"Myself, being a Christian, I entirely see this as spiritual warfare. It's no longer good versus bad, or right versus wrong, this is moral versus evil."
When speaking of strength and endurance having xy chromosomes (male) is an advantage. It's a stretch to say those genes aren't an advantage but the traits from them are. That's akin to saying doping isn't an advantage, but the results of doping are. It's a bit pedantic.
It is not pedantic. Y chromosome does not give you an advantage if your body does not respond to androgen. Likewise, it does not give you an advantage if your continuously suppress your testosterone level starting with puberty and take supplemental estrogen.
That's why WA's rule is written the way it is. It is the phenotype and hormonal level usually associated with Y chromosome that give advantage to an athlete, not the chromosome itself.
This is correct and mathematics is incorrect. By default, there is no chromosomal test required by WA, only a check that they are female by law and meet the T requirements. “For avoidance of doubt: there are no other special conditions.. [DSD] athlete must satisfy”. (C3.6 3.3.2)
When a case needs further assessment, the rules ask for a clinical evaluation of a handful of potential intersex conditions and collect whatever data is needed for that assessment, again with no particular emphasis on a chromosomal test as being necessary or critical (but not prohibited either).
Clearly, I am the one taking the position that is against the status quo and is considered "out there", and while I am all for women, I know it would be easy to ascribe questionable intentions to my stance on this. So, thanks for recognizing that I am being authentic.
I can see, and even agree with to an extent, the original efforts to encourage and incentivize women toward athletics. I don't believe that effort was very free-market oriented, though. In my opinion, the funding of the increased participation (Title IX) was the "unfair" practice (not that I am crying about it). The issue, however, becomes how will it be received whenever there is any consideration to walk-back or defund these efforts. So, then one person (you) may see that as an extra subsidy toward men, while another (me) would see it as correctly getting back in line with where it fairly should be.
Outside of sports, there are many vocations that despite equal opportunities to pursue, seem to unequally draw men and women. Further, while I concede that I can not know the impact that having much fewer women reach the tippy-top athletically would have, I do think that there would be an interest in providing (through payment through sponsorships or other appearance fees) for some of the best women and/or other categories.
In short, I perhaps shouldn't surmise too much about what would happen economically because I don't think it is possible to know with certainty how it would play out, but I do tend to trust a free-market approach to sort those issues out. When the men's soccer and NBA largely subsidize the women's leagues, I can understand the idea of making an investment to get something going, but if it's continued over a long period of time, I would not see that as "fair" (though private investors can do whatever they want).
"Myself, being a Christian, I entirely see this as spiritual warfare. It's no longer good versus bad, or right versus wrong, this is moral versus evil."
Does Lia not want to take the money and run.. I mean swim?
I have not read this post whatsoever, but here are my two cents that no one asked for.
I understand how this is a complex matter. However lets get to the root of the issue. The root issue is whether a transitioning person has a competitive advantage in an athletic competition.
The truth as far as I can see it is very complex issue that is unfortunately entrenched in emotions and politics rather than science, compassion, and reason. Also I will take the time to say that I believe this issue should be handled by people with PhDs in Biology, Biochemistry, Physiology, Kinesiology, and other adjacent fields. As my handle suggests I’m a regular guy.
The reality seems to me, particularly in a situation where a man transitions to becoming a woman, there is a competitive advantage. This is noted in hormonal differences most notably differences in testosterone and estrogen. Testosterone is heavily associated with increases in muscle mass which increases a muscles ability to produce force. Most people know this and we know it is fairly common for people to take drugs to increase testosterone levels in the body as form of doping. People argue that a transitioning person can undergo hormone therapy to combat this advantage. , to which I say fine. However there are other advantages at play. I believe that men have hips that are more narrow that women, also men tend to be taller. My point is that there are structural differences that I don’t believe can be undone through hormone therapy. I personally feel that the only way a transitioning person should be able to compete is under a circumstance where it can be empirically determined that there is no competitive advantage. I think this would be very hard to prove as there are many pronounced differences between men and women.
Also I think these conversations need more empathy. As far as I can see our genetics are weird, they are mostly predictable but not perfect. There are random mutations and random chance things that can happen to any person during gestation. For example there is a statistical chance that any of us could have had the genetic composition of someone like Caster Semenya. People don’t choose this, it is a random occurrence in a population of eight billion people. I think there is an issue where we need sports to be as fair as we can make them, but this is pitted against the unfair and capricious nature of life. The truth is that gender and sex are fluid, not as fluid as popular media likes to make it seem, but it the fluidity does exist.
