Transgender Thread.

[Danoff]

Or you could just abolish the whole gender thing and have skill classes. Yeah, in some sports it's gonna be super hard for women to compete at the very highest level, but heaps of people seem to enjoy being competitive in local or national sports which co-exist with international competition just fine.

Maybe we could just be OK with the idea that men and women are not exactly the same. Maybe while everyone should get to compete, maybe it's not as valuable as we think to be creating artificial rules so that everyone can be a winner. Competition is very much not about homogeneity. It's about finding your level, then striving to be better.

Or we could just do away with professional sports altogether. I mean, not as many people would compete, and maybe it's not as valuable as we think creating artificial sports that people can win at. How pointless is it that we group off all these different "sports" so that we can give everyone a medal?

The thing is, we do want to see who is best among the female athletes. Allowing people who went through male puberty to compete as females is preventing that demand from being met. The reason that lightweight classes exist is not because we want everyone to have a chance to win, it's because people are interested in who can win within that group. It's a different group with different competition that plays out differently. Not everyone wants to watch the heavyweight match, some people like the lightweight match dynamics. And the same goes for women's sport. It's a different dynamic, and we like seeing how that plays out.

The easier solution to this is not to end the women's group, it's to not let people who have gone through male puberty compete as women (unless it can be shown that there is no advantage in that sport).

The solution of "let's just do away with the women's group" is a bit dismissive of how we ended up with a women's group in the first place. If it were nearly valueless, ok fine let's just do away with it so we don't have to waste time with this problem. But since it is valuable, let's find a good solution so that we don't end up with people who went through male puberty dominating a bunch women's events, because it defeats the whole point of the group.

 

[zzz_pt]

Unless you picked something other than testosterone to base this sexual selection on. Like, say, anyone with a Y chromosome. I'm not saying that that's a particularly good way either, but testosterone testing or free-for-all is a false dichotomy.

Or you could just abolish the whole gender thing and have skill classes. Yeah, in some sports it's gonna be super hard for women to compete at the very highest level, but heaps of people seem to enjoy being competitive in local or national sports which co-exist with international competition just fine.

Maybe we could just be OK with the idea that men and women are not exactly the same. Maybe while everyone should get to compete, maybe it's not as valuable as we think to be creating artificial rules so that everyone can be a winner. Competition is very much not about homogeneity. It's about finding your level, then striving to be better.

Wouldn't a rule based on chromosomes ban transgender people (or most of them) from professional, comepetitive sports entirely? Or would, say, a transgender woman be forced to compete against men because she lacked a Y chromosome, even if she identified as a woman and had gone through the transition process during puberty?

As much as testosterone levels bring their own set of issues, it seems to me to be better than a system based on chromosomes.

I also believe women wouldn't have a hard time only in some sports, but in pretty much every sport. Sure, in small local tournamenttournaments where the elites don't compete women and men often compete together and have fun. But those are not professional elite athletes I think, and don't win their money with competition.

I don't know what the best solution is. Maybe there isn't a best solution, only half decent ones for the majority of the athletes.

 

[PocketZeven]

Why are you trying to ensure a level playing field? That's totally the opposite to what professional sports are for; competing to find the best team/individual/whatever. The whole idea is that the competition is fair with the explicit exception of the competitors. The point is to identify which of the definitely not equal competitors is the best.

Lewis Hamilton is not expected to physically or mentally handicap himself in order to compete with whoever is the latest trust fund baby on the grid. Usain Bolt does not give head starts to his competitors. Roger Federer doesn't play with a ping pong paddle to give the other side a chance. LeBron James doesn't tie his shoelaces together so that the opponent might score.

The rules and arena for play are supposed to be equal. The competitors are not.



Unless you picked something other than testosterone to base this sexual selection on. Like, say, anyone with a Y chromosome. I'm not saying that that's a particularly good way either, but testosterone testing or free-for-all is a false dichotomy.

Or you could just abolish the whole gender thing and have skill classes. Yeah, in some sports it's gonna be super hard for women to compete at the very highest level, but heaps of people seem to enjoy being competitive in local or national sports which co-exist with international competition just fine.

Maybe we could just be OK with the idea that men and women are not exactly the same. Maybe while everyone should get to compete, maybe it's not as valuable as we think to be creating artificial rules so that everyone can be a winner. Competition is very much not about homogeneity. It's about finding your level, then striving to be better.

