Transgender - Part 2

[Gethelred]

Please be aware that the tolerance of anti-trans language on BF is at an all-time low. Jokes and insults that are trans-related, as well as anti-trans and bigoted rhetoric will be met with infractions, threadbans etc as required. It's a sensitive (and important) topic, so behave like well-mannered adults when discussing it, PARTICULARLY when disagreeing. This equally applies across the whole site.

 

[faible]

They seem pretty confident in their research and decisions on the matter:

World Athletics Council decides on Russia, Belarus and female eligibility | PRESS-RELEASES | World Athletics

The World Athletics Council has today made a number of important decisions regarding the future participation of the Russian and Belarusian Member Federations in athletics, and the eligibility regulations for athletes who are transgender or who have Differences of Sexual Development

worldathletics.org

"In terms of DSD regulations, World Athletics has more than ten years of research and evidence of the physical advantages that these athletes bring to the female category."

Producing a study and being 'confident' in your decision aren't necessarily the same thing.

For example, regarding transgender athletes it seems they've basically made the decision to exclude them entirely based on the vibe:

It became apparent that there was little support within the sport for the option that was first presented to stakeholders, which required transgender athletes to maintain their testosterone levels below 2.5nmol/L for 24 months to be eligible to compete internationally in the female category.

 

[ShanDog]

Producing a study and being 'confident' in your decision aren't necessarily the same thing.

For example, regarding transgender athletes it seems they've basically made the decision to exclude them entirely based on the vibe:

By that same token, what onus is there on the athletics regulator to produce academic work?

The decision making on trans athletes definitely has more of a "It's the vibe" about it, but they also state that there's a lack of evidence at the moment. So I guess it came down to inclusion vs protection, and they opted for the latter until they learn otherwise.

 

[faible]

By that same token, what onus is there on the athletics regulator to produce academic work?

The decision making on trans athletes definitely has more of a "It's the vibe" about it, but they also state that there's a lack of evidence at the moment. So I guess it came down to inclusion vs protection, and they opted for the latter until they learn otherwise.

If they're making these kinds of regulations I'd have thought showing the scientific support and justification for them would be pretty important;

For DSD athletes, the new regulations will require any relevant athletes to reduce their testosterone levels below a limit of 2.5 nmol/L for a minimum of 24 months to compete internationally in the female category in any event, not just the events that were restricted (400m to one mile) under the previous regulations.

 

[ShanDog]

If they're making these kinds of regulations I'd have thought showing the scientific support and justification for them would be pretty important;

Yes - I'm questioning why it's up to the WAC (formerly IAAF) to produce the studies. That should be the realm of academia, even if the studies were commissioned by the WAC.

 

[faible]

Yes - I'm questioning why it's up to the WAC (formerly IAAF) to produce the studies. That should be the realm of academia, even if the studies were commissioned by the WAC.

They don't have to produce the studies themselves, as you said, they could commission someone else to do the studies, or they could refer to the studies they're using to justify their decisions. I assume kirsti would be fine if they commissioned a study to be done by an academic institution, or provided sources for the studies they're basing their decisions on.

IAAF introduces new eligibility regulations for female classification | PRESS-RELEASE | World Athletics

The IAAF this week issued new Eligibility Regulations [link] for Female Classification (Athlete with Differences of Sexual Development) for events from 400m to the mile, including 400m, hurdles races, 800m, 1500m, one mile races and combined events over the same distances (‘Restricted Events’).

worldathletics.org

“The latest research we have undertaken, and data we have compiled, show that there is a performance advantage in female athletes with DSD over the track distances covered by this rule,” said Dr Stephane Bermon from the IAAF Medical and Science Department.

This sounds a hell of a lot like they've (The IAAF Medical and Science department) done the research themselves.

World Athletics | Research Centre | Official Documents

<p>Final reports on scientific projects in the areas of biomechanics, coaching and development initiated by World Athletics, with help from the IAF (International Athletics Foundation)</p> <p>There is also a wealth of information in the <a href="https://worldathletics.org/nsa">New Studies in...

worldathletics.org

The research they refer to doesn't appear to be on this page, despite other scientific studies being there.

The relevant documents are available to download from the regulations section of this website.