I unfortunately do not have any grand solutions for these issues. However here are some suggestions;
1) A group of educated people needs to be established to study this, and to determine on a case by case basis if it is fair for these individuals to compete, they should not be subjected to politics, only to the standard of trying to remove competitive bias
2) in the mean time athletes that have an ambiguous status should be encouraged to compete, however there may be a third intersex category, I am sure that it will be a battle determining who qualifies for that and there will be significant dehumanization of these individuals.
3) Supporting research and development of substances that can help aid this process.
My final stance: people should not be dehumanized or thought of as less than if they choose to transition, that is their right with their body. However these individuals should understand that there are potential athletic consequences that could result in their removal from competition, until there is an effective and agreed upon method for negating competitive advantages that are a result of birth sex and gender.
You don't have to be an elite athlete to violate anti-doping rules. Any individual competing in a nationally sanctioned event (i.e. any USATF road race) is subject to the same prohibited list as elite athletes.
In theory you are correct. But USATF does not do random drug testing on non-elite athletes. I know of multiple people who have reported the same suspected PED user to the Play Clean Tip center and USATF has done except announce to the world that that they will be testing at an upcoming sanctioned race. So user finds out testing will happen, stops doping a few weeks before the race, and user goes home innocent.
So, i would really like to know how this information came to light.
You seem to have only surface level knowledge of the anti-doping system. Let me help clear up a few things.
1. USATF does not do ANY drug testing, however USADA does. USATF has absolutley zero say in what athletes are tested, when or where they are tested. This is determined solely by USADA and/or AIU (if the athlete is also in the international testing pool).
2. USADA absolutely does conduct random testing on non-elite athletes. This is evident by the many sanctions imposed by USADA on non-elite athletes. I don't see it as a primary function of the organization but it's clear that they don't turn a blind eye to athletes they believe are breaking the rules, elite or not.
3. USATF may announce that testing "can" or "may" occur at a US national championship event, but I can't believe they would otherwise publicly announce that drug testing WILL occur at a specific time or location. Please show me one example where USATF has "announced to the world that they will be testing at an upcoming sanctioned race."
4. This made me laugh..."So user finds out testing will happen, stops doping a few weeks before the race, and user goes home innocent." You clearly lack an understanding of how the anti-doping system works, including the relevant substances that can provide performance enhancements.
I take no issue at all with the facts you (mathematics) provided. Thank you - the bell curve stuff was presented well. I also agree generally with Erock's contention that no women (I am dropping the xx and xy vernacular for now unless any one takes offense) would make the olympics (though Kvothe provided a humorous counter).
We differ on the conclusions drawn. Both of you seem to express that since females make up about 50% of the population, this would require a separate category as though there are necessary quotas for awards. I prefer to avoid segregation based on sex, race, orientation, etc etc.
I think participation in sports is great for all, and I highly encourage it. But, to me (as my username would suggest) fairness would stem from allowing all the opportunity to participate in sport and not from guaranteeing specific outcomes to different groups prior to any competition taking place. The lack of contrived achievements would, imo, not detract from sport in any way, but the separation of people does.
Perhaps a person could disagree with me by taking the stance that awards or first place finishes defines a person's value. So, if fewer athletic awards are earned by women, then women have lesser significance. But, this is not at all how I see any person's value (and I would feel sorry for someone who does believe this way). The transpeople's issue very much exposes this unproductive way of thinking. The answer is not to add additional segmentation of competition, it is to consolidate competition, be authentic about abilities, appreciate everyone, and fairly provide everyone with inclusion and opportunity.
As see it, the call to eliminate the female category and make everyone participate and compete in one mixed-sex category under the guise of "fairness for all" is just a new way for male supremacists and plain old cheats to try to rig sports in order to benefit male people and screw over female people. The "male privilege" inherent to this position is old hat - what's new is the dishonesty, sneakiness and phony moral rectictude it's cloaked in.
In the old days, fellas used to support rigging sports and many other things in their favor by saying male human beings are inherently better, of greater value and more deserving than female people are. Now brogressives who push for male supremacist systems in sports and other fields like Fairness in Opportunity is doing like to cloak themselves in mantles of sanctiomony and make claims of Solomonic wisdom by claiming that the cockamamie, sexist proposals they put forward are fair and square, on the up and up, and "for the greater good" because they supposedly "provide everyone with inclusion and opportunity."