There is a reason why there are weightclasses in a lot of sports. Your examples have nothing to do with the absence of a level playing field. I was speaking about the topic in this thread. About how transgenders are allowed to compete and especially transgender females.

 

[Imari]

Wouldn't a rule based on chromosomes ban transgender people (or most of them) from professional, comepetitive sports entirely?

It could, if it were written that way. It does not have to be written that way.

Or would, say, a transgender woman be forced to compete against men because she lacked a Y chromosome, even if she identified as a woman and had gone through the transition process during puberty?

It could, if it were written that way. It does not have to be written that way.

Wanna stop throwing strawmen at me now, please?

As much as testosterone levels bring their own set of issues, it seems to me to be better than a system based on chromosomes.

Quite, which is why I mentioned that a chromosome based method wasn't very good either. I was merely using it as an example that there were other options than testosterone or a free-for-all.

I also believe women wouldn't have a hard time only in some sports, but in pretty much every sport.

Maybe. If you define "having a hard time" as "not being the best in the world". But women's competitions exist specifically because women are not reasonably expected to compete physically with men, and thus will only ever be the best with the caveat "woman" added.

There is a reason why there are weightclasses in a lot of sports. Your examples have nothing to do with the absence of a level playing field. I was speaking about the topic in this thread. About how transgenders are allowed to compete and especially transgender females.

Yes, and you said that research into gender would ensure a level playing field. I asked why you were trying to level the athletes, which are very much not supposed to be equal.

The thing is, we do want to see who is best among the female athletes.

Do we? Who is "we" in this particular case? Because men's sports seem a whole lot more popular than women's sports at the moment. Who is to say that other types of divisions might not work better than gender?

Allowing people who went through male puberty to compete as females is preventing that demand from being met.

Possibly, although that depends on your definition of female.

You spoke before about the point being to see certain groups compete. What makes us choose one group over another as worthy of being codified into the professional sport? What makes gender such a worthwhile grouping, other than the cultural residue from the obvious historical segregation between men and women?

I mean, the phrase "professional women's sports" would have been a hilarious joke until not really that long ago.

The reason that lightweight classes exist is not because we want everyone to have a chance to win, it's because people are interested in who can win within that group. It's a different group with different competition that plays out differently. Not everyone wants to watch the heavyweight match, some people like the lightweight match dynamics. And the same goes for women's sport. It's a different dynamic, and we like seeing how that plays out.

Now you're starting to get it. But is it a women's sports dynamic? Or is a dynamic that would appear in the sport with any group of humans who were of that particular skill and athleticism?

I obviously think it's the latter, but I welcome evidence that suggests that a certain dynamic is only possible with participants of a specific sex. If nothing else, it would provide strong incentive as to how that sex might be defined for the purposes of the sport.

The solution of "let's just do away with the women's group" is a bit dismissive of how we ended up with a women's group in the first place.

Out of interest, how did we end up with a women's group in the first place? I'm not sure that how we got to where we are has any real bearing on where we go from here, but if you'd like to explain why it's relevant I'll take it into consideration.

If it were nearly valueless, ok fine let's just do away with it so we don't have to waste time with this problem. But since it is valuable, let's find a good solution so that we don't end up with people who went through male puberty dominating a bunch women's events, because it defeats the whole point of the group.

You're yet to convince me of it's value. You say it has value. You might want to establish that a bit more rigorously.

 

[zzz_pt]

It could, if it were written that way. It does not have to be written that way.
It could, if it were written that way. It does not have to be written that way.
Wanna stop throwing strawmen at me now, please?

I was not strawmanning. I simply asked those 2 questions because I don't see how you could make a chromossome based regulation that would improve things, especially for transgender athletes who are the main topic of discussion I guess. How would you write that rule?

 

[Danoff]

Do we? Who is "we" in this particular case?

The people that watch.

Because men's sports seem a whole lot more popular than women's sports at the moment. Who is to say that other types of divisions might not work better than gender?

They might, but then they'd get created. In this case, "work better" is meeting market demand.

Possibly, although that depends on your definition of female.