World Athletics | Health & Science | Official Documents

<p>In this section you’ll find all scientific and medical information and publications relating to athletes’ health.</p> <p>Please note that the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) is responsible for administering Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs) for international level athletes. You can find out...

worldathletics.org

There is an explanatory notes document in this section relating to the eligibility regulations that has links to studies, but it appears a little murky when they start talking about DSD athletes performance specifically as to whether there's a study being referenced. I assume once again that kirsti has spent a lot more time and energy looking at this and would be more aware than I am as to what research is or isn't available based on my very quick look.

 

[Gralin]

You're lumping in trans and DSD athletes together, which is common, but they're different.

That was not my intention so if that is how it's read I apologise.

A lot of what you wrote is emotive arguments. Sport doesn't (just) exist on an emotive spectrum.

That doesn't mean they're bad arguments though. There is a history at play here and a lot of the attacks on both trans and intersex athletes is emotive in nature as well.

People have biases and this includes athletes themselves, talking about fairness and safety will encourage emotional responses, fear responses, anger etc

There's a very clear performance difference between biological men and biological women at the elite end, where you can assume - as much as is practicable - that we're dealing with equivalently talented and trained athletes.

Pathways start well before elite levels, societal and cultural acceptance plays a part, individual wealth of families with athletic kids, the country they are in etc

There is a lot that impacts the ability to reach the elite level beyond just pure ability. It's also pretty clear in 2024 that we're still not on an equal playing field in sports when it comes to funding.

There are a lot of professional sports where the men don't have to have day jobs to compete and the women still do, which like if we're talking the same "tier" of competition is an example of where there are still off field issues that can impact performance

and this includes elite levels

the gap seen may be the gap in reality if all things were equal but I don't think we're at the point yet where we can say that definitively and I'm not sure we'll ever get real parity

We therefore know that male puberty and all the changes that come with it, is the largest PED that exists. We also know that when you reduce testosterone levels in transgender athletes that the performance advantage declines, in many sports it would appear to decline to a level roughly similar to cisgender women, but there's limited good faith research in this area so in a lot of cases we don't really know the impact.

This is true, it is also true that to date we've not seen a trans woman at elite levels dominate

There was a lot of gnashing of teeth at Laurel Hubbards inclusion in the Tokyo Olympics if you remember.

She started transitioning in 2012 and competing in 2017, she was good and she won some regional competitions, then she came dead last in the Olympics after the big build up that she was going to unfairly dominate and medal

DSD conditions seem to exist somewhere between the two biological plateaus of performance, perhaps not dissimilar to a cisgender woman on steroids. Is there a genetic condition that effects men that improves performance that much?

Would we look for a condition that makes men better? As I said the policing of womens bodies in sport isn't new, and the policing of women of color in particular has a long history of exclusion built in due to the wider racism in western countries

My issue here I guess is a DSD does not automatically make someone a better athlete, a DSD does not automatically mean someone has gone through male puberty either or that they'd ever know they even had a DSD

But the treatment of DSD women as "cheats" has been around longer than the current focus on trans women.

And I think we're seeing a level of viciousness towards athletes with DSD that is driven by the anti trans movement which is pretty shit

I've never argued that Semenya - or anyone else - deserves the abuse levelled at her, so that's all pretty besides the point. If you want to discuss this stuff, perhaps you should actually discuss it instead of throwing a heap of mud at the wall? This is the kind of thing you'd get upset at others for doing.

I'm not suggesting you had said that, so again if you got that impression I apologise.

But people certainly do believe that which again goes back to that emotion stuff I was talking about.

 

[faible]

That was not my intention so if that is how it's read I apologise.



That doesn't mean they're bad arguments though. There is a history at play here and a lot of the attacks on both trans and intersex athletes is emotive in nature as well.

People have biases and this includes athletes themselves, talking about fairness and safety will encourage emotional responses, fear responses, anger etc



Pathways start well before elite levels, societal and cultural acceptance plays a part, individual wealth of families with athletic kids, the country they are in etc

There is a lot that impacts the ability to reach the elite level beyond just pure ability. It's also pretty clear in 2024 that we're still not on an equal playing field in sports when it comes to funding.

There are a lot of professional sports where the men don't have to have day jobs to compete and the women still do, which like if we're talking the same "tier" of competition is an example of where there are still off field issues that can impact performance

and this includes elite levels

the gap seen may be the gap in reality if all things were equal but I don't think we're at the point yet where we can say that definitively and I'm not sure we'll ever get real parity


This is true, it is also true that to date we've not seen a trans woman at elite levels dominate

There was a lot of gnashing of teeth at Laurel Hubbards inclusion in the Tokyo Olympics if you remember.