FiO says he's against "quotas for awards" and "contrived achievements," but the reality is that the approach to sports he advocates would create new de facto awards quotas and contrived achievements for males - and only males, or almost entirely males with the exception of a few extraordinary female athletes every once in a while. Making all sports mixed-sex would have the surefire effect of advantaging and benefitting male people over female people - and the end result would be excluding the vast majority of female people not just from winners podiums, but from competition and participation in the first place.
Indeed, the approach FiO says is "fair for all" is the perfect way of insuring that male people are back in the proverbial catbird seat once again - and they get to keep it all to themselves.
This post was edited 14 minutes after it was posted.
I take no issue at all with the facts you (mathematics) provided. Thank you - the bell curve stuff was presented well. I also agree generally with Erock's contention that no women (I am dropping the xx and xy vernacular for now unless any one takes offense) would make the olympics (though Kvothe provided a humorous counter).
We differ on the conclusions drawn. Both of you seem to express that since females make up about 50% of the population, this would require a separate category as though there are necessary quotas for awards. I prefer to avoid segregation based on sex, race, orientation, etc etc.
I think participation in sports is great for all, and I highly encourage it. But, to me (as my username would suggest) fairness would stem from allowing all the opportunity to participate in sport and not from guaranteeing specific outcomes to different groups prior to any competition taking place. The lack of contrived achievements would, imo, not detract from sport in any way, but the separation of people does.
Perhaps a person could disagree with me by taking the stance that awards or first place finishes defines a person's value. So, if fewer athletic awards are earned by women, then women have lesser significance. But, this is not at all how I see any person's value (and I would feel sorry for someone who does believe this way). The transpeople's issue very much exposes this unproductive way of thinking. The answer is not to add additional segmentation of competition, it is to consolidate competition, be authentic about abilities, appreciate everyone, and fairly provide everyone with inclusion and opportunity.
But a main reason a separate sports division was created for female people was to give us the chance to participate in the first place. The aim was to give us a chance to participate recreationally - for fun, fitness, personal fulfillment, skill-building, health, social benefits, etc - as much as to participate in sports competitively.
Historically, girls and women were either excluded from participating in sports entirely - or we were allowed to participate, but only to a very limited extent compared to boys and men. When girls and women did get a chance to participate, we were restricted only to some sports in some narrow settings and under limited conditions.
A principal aim of creating a separate division of sports for girls and women was to make it possible for the 51% of the human population who happen to be female to get a chance to participate - finally. It wasn't simply about "guaranteeing specific outcomes to different groups prior to any competition" the way your disingenuous, historically uninformed framing suggests.
The longterm aim of female sports is to create and insure an equal playing field for girls and women. But before we could set our sights on that goal, girls and women had to fight tooth and nail over many generations just to get a chance to access the playing field to begin with.
One of the many reasons girls and women's sports still aren't on an equal footing with boys's and men's sports even in 2023 is because for generations, girls and women weren't allowed to get our foot in the door.
It's also disingenuous to to speak about segregation based on sex, race, orientation, etc etc in one breath as though the different characteristics you lumped together are analgous - and as though race/ethnicity and sexual orientation are at issue here.
In sports, it's long been widely-agreed that the appropriate dividing lines for separating particpants and competitors into different categories are sex, age, skill level, physical disability/disability - and in some cases like wrestling and boxing, weight.
AFAIK, no one on this thread - or anywhere else - is seriously advocating that sports be segregated by race/ethnicity/skin color, sexual orientation, religion, poltical views, etc. Though some people are advocating that sports be segregated by gender identity; that new categories be added for some novel gender identities (non-binary, and trans); and that male athletes who claim opposite-sex gender identities be allowed to compete in the female category.
If you want to make the case that there's no legitimate reason to have separate sports divisions based on athletes' sex, then have at it. But if you're serious about persuading others to come around to your view that mixing both sexes together is the fairest, safest and wisest approach, you're going to have to provide some evidence-backed arguments to support your position. Using disingenuous framing and throwing around a bunch of stock phrases, buzzwords and slogans that give lip service to "fairness for all" while actually promoting unfairness for female people won't do the trick.
RunRagged, thank you for your thoughts on this. I appreciate your passion.
We agree that encouraging more females into sports was (and is) a good thing. Females (nor anyone else) should ever be excluded. We may not necessarily agree on the path to get there. If you agree that a special category for females is unnecessary, then we agree. That is where my "guaranteeing specific outcomes" statement comes from (which is a result of the extra category).
