitive?

In addition, what is wrong with serious restrictions? Getting back to an earlier comment I made, why would handicapping be such a terrible thing?

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Yes

Even if the answer was 100%, the cisgenders outnumber the transgenders 2200 to 1. How is that one person stopping those 2200 from being competitive? If I'm competing in the Pac-10 and you are competing in the ACC, how have you stopped me from being competitive?

...with questionable testosterone targets in place to maintain that? With unfair social stigmas toward transgenders to maintain that?

Explain exactly how either is a healthy goal if you believe 2200 to 1 should be maintainable.

[StringJunky]

33 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Am I?

How many of those (bolded) are competing without serious restrictions? (I'm fairly certain the answer is none, even if they've gone through HRT in the past, any requirement to which is a serious restriction in itself)

Much of the debate is about whether the restrictions are enough (or overly onerous) to make for fair competition.

There should be no debate as to whether the current restrictions are healthy. Many on the many sides of the debate don't believe they are healthy, and certainly none of the methods used to reduce testosterone to target levels are considered to be without risk.

Many here would seem to be satisfied if testosterone targets were continued to be used and adjusted over time. Attempt to find some compromise between inclusion and athlete health. When transgender athletes succeed, or fail, what exactly will have been tested?

Non-athletic transgenders are undergoing radical surgeries and endocrine treatments all the time, somewhere. Athletic trans are also doing these things on their own initiative.

All professional bodies are trying to do is see if it fits in their criteria, and if not, then they are trying to establish a satisfactory level. Trans-people aren't doing anything that's considered 'onerous' to them.

You seem to be projecting your internal issues as though they were theirs. Stop worrying for them, and let them get on with it... as they will anyway. Where it is potentially onerous is on the   likes of Caster Semenya. She's a super-fit androgyne.

Edited August 9, 2023 by StringJunky

[zapatos]

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Explain exactly how either is a healthy goal if you believe 2200 to 1 should be maintainable.

When did I say "questionable testosterone targets" is a healthy goal? When did I say "unfair social stigmas" was healthy?

When did I say 2200 to 1 should be maintainable?

Perhaps you can answer the questions I asked of you.

Edited August 9, 2023 by zapatos

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

When did I say "questionable testosterone targets" is a healthy goal? When did I say "unfair social stigmas" was healthy?

When did I say 2200 to 1 should be maintainable?

Perhaps you can answer the questions I asked of you.

You said my concerns were not justified citing the current ratio as 2200 to 1, did you not?

 

 

 

[zapatos]

31 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You said my concerns were not justified citing the current ratio as 2200 to 1, did you not?

You said XX cannot be competitive if they must compete with XY without serious restrictions on trans women. I disagreed and cited the ratio as my reasoning. As far as I can tell we were both looking at a snapshot in time. That is, we are talking about now. 

I don't mind talking about how/if XX can remain competitive if that ratio changes. While that ratio may change in the future I am also sure in the future we'll be factoring in changes to the science of hormone levels, transitioning, muscle mass, competitive classes, development of handicapping systems, ratio of trans vs cis allowed on the field at once, equitable funding for training, and all the other ideas people come up with on how to allow everyone to compete equitably.

[J.C.MacSwell]

13 hours ago, zapatos said:

You said XX cannot be competitive if they must compete with XY without serious restrictions on trans women. I disagreed and cited the ratio as my reasoning. As far as I can tell we were both looking at a snapshot in time. That is, we are talking about now. 

I don't mind talking about how/if XX can remain competitive if that ratio changes. While that ratio may change in the future I am also sure in the future we'll be factoring in changes to the science of hormone levels, transitioning, muscle mass, competitive classes, development of handicapping systems, ratio of trans vs cis allowed on the field at once, equitable funding for training, and all the other ideas people come up with on how to allow everyone to compete equitably.

As I have mentioned many times in this thread, right from the early on in it, you need to be able to anticipate the results of any rules you might make.

I don't know how many times I have pointed this out to Swansont when he keeps asking "where are they?" while citing current low numbers and ignoring obvious evidence that XY athletes have known advantages.

As they move away from testosterone targets, as they should, the numbers will surely go up... as society becomes more accepting of transgenders, as it should, the numbers surely will go up...

...unless of course there are other rules in place to prevent it.

 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

As I have mentioned many times in this thread, right from the early on in it, you need to be able to anticipate the results of any rules you might make.

I don't know how many times I have pointed this out to Swansont when he keeps asking "where are they?" while citing current low numbers and ignoring obvious evidence that XY athletes have known advantages.