It does. Here's me speculating for a moment... the market demand doesn't exist because we want to see who is the best among the people consider themselves to be stereotypically female in attitude and personality. The market demand for female sports exists because we want to see who is the best among the people who are of a female body. And you have to go through puberty as a female to get one.

Otherwise why even bother with testosterone, why not just let the men compete as men, and then let the men identify as women and compete again... and let's just skip that last part since it would be redundant and just have everyone compete in the same grouping, thereby refusing to serve the market demand for female sports.

You see how this comes right back around on itself?

You spoke before about the point being to see certain groups compete. What makes us choose one group over another as worthy of being codified into the professional sport?

Demand.

What makes gender such a worthwhile grouping, other than the cultural residue from the obvious historical segregation between men and women?

Demand.

I mean, the phrase "professional women's sports" would have been a hilarious joke until not really that long ago.

Demand.

Now you're starting to get it. But is it a women's sports dynamic? Or is a dynamic that would appear in the sport with any group of humans who were of that particular skill and athleticism?

Obviously it's the latter... because there are weight classes in wrestling and boxing and probably martial arts (I have no idea). But that's caused by... demand.

I obviously think it's the latter, but I welcome evidence that suggests that a certain dynamic is only possible with participants of a specific sex. If nothing else, it would provide strong incentive as to how that sex might be defined for the purposes of the sport.

It's the latter, so no evidence will be forthcoming.

Out of interest, how did we end up with a women's group in the first place?

Demand.

I'm not sure that how we got to where we are has any real bearing on where we go from here, but if you'd like to explain why it's relevant I'll take it into consideration.

Since it's market demand, you see why it's relevant. Because we need a workable solution going forward that actually meets that demand. Otherwise it will get created on its own to meet that demand.

Make no mistake, there is a fairly inevitable conclusion here. I'm just trying to avoid an intervening period where we screw over career athletes while we sort it out.

You're yet to convince me of it's value. You say it has value. You might want to establish that a bit more rigorously.

Demand.

I don't need to establish that a product that exists to meet market demand has value, it's why the product was created and continues to exist. If demand calls for people who went through male puberty to start trouncing people who went through female puberty in sports, so be it, that's what the public wants to see. So far that doesn't seem to be the case. So far what people really want to see is someone with a male body competing with others who have male bodies, and someone with a female body competing against others who have female bodies. You might ask me how to define what a male body is and what a female body is, and I'm going to say that the best case I've seen made is to base that on hormones during puberty. When I say "male body" or "female body" here, I'm not talking about cultural norms or stereotypes. I'm talking about the basic physiological differences that result from different hormonal exposure during development.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I was thinking about this last night after watching that Vox video. If testosterone is the hormone in question, why not do away with sex-based classification and just go to a testosterone bracket classification? So women would almost entirely be in the lowest tier, men probably exclusively in the top tier, and a mix in the middle tier. Or maybe go for 4 bracket system. At least try it and see what happens. It would actually be cool to see, IMO.

 

[Danoff]

I was thinking about this last night after watching that Vox video. If testosterone is the hormone in question, why not do away with sex-based classification and just go to a testosterone bracket classification? So women would almost entirely be in the lowest tier, men probably exclusively in the top tier, and a mix in the middle tier. Or maybe go for 4 bracket system. At least try it and see what happens. It would actually be cool to see, IMO.

So how do you account for past testosterone exposure during development? Certainly there are (at least) two components for testosterone-based performance enhancement, one is current testosterone, and one is testosterone during puberty.

 

[zzz_pt]

I was thinking about this last night after watching that Vox video. If testosterone is the hormone in question, why not do away with sex-based classification and just go to a testosterone bracket classification? So women would almost entirely be in the lowest tier, men probably exclusively in the top tier, and a mix in the middle tier. Or maybe go for 4 bracket system. At least try it and see what happens. It would actually be cool to see, IMO.

Transgender female athletes, or even rare female athletes like Caster, who went through puberty with male levels of testosterone have developed physical attributes that don't disappear even if they have 0 levels of testosterone post cirgury or post medication. It would probably mean the "mid" category would be seen as weird/outcast because the competition would be between some transgender athletes, some women like Caster and some men with lower levels of testosterone, possibly.

