Transgender stuff - what's going on?

[Moo]

1 hour ago, Duff Man said:

You said the guidelines weren't stringent enough. Are you basing that solely on the concerns of female athletes? That doesn't sound very scientific, and is at odds with your view that "it should be researched and addressed fully", not to mention historical precedent.

 

And the issue has been researched, by people qualified to do so. If you disagree with them, fine, but to be taken seriously your argument needs to have a little bit more weight than "female athletes are concerned", which, by the way, isn't even an opinion that's held universally among other female athletes.

If you read my post that clearly wasn't my only concern, I also mentioned the testosterone levels and asked why this aspect should not be of concern. 

I would like to do some more research, particularly finding a balanced argument as what I've read so far appears to, scientifically, weigh in favour of female athletes with concerns.

At the moment you seem to be very dismissive of those concerns, maybe you could point to some articles backing up your stance if it's not too much trouble? Honestly I would happily read them with an open mind. 

Maybe you could also acknowledge that the current IOC guidelines have not been in place for 16 years, but actually only 4 years at which point they were relaxed?  Or correct me if I am wrong. 

 

[Moo]

33 minutes ago, TK421 said:

Duff Man for Prime Minister.  Absolutely destroying all and sundry on this thread with indefatigable logic.

I know there's a number of aspects to Duff Man's stance, but I don't see the logic in arguing that 16 year old guidelines seem to be working when they're actually only 4 years old. 

Nor the logic in dismissing "visibility matters" when history shows that it leads to more visibility, more integration, more acceptance, and more participation. 

 

(Again happy to be proven wrong as I'm no scholar on the subject, but would like to think this forum is not the type where you're only allowed to debate and ask questions if you're an expert)

[VladimirIlyich]

Can a person who has grown through puberty and into their 20s or 30s lose all their masculinity with hormone treatment? Wouldn't that be their advantage,20+ years as a physically and athletically stronger gender?

[Duff Man]

33 minutes ago, Moo said:

If you read my post that clearly wasn't my only concern, I also mentioned the testosterone levels and asked why this aspect should not be of concern. 

I would like to do some more research, particularly finding a balanced argument as what I've read so far appears to, scientifically, weigh in favour of female athletes with concerns.

At the moment you seem to be very dismissive of those concerns, maybe you could point to some articles backing up your stance if it's not too much trouble? Honestly I would happily read them with an open mind. 

Maybe you could also acknowledge that the current IOC guidelines have not been in place for 16 years, but actually only 4 years at which point they were relaxed?  Or correct me if I am wrong. 

 

I'm clearly pissing in the wind here. You're admitting you haven't done much research, which is patently obvious, and yet you disagree with the conclusions of panels of experts who've been looking at this issue since 1990 because "some athletes have concerns" and "what I've read so far appears to, scientifically, weigh in favour [of those] concerns". That's just absurd. 30 years of expert research and analysis, as opposed to your 5 minutes on Google.

 

Re the guidelines, yes, they were changed in 2016 to reduce the minimum period an athlete must undergo hormone treatment prior to eligibility for competition from 24 months to 12. This was based on scientific consensus that impact on performance is the same. The only other changes were none performance affecting, and so not relevant to this discussion.

[moof]

53 minutes ago, 3 Stacks said:

Very self-aware on your part, there.

Yes, well done 

[Pureblood]

4 minutes ago, Moo said:

I know there's a number of aspects to Duff Man's stance, but I don't see the logic in arguing that 16 year old guidelines seem to be working when they're actually only 4 years old. 

Nor the logic in dismissing "visibility matters" when history shows that it leads to more visibility, more integration, more acceptance, and more participation. 

 

(Again happy to be proven wrong as I'm no scholar on the subject, but would like to think this forum is not the type where you're only allowed to debate and ask questions if you're an expert)

I know nothing about this, but it has taken me approximately three seconds to establish that the 2016 guidelines were a modification of the 2003 guidelines, and not an entirely new set of rules, which is the inference that could be reasonably drawn from your statement that they're "only 4 years old". 

 

You also seem keen to leap to the conclusion that the modification of the rules was politically motivated, rather than being based upon scientific research.  

[Moo]

4 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

I'm clearly pissing in the wind here. You're admitting you haven't done much research, which is patently obvious, and yet you disagree with the conclusions of panels of experts who've been looking at this issue since 1990 because "some athletes have concerns" and "what I've read so far appears to, scientifically, weigh in favour [of those] concerns". That's just absurd. 30 years of expert research and analysis, as opposed to your 5 minutes on Google.

 

Re the guidelines, yes, they were changed in 2016 to reduce the minimum period an athlete must undergo hormone treatment prior to eligibility for competition from 24 months to 12. This was based on scientific consensus that impact on performance is the same. The only other changes were none performance affecting, and so not relevant to this discussion.

You're wrong sorry, you might feel you're pissing in the wind, but I have never said I disagree with the conclusions of panels of experts, that is an untruth.   Indeed I have asked to be pointed in the right direction of this research.  You don't want to engage? Fine. 

 

I've read that in 2003 the IOC criteria were:

• testes removal at least two years before competing;
• legal status as female;
• hormones in line with female profiles.