As they move away from testosterone targets, as they should, the numbers will surely go up... as society becomes more accepting of transgenders, as it should, the numbers surely will go up...

...unless of course there are other rules in place to prevent it.

 

Agreed. Things will change over time, and we should not assume that testosterone level is the only factor that can go into making competition equitable and ensuring XX athletes can remain competitive. Throughout this thread I have tried to envision a multifaceted approach evolving over time as we learn more.

I think testosterone levels alone will have a limited ability to encompass all of women's sports. Testosterone probably have a larger impact where you have individual sports and reliance on muscle mass (e.g. weight lifting)  and less of an impact on team sports that rely less on muscle mass (e.g. synchronized swimming). You wouldn't even have to check testosterone levels (theoretically) for weight lifting if you introduced handicapping. For instance, add 'x' pounds to the bar for the transgender woman to accomplish the same lift as a cisgender woman.

[J.C.MacSwell]

10 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Agreed. Things will change over time, and we should not assume that testosterone level is the only factor that can go into making competition equitable and ensuring XX athletes can remain competitive. Throughout this thread I have tried to envision a multifaceted approach evolving over time as we learn more.

I think testosterone levels alone will have a limited ability to encompass all of women's sports. Testosterone probably have a larger impact where you have individual sports and reliance on muscle mass (e.g. weight lifting)  and less of an impact on team sports that rely less on muscle mass (e.g. synchronized swimming). You wouldn't even have to check testosterone levels (theoretically) for weight lifting if you introduced handicapping. For instance, add 'x' pounds to the bar for the transgender woman to accomplish the same lift as a cisgender woman.

Right. Those are the types of solutions that could be used where possible, at least for the intersex, without requiring them to take unwanted treatments if they wish to compete.

I wonder if Laurel Hubbard would have preferred that, in whole or in part, rather than being forced to conform (forced if she wished to compete as a female) to an arbitrary testosterone target.

...and if her only threat was to also get a medal without displacing anyone...how much more welcome might she have felt.

[Intoscience]

On 8/9/2023 at 12:31 PM, StringJunky said:

What is the exact wavelength of  the colour yellow?

Answer: It's a range between 570-585nm, but there is no clearly delineated line in to orange.

In case it's gone over your head, things get fuzzy and merged the more details/resolution we pursue.

 

Are you patronising me? Because this response sure looks that way.

I'm not a child I understand how spectrums work. 

 

On 8/9/2023 at 11:59 AM, swansont said:

A good start would be to investigate the biology - beyond what chromosomes or visible reproductive parts one has - of what it means to be a man or woman.

I have no disagreement there. But there are clear distinctions in general between what we consider a man and what we consider a woman and some of those distinctions make a difference especially so at elite level sports. 

My point is that transgender women want to be identified distinctly from a man, so what distinction are they using to achieve this? What are the markers?  

On 8/9/2023 at 6:04 PM, CharonY said:

note that an evolutionary/biological system cannot be mapped exclusively to humans, it has to cover biology as we know it

But we are discussing humans not other species, and specifically elite sporting ability.

I accept that there is only a very small minority of transgender athletes that will likely impact women's sports. But the impact of that small minority is large. Large enough that within their chosen category they will go on to dominate and break world records way surpassing anything set previously effectively relegating all the other competitors to competing for runner up positions.  

What JCM and myself are advocating is not banning transgender athletes, on the contrary, but trying to find a way to have fair inclusiveness. A system that born from science, performance testing... (probably the best starting point) which allows for a level playing field as to speak.

i'm persistently told on this thread that human biological sex gender is not binary. So what defines the terms male and female at each end of the spectrum?  If a person born with what is considered "male" chromosomes, male genitals, male bone, muscle structure and density etc... They then choose to identify as a "woman" (female) by what definition are they using to make that distinction?  

 

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I have no disagreement there. But there are clear distinctions in general between what we consider a man and what we consider a woman and some of those distinctions make a difference especially so at elite level sports. 

That’s the wrong approach, though, if you investigate the distinctions between cis men and cis women. The investigation should be the distinctions between trans women and cis women.

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

My point is that transgender women want to be identified distinctly from a man, so what distinction are they using to achieve this? What are the markers?  

That’s what one should investigate.

[J.C.MacSwell]

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

That’s the wrong approach, though, if you investigate the distinctions between cis men and cis women. The investigation should be the distinctions between trans women and cis women.