I am not being disingenuous to add the additional differentiators that divide us. The point I am making is that ALL should be included. I would agree that the topic at hand is about sex and not race and sexual orientation, but I am surprised that you do not recognize how these other groups have been marginalized and excluded in the past as well. So, let's get it right, finally.
I don't know what to say about reaching your standard of evidence for a common-sense argument. Anecdotally, while I am confident in my athletic ability, there is not a single NFL team that would allow me to play one down. 1) There is a process for everyone to get on the field, 2) I would be no good in comparison to those people, and 3) It would be dangerous for me! The same would be the case for any female participating in an athletic environment that would be considered unsafe. It would be evident.
Regardless of how it was done, I am glad females have been included in sport and now have the open invitation and opportunity to compete as high as they (or anyone) can reach, recognizing that there are genetic factors that would make it difficult to reach the highest levels. Having 1 category for "person" would be fair and inclusive for all.
As see it, the call to eliminate the female category and make everyone participate and compete in one mixed-sex category under the guise of "fairness for all" is just a new way for male supremacists and plain old cheats to try to rig sports in order to benefit male people and screw over female people. The "male privilege" inherent to this position is old hat - what's new is the dishonesty, sneakiness and phony moral rectictude it's cloaked in.
In the old days, fellas used to support rigging sports and many other things in their favor by saying male human beings are inherently better, of greater value and more deserving than female people are. Now brogressives who push for male supremacist systems in sports and other fields like Fairness in Opportunity is doing like to cloak themselves in mantles of sanctiomony and make claims of Solomonic wisdom by claiming that the cockamamie, sexist proposals they put forward are fair and square, on the up and up, and "for the greater good" because they supposedly "provide everyone with inclusion and opportunity."
FiO says he's against "quotas for awards" and "contrived achievements," but the reality is that the approach to sports he advocates would create new de facto awards quotas and contrived achievements for males - and only males, or almost entirely males with the exception of a few extraordinary female athletes every once in a while. Making all sports mixed-sex would have the surefire effect of advantaging and benefitting male people over female people - and the end result would be excluding the vast majority of female people not just from winners podiums, but from competition and participation in the first place.
Indeed, the approach FiO says is "fair for all" is the perfect way of insuring that male people are back in the proverbial catbird seat once - and they get to keep it all to themselves.
Why are you writing to me in the 3rd person? Are we debating in front of some audience? (lol)
I don't know what I can say about your accusation of being a "male supremacist", looking to screw over females with new levels of dishonesty, sneakiness, and phony moral rectitude. I am trying to be as honest and forthcoming as possible.
It is true that societies have had in-groups who have treated out-groups poorly in all manner of ways.
I have not said "for the greater good". I would, but it is a loaded phrase. :)
How would someone who bests everyone in a competition earn a "contrived achievement".
I disagree with the statement "Making all sports mixed-sex would have the surefire effect of advantaging and benefitting male people over female people - and the end result would be excluding the vast majority of female people not just from winners podiums, but from competition and participation in the first place." At the very least, you can't know this. Regardless, I do believe that male people do have an advantage physically, but I also believe female people have inherent advantages. All people have incredible worth. Anyone trying to find / define their value through athletic achievement will not be ultimately satisfied even if they win everything.
One cannot "erase" another person with words. I do not cease to exist simply because somebody does not view me the way I prefer to view myself.
You are not saying you don't view certain people the way they prefer to view themselves.
You are saying either some people simply don't exist, or some people don't deserve to exist because their mere existence contradicts your ideology.
I might add that it's quite ironic some transphobes are claiming women are erased by trans people.
The so-called "transphobes" aren't arguing that trans people are literally erasing women. They're arguing that replacing sex with gender in law and social discourse logically leads to the erasure of women as a coherent category in said laws and policies. They also believe that women, whom they define as adult human females, exist as a distinct type of person regardless social and cultural context. In other words, they are an incontestable fact of human existence.
There's also a huge difference between saying some people call themselves non-binary (nobody disagrees with this) and saying that all other people in a society have to agree to view the world through the same prism as those people, and furthermore, all members of that society have to define themselves according to the terms set forth by trans and non-binary people. Disagreeing with people and saying that their ideology is harmful to society is not the same thing as saying that the people do not deserve to exist.
The biggest issue here is that we have groups of people (postmodern identitarians) whose entire sense of self is filtered through a contested political ideology. They experience political disagreement as an existential threat. They respond with totalitarian tactics but belive they're the harbingers of liberation.