She started transitioning in 2012 and competing in 2017, she was good and she won some regional competitions, then she came dead last in the Olympics after the big build up that she was going to unfairly dominate and medal



Would we look for a condition that makes men better? As I said the policing of womens bodies in sport isn't new, and the policing of women of color in particular has a long history of exclusion built in due to the wider racism in western countries

My issue here I guess is a DSD does not automatically make someone a better athlete, a DSD does not automatically mean someone has gone through male puberty either or that they'd ever know they even had a DSD

But the treatment of DSD women as "cheats" has been around longer than the current focus on trans women.

And I think we're seeing a level of viciousness towards athletes with DSD that is driven by the anti trans movement which is pretty shit


I'm not suggesting you had said that, so again if you got that impression I apologise.

But people certainly do believe that which again goes back to that emotion stuff I was talking about.

I don't disagree that there's been unacceptable treatment towards athletes, whether they're trans, DSD, or just don't look feminine enough. None of the athletes deserve to be subject to that kind of treatment. That doesn't really address the performance issues that get raised though.

You can treat people with respect and dignity, whilst still recognising that in order to provide (as best as possible) a level playing field there's needs to be some level of restrictions or limitations.

If we completely removed categories of any description, the vast majority of sports would simply see women vanish from the elite level. So we have a women's category to avoid that. The men's category is effectively the 'open' category where there's no real restrictions other than not loading up on PEDs (at least in WADA sanctioned competitions). There's not the same element of protection of the men's category because AFAIK there's simply not conditions that exist that provide this massive performance advantage - I do have a vague recollection of a skiier going back a ways (might have been Finnish) with a condition that leads to him having an unusually high hematocrit level that would otherwise be associated with EPO use.

If you look at sports like athletics or swimming, we pretty much know the sex performance gap. From memory it's ~ 13%. There's not such a discrepancy in talent, training or pathways that we're going to see that drastically close at this point. Running in particular doesn't have a massive technical component or cost barrier than creates a pay-to-play environment, thus why the East African nations are so strongly represented despite not having the advantage of the US College pathways or similar. You're seeing clear physiological limitations and the 400 / 800m women's WRs from the 80s show you the gap between loading up women on steroids and women presumably not loaded up on them, almost 40 years of training and technological improvements haven't caught back up to where they were, let alone closed the gap to mens' performances.

A DSD won't make someone an elite athlete any more than being a male will make someone an elite athlete. But there's a performance ceiling that exists for biological women that is distinct from where it sits for biological men, so some level of protectionism is necessary in order for women's elite sport to exist as a genuine activity and not just the novelty Lingerie Football League type thing (where they're actually good athletes but that's almost certainly not why people would have watched it).

At a community level where participation is a key metric and sport often exists more as a social activity then favouring inclusion is fine, at the higher levels where performance is the key metric, inclusion is IMO not necessarily the appropriate strategy to take. A lot of kirsti's research appears to be around how much advantage exists at various stages of transition, and ultimately, can transgender women be reasonably (and safely for the health of those transgender athletes given the downsides of messing with hormone levels) included in elite competitions whilst maintaining that level of fairness for as many athletes as possible.

DSD athletes like Semenya get caught up in the discussion even though they're different, Semenya has AFAIK always been a woman, has never believed herself to be anything else, but appears to have XY chromosomes and testosterone levels a few standard deviations above that of an XX athlete. If we tried to simplify it somewhat and classify it on biological sex and not gender, where would she have been competing? Would she have been an elite runner were it not for her DSD? Is DSD simply another 'genetic lottery advantage' like having long arms, or being tall, or is it such an insurmountable advantage that it needs to be treated like sex?

 

[Gralin]

I don't disagree that there's been unacceptable treatment towards athletes, whether they're trans, DSD, or just don't look feminine enough. None of the athletes deserve to be subject to that kind of treatment. That doesn't really address the performance issues that get raised though.

You can treat people with respect and dignity, whilst still recognising that in order to provide (as best as possible) a level playing field there's needs to be some level of restrictions or limitations.