I also don't see the comparison with weight classes being a good one. Athletes can gain and lose weight / muscle if they want to compete in lower or heavier classes. But taking testosterone is not permitted, as it works as a steroid. If you're an athlete who's just below the threshold to compete in the highest category (for testosterone classes), you can't make it into it by going to the gym, working hard, eat more and gain more weight.

Unless athletes could take testosterone injections (or through other methods) and still compete, I don't see it working.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

So how do you account for past testosterone exposure during development? Certainly there are (at least) two components for testosterone-based performance enhancement, one is current testosterone, and one is testosterone during puberty.

 

[Imari]

@Danoff

Laying everything at the feet of demand seems like a bit of a chicken and egg issue. There was no demand for popsicles before popsicles existed, because there were no popsicles to demand.

Perhaps under-13, left handed redhead girls rugby is the best sport in the whole world. We'd never know, because if there ever was a division like that it certainly wasn't widespread enough to accurately judge demand.

Which is my point. People are happy with what they currently have in sports, no question. However, I question that what we have now has been arrived at by a systematic appraisal of all possible systems and that this one was most in demand. As far as the gender thing, I think that's a carry over from the days when men played sports seriously and women maybe got to try sports sometimes too, the poor dears, when they're not busy making dinner. It worked well back when men and women were unequal both physically and socially. It remains popular enough, so why rock the boat?

To be fair, I don't think that current society is able to switch off it's sense of gender for long enough for a non-gendered sporting system to take hold, even if it were to be more entertaining. But I think it's an interesting solution to the "problem" of transgender athletes, simply make gender not a restriction.

I was not strawmanning. I simply asked those 2 questions because I don't see how you could make a chromossome based regulation that would improve things, especially for transgender athletes who are the main topic of discussion I guess. How would you write that rule?

Sigh. I wrote that it wasn't necessarily a good rule. Twice. I used it to point out that there are more than two options, something you still don't seem to get. Unless you think that testosterone testing and free-for-all are actually the two top candidates out of everything that could ever be tried, ever. Really? There's no chance there's something that could work better than those two?

 

[zzz_pt]

Sigh. I wrote that it wasn't necessarily a good rule. Twice. I used it to point out that there are more than two options, something you still don't seem to get. Unless you think that testosterone testing and free-for-all are actually the two top candidates out of everything that could ever be tried, ever. Really? There's no chance there's something that could work better than those two?

But you didn't answer the questions.

You also wrote this twice:

It could, if it were written that way. It does not have to be written that way.

But still didn't mention how exactly would you "write the rule" in order to not exclude transgender people.

Abolishing men and women's sports entirely? That doesn't seem like very good idea. I can already read the headlines and hear the screams of people calling the IAAF and other governing bodies sexist and misogynistic for getting rid of women's sports so men and transgender women can be the best at everything (or have the best shots at it).

 

[zzz_pt]

DP - for some reason my posts get duplicate when I do it from my phone.

 

[Dotini]

It seems the technology is becoming available for parents to determine the gender of their child. I suppose this includes all possible genders?

 

[Danoff]

@Danoff

Laying everything at the feet of demand seems like a bit of a chicken and egg issue. There was no demand for popsicles before popsicles existed, because there were no popsicles to demand.

Perhaps under-13, left handed redhead girls rugby is the best sport in the whole world. We'd never know, because if there ever was a division like that it certainly wasn't widespread enough to accurately judge demand.

Which is my point. People are happy with what they currently have in sports, no question. However, I question that what we have now has been arrived at by a systematic appraisal of all possible systems and that this one was most in demand. As far as the gender thing, I think that's a carry over from the days when men played sports seriously and women maybe got to try sports sometimes too, the poor dears, when they're not busy making dinner. It worked well back when men and women were unequal both physically and socially. It remains popular enough, so why rock the boat?

To be fair, I don't think that current society is able to switch off it's sense of gender for long enough for a non-gendered sporting system to take hold, even if it were to be more entertaining. But I think it's an interesting solution to the "problem" of transgender athletes, simply make gender not a restriction.

It's not more interesting to have the women competing against the men, it looks exactly like an all-men competition in almost every sport. You'd just be getting rid of the female bracket, and people do like the female bracket.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It seems the technology is becoming available for parents to determine the gender of their child. I suppose this includes all possible genders?

I think you mean the sex? Parents are already part of the development of a child's gender.