In 2015 they were updated as follows:

• jettisoning the surgical requirement;
• swapping legal female status for a sworn declaration;
• and requiring 12 months of ‘low testosterone’ at a maximum threshold way exceeding typical female levels

 

If that's incorrect say so.  Or just carry on sneering. 

 

[Moo]

3 minutes ago, TK421 said:

I know nothing about this, but it has taken me approximately three seconds to establish that the 2016 guidelines were a modification of the 2003 guidelines, and not an entirely new set of rules, which is the inference that could be reasonably drawn from your statement that they're "only 4 years old". 

 

You also seem keen to leap to the conclusion that the modification of the rules was politically motivated, rather than being based upon scientific research.  

See my post above regarding the change from 2003 guidelines to 2015 (was there a further amendment in 2016 perhaps?)

 

I have jumped to no conclusions about it being a politically motivated change, I just said that's what I'd read and that I'd look for articles to debunk this. 

 

 

[Duff Man]

10 minutes ago, Moo said:

You're wrong sorry, you might feel you're pissing in the wind, but I have never said I disagree with the conclusions of panels of experts, that is an untruth

You said the guidelines weren't stringent enough. The guidelines were drawn up by the panel of experts. That means you disagree with them. I can't believe I just had to type that.

 

10 minutes ago, Moo said:

...

If that's incorrect say so.  Or just carry on sneering. 

 

It isn't, but as I explained earlier, in terms of performance affecting changes, there's no difference. This is pointless, so I'm gonna bow out.

[Josef Svejk]

Can we get back on subject?

 

[Moo]

5 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

You said the guidelines weren't stringent enough. The guidelines were drawn up by the panel of experts. That means you disagree with them. I can't believe I just had to type that.

 

It isn't, but as I explained earlier, in terms of performance affecting changes, there's no difference. This is pointless, so I'm gonna bow out.

That's a bit of a leap seeing as though I've read that some experts agree with the findings of the science but disagree with the guidelines.  

I'm happy to be educated in this area but not happy to have views ascribed to me that aren't entirely accurate. 

You don't want to engage, fine. 

 

Regarding performance affecting changes to the guidelines, I'm interested to know how testosterone levels do not affect performance?   

You don't want to engage, fine. 

 

Will carry on reading. 

 

 

[Moo]

An interesting recent interview with Martina Navratilova, I think it was originally in The Times:

https://www.peaktrans.org/martina-navratilova-on-wimbledon-and-why-she-wont-be-silenced-in-the-trans-sport-debate-the-sunday-times-07-07-19/

 

I'm not taking Navratilova's opinion on this as definitive, but this article jumped out on my search and I thought it would be interesting to share.  Hoping my reading will link to more scientific findings and assessments. 

[Rico1304]

I think there’s a group of trans athletes who think that the rules on testosterone are too harsh as reducing its levels has serious health consequences for those not wishing to transition.  The Aussie rules footballer is one.  

[Rico1304]

Here’s an interesting article with links to others 

 

https://www.outsports.com/2019/4/11/18296976/trans-athlete-fair-sports-rules-lgbtq-fairness

[Rico1304]

Another view

 

https://fairplayforwomen.com/emma_hilton/

[Fugitive]

Imagine if Mike Tyson at his peak decided to become Michelle Tyson and started fighting women.

 

Im not sure that would have been fair or safe.

[moof]

Imagine if Godzilla identified as a broomstick and decided to compete in the quidditch World Cup 

[Moo]

Thanks to Rico.   

I've read both of those and the latter one seems to have it's basis in the science, I'd be interested to read a similarly scientific evaluation presenting the opposite view. 

So far I've not found one but that's Google taking me on a journey. 

 

I've read a couple of articles that imply, or state, that trans rights are more important than our preconceived idea of fairness.  I do have sympathy with that view but competitive sport might become meaningless without appropriate rules on what's "fair" (a long held view, see mine and many other posts on the FF regarding a certain sporting team competing with financial doping). 

 

Will continue reading. 

[Fugitive]

Just now, moof said:

Imagine if Godzilla identified as a broomstick and decided to compete in the quidditch World Cup 

I’ve just imagined it and Katy Perry was straddling Godzilla wearing nothing but a cheeky smile whilst stroking her nipples and shouting expelliarmus.

[Rico1304]

7 minutes ago, Fugitive said:

Imagine if Mike Tyson at his peak decided to become Michelle Tyson and started fighting women.

 

Im not sure that would have been fair or safe.

I think he did. 

[Moo]

3 minutes ago, moof said:

Imagine if Godzilla identified as a broomstick and decided to compete in the quidditch World Cup 

I get it, people are talking in hypootheticals which might never happen, but is it such a terrible thing to have the debate now rather than later? 

[Babb'sBurstNad]

13 minutes ago, Fugitive said:

Imagine if Mike Tyson at his peak decided to become Michelle Tyson and started fighting women.

 

Im not sure that would have been fair or safe.

Ironing Michelle Tyson? *

 

*postmodern sexism, so it's alright.

[Josef Svejk]

3 hours ago, Fugitive said:

Imagine if Mike Tyson at his peak decided to become Michelle Tyson and started fighting women.

Presumably managed by:

 

[Strontium]

Extraordinary stuff

 

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/there-are-only-losers-in-the-sad-saga-of-jessica-yaniv/

[Josef Svejk]

"Wax my balls, dirty immigrant bitch. I've decided to be a lady."