Agree with all of this

If we completely removed categories of any description, the vast majority of sports would simply see women vanish from the elite level. So we have a women's category to avoid that. The men's category is effectively the 'open' category where there's no real restrictions other than not loading up on PEDs (at least in WADA sanctioned competitions). There's not the same element of protection of the men's category because AFAIK there's simply not conditions that exist that provide this massive performance advantage - I do have a vague recollection of a skiier going back a ways (might have been Finnish) with a condition that leads to him having an unusually high hematocrit level that would otherwise be associated with EPO use.

not only that things like weightlifting would just have the heaviest competitors
there are already inclusive elements in how categories are setup even in mens competitions

some sports have them some don't, some have more of a need for them as well

If you look at sports like athletics or swimming, we pretty much know the sex performance gap. From memory it's ~ 13%. There's not such a discrepancy in talent, training or pathways that we're going to see that drastically close at this point. Running in particular doesn't have a massive technical component or cost barrier than creates a pay-to-play environment, thus why the East African nations are so strongly represented despite not having the advantage of the US College pathways or similar. You're seeing clear physiological limitations and the 400 / 800m women's WRs from the 80s show you the gap between loading up women on steroids and women presumably not loaded up on them, almost 40 years of training and technological improvements haven't caught back up to where they were, let alone closed the gap to mens' performances.

yes some sports are more about measurable raw physical talent than others

A DSD won't make someone an elite athlete any more than being a male will make someone an elite athlete. But there's a performance ceiling that exists for biological women that is distinct from where it sits for biological men, so some level of protectionism is necessary in order for women's elite sport to exist as a genuine activity and not just the novelty Lingerie Football League type thing (where they're actually good athletes but that's almost certainly not why people would have watched it).

I think the issue currently is that the assumption in all cases seems to be that there is an unfair advantage, that the only reason someone is successful if they have a DSD or they are trans is because of male puberty, regardless of whether that individual experienced it or not

I also think that there is a large section of the community that thinks the bold is always true when it comes to men vs women competing

ie that a random dude off the street could dominate elite womens sports

as ridiculous as that is there is a decent chunk of people that believe this and it shows up in this issue

At a community level where participation is a key metric and sport often exists more as a social activity then favouring inclusion is fine, at the higher levels where performance is the key metric, inclusion is IMO not necessarily the appropriate strategy to take. A lot of kirsti's research appears to be around how much advantage exists at various stages of transition, and ultimately, can transgender women be reasonably (and safely for the health of those transgender athletes given the downsides of messing with hormone levels) included in elite competitions whilst maintaining that level of fairness for as many athletes as possible.

and for elite levels this sort of research is crucial because without it we're just going on the vibe and as mentioned above, the vibe for a lot of people isn't based in reality

I also thin its worth remembering that a lot of people arguing against inclusion in sport are arguing all the way down to community level, we've seen it in this thread, we've seen it in the media where a local womens soccer league in Sydney is making headlines around the world for having trans women on a successful team

we've seen it with bans for sports like chess

and I think the issue with a lot of the bans at the moment is they say "based on science and research" which they either don't release or when they do it's a single study that is usually comparing cis men to cis women in that sport as an analog for trans women's potential performance

DSD athletes like Semenya get caught up in the discussion even though they're different, Semenya has AFAIK always been a woman, has never believed herself to be anything else, but appears to have XY chromosomes and testosterone levels a few standard deviations above that of an XX athlete. If we tried to simplify it somewhat and classify it on biological sex and not gender, where would she have been competing? Would she have been an elite runner were it not for her DSD? Is DSD simply another 'genetic lottery advantage' like having long arms, or being tall, or is it such an insurmountable advantage that it needs to be treated like sex?

I think the discussion that already existed for athletes like Semenya has just been absorbed into this one

We saw it with Khelif in that you had prominent anti trans voices saying all the same stuff they say about trans women about her.

There was literally no difference in how they approached the possibility of Khelif having a DSD than how they approach trans women wanting to compete.

 

[ShanDog]

I think the issue currently is that the assumption in all cases seems to be that there is an unfair advantage, that the only reason someone is successful if they have a DSD or they are trans is because of male puberty, regardless of whether that individual experienced it or not

There's a big disconnect between the science of DSDs and the public's general understanding of them, and probably a similar degree of misunderstanding regarding trans people's experiences. That will only change with time and, unfortunately for the people caught up in these media storms, more exposure to them.