 

[PocketZeven]

Yes, and you said that research into gender would ensure a level playing field. I asked why you were trying to level the athletes, which are very much not supposed to be equal.

Not exactly what I posted. I was more referring to research in how hormones and genetics around sex, should play as a role in sports.

There is a misunderstanding here, what do you interpret as a level playing field?

 

[Danoff]

No, I am not downplaying the problem which you have actually brought to the forefront with your comments. MENTAL HEALTH is the issue and should be treated for what it is mental issues or deficiencies and efforts should be to correct the problem not catering to continuing or furthering the delusion and pretend world this person prefers to reside in at the expense and cost to the healthcare system for these individuals to pretend they are something they can never be or should be.

And do tell exactly what someone can be or should be.

Whether you like it or not gender is decided and assigned before actual birth, you are born either a male or female period

Are we going by chromosomes or genitalia here? Some common chromosome abnormalities include 45,X (Turner syndrome); 47,XXY (Klinefelter syndrome); 47,XYY (XYY syndrome); and 47,XXX. For genitalia there are all kinds of abnormalities, for example, hermaphrodites.

I tend to agree that there is a way to determine whether to classify someone as being born male or female, but it's not as easy or clean as you pretend.... or meaningful.

It is not about understanding other than the understanding that the people that have a problem with their gender is the actual problem is mental issues not physical ones and the mental issues should be addressed to bring the person back to the reality of their gender at birth not some pretend world their mind wants to place them.

That's a bit arbitrary don't you think? That the problem is with the head and not the body? I mean, we know bodies can have problems. You can be born without an arm or a leg, with two sets of genitalia, with varying chromosomal combinations... bodies cause and are susceptible to all kinds of problems. Brains too, but it's a bit simplistic to say that it's clear that one is a problem and the other is not.

If you're born with a nose you don't like, change it. Nobody seems to really take issue with this.

This is not the P/C attitude most want to hear in today's world but it is still the facts. You put lipstick on a pig well you still have a pig just like you put a dress on a male you still have a male.

Gonna go back to the very first post I made here.

According to you then, these are examples of what it is to be male. You seem to care a great deal to make sure that they're called "male". Why?

Really makes no difference if I look in my underwear the facts are I am a male whether I prefer to be or not to be.

Hopefully you see from the above why that's not the case. But regardless, let's pretend tomorrow that you got some illness or accident that required that your penis be removed. Are you still male?

 

[Rallywagon]

Ok, so, before I set off down the paths of this debate, let me first state my opinion on this subject. Abnormalities the such that Danoff has pointed out aside (exceptions always exist) you are born either male or female. Now, how someone feels about their body how they choose to dress, address themselves, even if they want surgery to become a different gender. That's on them. I can respect that. Gender rolls in modern society are social constructs. Constructs that are becoming more and more challenged. Women in combat sports particular. Womens MMA is exploding. It's great. I'm glad to see traditional roles being challenged.
Be who you want to be. It's your life. You do you.

@Danoff

Laying everything at the feet of demand seems like a bit of a chicken and egg issue. There was no demand for popsicles before popsicles existed, because there were no popsicles to demand.

Perhaps under-13, left handed redhead girls rugby is the best sport in the whole world. We'd never know, because if there ever was a division like that it certainly wasn't widespread enough to accurately judge demand.

Which is my point. People are happy with what they currently have in sports, no question. However, I question that what we have now has been arrived at by a systematic appraisal of all possible systems and that this one was most in demand. As far as the gender thing, I think that's a carry over from the days when men played sports seriously and women maybe got to try sports sometimes too, the poor dears, when they're not busy making dinner. It worked well back when men and women were unequal both physically and socially. It remains popular enough, so why rock the boat?

To be fair, I don't think that current society is able to switch off it's sense of gender for long enough for a non-gendered sporting system to take hold, even if it were to be more entertaining. But I think it's an interesting solution to the "problem" of transgender athletes, simply make gender not a restriction.



Sigh. I wrote that it wasn't necessarily a good rule. Twice. I used it to point out that there are more than two options, something you still don't seem to get. Unless you think that testosterone testing and free-for-all are actually the two top candidates out of everything that could ever be tried, ever. Really? There's no chance there's something that could work better than those two?