I don't think you're trying to be manipulative, but your arguments come off that way, and I think it's because the ideology you're defending is contradictory. There's no way to rationally defend it without moving the goal posts and twisting words and intentions.
I don't think you're trying to be manipulative, but your arguments come off that way, and I think it's because the ideology you're defending is contradictory. There's no way to rationally defend it without moving the goal posts and twisting words and intentions.
What is the "ideology" that I am defending?
That human sex is not binary?
That intersex people exist and deserve to exist?
That there are more than one way to determine a person's "biological sex"?
The biggest issue here is that we have groups of people (postmodern identitarians) whose entire sense of self is filtered through a contested political ideology. They experience political disagreement as an existential threat. They respond with totalitarian tactics but belive they're the harbingers of liberation.
BTW, I am NOT a postmodern identarian. So I don't know why you continue to insist that I am. Isn't that the very definition of twisting other people's words and being manipulative?
Do you believe that anyone who disagrees with GD must agree among themselves? Has it ever occurred to you that two people who both disagree with you actually may not agree with each other?
As this is a running site to put into a running context..
There would not be one female competing at the Olympics in athletics if we didn't split by gender ... But there would be athletes with various heights and weights..
So to be fair and give females a chance it's a pretty common sense place to create a category so they can also compete.. Especially considering it's around 50 percent of the population
The women's marathon world record holder would very likely could make the US team.
If Assefa were American she would actually get out of comp drug tested and would be not be making any teams.
The biggest issue here is that we have groups of people (postmodern identitarians) whose entire sense of self is filtered through a contested political ideology. They experience political disagreement as an existential threat. They respond with totalitarian tactics but belive they're the harbingers of liberation.
BTW, I am NOT a postmodern identarian. So I don't know why you continue to insist that I am. Isn't that the very definition of twisting other people's words and being manipulative?
Do you believe that anyone who disagrees with GD must agree among themselves? Has it ever occurred to you that two people who both disagree with you actually may not agree with each other?
I call you a postmodern identitatrian because your posts are saturated with these ideas. I'm not saying you read up on these theories or explicitly endorse them.
One core idea in postmodernism is that language creates reality. You stated that people are erasing others' existence because they don't view non-binary-identified people as a group that warrants their own category in sport and major social institutions. I can't think of many positions more postmodern that that.
I must be a transphobe. Whatever that thing in the picture on page 1 of this thread is, is frightening!
your comment sucks. And comments like this undermine people who really want to see policies in place that protect women's sports and all sporting categories because it makes it look like people who want to see these policies enacted would also say stuff like this.
Also, I don't like to comment on appearance, but whatever you think about the situation, this is an objectively good looking individual.
Ultimately, what Cal is trying to argue for is special treatment, and they are spinning the facts around to make it seem like they are being banned for being trans, which is NOT true here. The reality is Cal competes in races for prize money and has sponsorships. They also take testosterone, a banned substance without properly informing USADA of doing so, and so USADA is following up because they were duly notified of an athlete breaking the rules.
Had Cal sought a TUE the way they should have done in the first place, this wouldn't be happening. But they did not, and like any athlete who takes a banned drug without a TUE, they are facing the consequences. Honestly Cal is lucky they still have a chance to run Chicago at all and isn't currently serving a ban.
Set the t-level limit for non-binary division. Require all athletes taking exogenous testosterone to apply for TUE. And test every runner eligible for prize money.
Honestly, I don't think nonbinary runners should get prize money unless they can finish faster than the women in corresponding places. And the size of prize money should be proportional to the size of participants.
No, this not the answer. There should be two categories, biological women and open. If you're not a biological women, you can compete in open. No one should be able to take testosterone and be eligible for prizes.
You are not saying you don't view certain people the way they prefer to view themselves.
You are saying either some people simply don't exist, or some people don't deserve to exist because their mere existence contradicts your ideology.
I might add that it's quite ironic some transphobes are claiming women are erased by trans people.
The so-called "transphobes" aren't arguing that trans people are literally erasing women. They're arguing that replacing sex with gender in law and social discourse logically leads to the erasure of women as a coherent category in said laws and policies. They also believe that women, whom they define as adult human females, exist as a distinct type of person regardless social and cultural context. In other words, they are an incontestable fact of human existence.
You really don’t see the irony in what you write, do you? The trans folks have an exactly analogous argument for their figurative erasure. You just don’t believe in their legitimacy.