That’s what one should investigate.

There is no known difference in athletic potential, or reason to believe there is, caused by any XY athlete's choice to change gender.

 

[dimreepr]

On 8/9/2023 at 4:47 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

No. This is a fair point. However, there is nothing to stop transgenders, or anyone else, competing against top level females. If the data is the goal it can be gained from experiments outside of and with no risk to standard top level competition.

Your argument centers around risk and every game has a certain amount jeopardy that's why we watch and play, because that's life played out in a game.

But that's like not letting anyone play near a railway, good advice for a child, but condescending for an adult.

 

9 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

There is no known difference in athletic potential, or reason to believe there is, caused by any XY athlete's choice to change gender.

 

It's not an athletic choice, it's a human one. 

It's like asking what colour do you want in a game of risk or what avatar in monopoly?

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

31 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's not an athletic choice, it's a human one. 

It's like asking what colour do you want in a game of risk or what avatar in monopoly?

 

Right. The risk players know their choice of colour will have no effect on the game. No need to complain about a current lack of evidence.

[swansont]

35 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's not an athletic choice, it's a human one. 

It’s a mistake to frame this as a choice.

Several times I’ve asked why someone has chosen to be right- or left-handed. Nobody has deigned to respond.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

It’s a mistake to frame this as a choice.

Several times I’ve asked why someone has chosen to be right- or left-handed. Nobody has deigned to respond.

You are suggesting there is something inherent driving the gender identification motivation? 

Do you have a reason to believe there is a connection between that and sports potential?

 

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

There is no known difference in athletic potential, or reason to believe there is, caused by any XY athlete's choice to change gender.

 

Is this based on your comprehensive knowledge of studies? Is this another opinion?

And “caused by the choice”? Who is claiming that this “choice” is causing anything?

There are biological differences between cis men and transgender women, so there could very well be differences that affect athletic performance.

Differences in brain structure

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-020-0666-3

Differences in estrogen receptors 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200205084203.htm

32 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You are suggesting there is something inherent driving the gender identification motivation? 

Something biological? Yes. see above.

32 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Do you have a reason to believe there is a connection between that and sports potential?

Estrogen? See above.

edit:

see also

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_gender_incongruence

[zapatos]

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

But the impact of that small minority is large. Large enough that within their chosen category they will go on to dominate and break world records way surpassing anything set previously effectively relegating all the other competitors to competing for runner up positions.  

I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist on a citation. This is an awfully bold and predictive assertion. If your statement is true it will have a huge impact on the ability of trans women to compete. On the other hand, if you just made this up then you are arguing in bad faith.

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

My point is that transgender women want to be identified distinctly from a man, so what distinction are they using to achieve this?

Well, presumably because their brain is telling them they are distinct. Surely the brain is as much a part of a person's identity as are their dangly parts.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Is this based on your comprehensive knowledge of studies? Is this another opinion?

And “caused by the choice”? Who is claiming that this “choice” is causing anything?

There are biological differences between cis men and transgender women, so there could very well be differences that affect athletic performance.

Differences in brain structure

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-020-0666-3

Differences in estrogen receptors 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200205084203.htm

Something biological? Yes. see above.

Estrogen? See above.

edit:

see also

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_gender_incongruence

I think you misunderstand what gender currently means.

It means how an individual chooses to identify. There is no other test.

You can argue whether anyone has a choice or free will, or not, but that can't be proven. We have decided to accept an individuals choice, as we understand choice.

So you can take two identical twins, with essentially the same genes and hormone numbers and one can identify female and the other male and that is accepted as their respective genders.

If you believe you can go further than that and find a physical something that might motivate the choice, that doesn't change the above and with respect to sports you still need to connect it to athletic potential for it to be meaningful to those that must make and put in practise rules for elite competition.

 

Elite female sports has developed because of a clear and significant gap in the top performances of XY and XX athletes...not because of any clear or significant gap in choice of gender, or motivation for that choice.

Bruce Jenner was at one time considered by many the best XY athlete in the World and clearly enjoyed XY advantage, however difficult to say exactly why. Caitlyn Jenner is now perhaps the best known transgender on the planet. Whether there was something innate driving her decision, or not, it seems unlikely to have given her as Bruce Jenner any substantial disadvantage...though who knows...it's pretty much impossible to ascertain just as it is even more impossible to prejudge athletic potential sufficiently for the purpose of elite sports any time soon.

For what it's worth, I tend to agree with much of Caitlyn Jenner's position on this topic.