Yeah, see, no, this is where I diverge from the conversation. I absolutely do not agree that a natural born male should be competing with natural born females in most sports, especially sports that require strength over finesse, agility or endurance. Sports like MMA, hockey, football, weight lifting etc. Even some events in track and field. Could you imagine a killer like Cyborg fighting someone like Khabib, or Nunes fighting McGregor, simply because McGregor or Khabib because they wanted to identify as females? That's not right. Speaking simply on biology, women are not built like a man in that regard. Just because a natural born man feels they are a women, doesnt change the fact they were born male with all of the inherent body structure. Yes, exceptions exist, however, someone built like steve jobs isnt competing at a professional level in sports. However, we do have a few examples now of male athletes that have transitioned and are now competing, and destroying, in womens sports. To me, that is wrong. And in the world of say, boxing or MMA, its potentially very dangerous. I think in the case of sports, it might be wise to instead create a transgender league. At least that way you dont get a male body builder who comes in and destroys female set world records.

Edited to fix spelling

 

[TexRex]

"So you were born without the use of your legs? You think you should be able to use them? Maybe you need to get help moving past that MENTAL HEALTH issue instead of seeking treatment and procedures to gain the use of them."

 

[BobK]

Some common chromosome abnormalities include 45,X (Turner syndrome); 47,XXY (Klinefelter syndrome); 47,XYY (XYY syndrome); and 47,XXX.

I'm curious, just how common are things like this? What percentage of the population does not have either just an XX or XY chromosome pair?

 

[Danoff]

I'm curious, just how common are things like this? What percentage of the population does not have either just an XX or XY chromosome pair?

1:500 males for the most common Klinefelter. Turner is between 1:2000 and 1:5000 females. XYY is about 1:1000 births. XXX is about 1:1000 females.

As far as I know, those are the most common abnormalities.

 

[ryzno]

I got a good question, say you were given a Mustang(life/body), you don't like the engine/drivetrain(your body) and you want to LS swap it and all(obviously the subject at hand).

Should the previous owner pay for it(parents), the Ford or GM/Chevy dealer(insurance) or said person?

 

[MatskiMonk]

I got a good question

.. really? Where is it?

 

[ryzno]

.. really? Where is it?

In my post you quoted...

In this same thread I talked about the ECM, wiring harness and sensors having a possible problem resulting in "an error". It started a good conversation which I learned from.

I was posting this here since Danoff moved the subject from the 'healthcare for everyone' thread to here. It's actually pretty relevant to the conversation of who should pay.

I need to question liking your posts now. I recall giving you a few last night in the 'NASCAR driver said..........' thread...

I guess we don't agree on everything but we can have a civil discussion instead of dismissing it.

 

[Joey D]

Who should pay ultimately comes down to the insurance. If Blue Cross says it'll cover gender reassignment surgery, then I suspect it should cover it. If you personally don't agree with Blue Cross paying for it, then you can switch to Aetna or some other insurance that doesn't. But gender dysphoria is a legitimate health condition so insurance should probably cover since there's no scientific reason not to.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

Gonna go back to the very first post I made here.

According to you then, these are examples of what it is to be male. You seem to care a great deal to make sure that they're called "male". Why?

Unless they are born with verifiable female plumbing then they are not female. I do not care how much they play dress up, using makeup and tucking their male parts out of sight.

If they are born with male plumbing then that duck remains a duck no matter how it quacks! Saying it is not a duck but now a pig does not make it so.

 

[DesertPenguin]

.

 

[Joey D]

Unless they are born with verifiable female plumbing then they are not female. I do not care how much they play dress up, using makeup and tucking their male parts out of sight.

If they are born with male plumbing then that duck remains a duck no matter how it quacks! Saying it is not a duck but now a pig does not make it so.

So what about intersex people?

 

[MatskiMonk]

I guess we don't agree on everything but we can have a civil discussion instead of dismissing it.

Sorry, but it's a meaningless analogy. Nobody will benefit from a discussion about changing gender by talking about an engine swap in car. Undergoing major surgery because you feel, at your very core, that you were born into the wrong body, and every time you look in a mirror you feel like you are trapped in that situation is not AT ALL the same as wanting to stick an LS7 in a freebie 'stang. If you've a point to make, make it in context!

.. and 'like' whatever you like!