You are exactly right here - not all DSDs and not all trans women will have experienced puberty. That's also why organisations like the IOC need to take some ownership of the situation and not simply say, "Well, it says F on the passport so... There can't be any further issue here!" The sporting governing bodies need to assess exactly what male puberty means for performance in their particular sport and then be very clear with the rules of participation for each type of DSD and pathway that a trans person may have taken to get there. This has started, I think, but needs a lot more work - the chess example you gave is a good one, and as strange as it might sound coming from me, I think the AFL should rethink their policy on trans women, as even the "What is AFL?" video promo they put out stated so well, "AFL players come in all shapes and sizes," because they do, and there's advantages and disadvantages to being tall, small, thick or thin in Australian Football.

 

[BlueE]

 

[BlueE]

A blood test in 2022 showed that the fighters Lin and Khelif had “inconsistent” results, suggesting that the bloodwork was inconsistent with that of a female, IBA CEO Chris Roberts said during a press conference on Monday.

In 2023, another IBA test revealed that the fighters “demonstrated the chromosomes we refer to in competition rules that make both boxers ineligible,” he added.

An IBA technical document for competition rules, says: “‘Women/Female/Girl’ means an individual with chromosome XX. For this purpose, the Boxers can be submitted to a random and/or targeted gender test to confirm the above, which will serve for the gender eligibility criteria for the IBA Competitions.”

It also says, in section 4.2, “To determine the gender, the Boxers can be submitted to a random and/or targeted gender test which will be conducted by IBA in cooperation with the selected laboratory personnel.”

As for Lin, Bulgarian fighter Svetlana Staneva staged a protest with her coach after their fight. Staneva made the “X” gesture two times with her hands — a reference to having XX chromosomes as a female — after her loss to Lin. And Staneva’s coach shared a note with the press that read, “I only want to play with women I am XX.”

 

[BlueE]

The IBA on Monday said the boxers failed an eligibility test after having undergone a chromosome test during the 2023 worlds, and that the IBA had informed the IOC at the time.

The boxing body insists the fighters should not be competing in Paris.

IOC spokesperson Mark Adams said. "These women were eligible for this contest, remain eligible for this contest and compete in this contest."

"I cannot tell you if they were credible or not credible [gender tests] because the source from which they came was not credible and the basis for the tests was not credible," Adams said. "For that reason there was no consideration of whether they were correct or not correct because they had no bearing for the eligibility of boxing here."

IOC backing women boxers amid gender backlash

The IOC said Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting, who are both assured of a boxing medal at the Paris Olympics, will continue to fight amid the gender dispute outcry.

www.espn.com

IOC strips IBA of accreditation 17 days after receiving copies of the test results attached to a letter warning of dire safety and fairness concerns in June 2023. IOC says there was no need to look at them because the IBA are not credible.

The basis for the test was complaints from coaches and women boxers in 2022, with four boxers targeted and this is not credible said Adams. It was written into the rules for the 2023 World Cup that "the Boxers can be submitted to a random and/or targeted gender test to confirm the above,".

And there was no consideration of whether they were correct or not because chromosome tests indicating a male is competing in a female boxing event has no bearing on eligibility for the Olympic boxing.

 

[Saint Shags]

All this talk about XY.
I like to read articles that look at varied ideas.

These two show that just because a test says XY it doesn't tell us the full story.

The Woman Who Gave Birth Despite Most Of Her Cells Having XY Chromosomes

The Woman Who Gave Birth Despite Most Of Her Cells Having XY Chromosomes

www.iflscience.com

Woman who is '95 per cent genetically male' gives birth

Woman had no ovaries and 95% male genes, but was fertilised using IVF

www.independent.co.uk

What has happened within the last week is shameful for a range of reasons. Nuance seems to have been lost in discussion.
I hope both Athletes have support behind them as I fear the attacks will keep coming.

 

[ShanDog]

All this talk about XY.
I like to read articles that look at varied ideas.

These two show that just because a test says XY it doesn't tell us the full story.

The Woman Who Gave Birth Despite Most Of Her Cells Having XY Chromosomes

The Woman Who Gave Birth Despite Most Of Her Cells Having XY Chromosomes

www.iflscience.com

Woman who is '95 per cent genetically male' gives birth

Woman had no ovaries and 95% male genes, but was fertilised using IVF

www.independent.co.uk

What has happened within the last week is shameful for a range of reasons. Nuance seems to have been lost in discussion.
I hope both Athletes have support behind them as I fear the attacks will keep coming.

This is exactly why athletes should be given an initial cheek swabs test, and then if there are any abnormal results, get further assessment done to find out what the actual case is. Great thread explaining how this can easily be achieved:

 

[Gralin]

This is exactly why athletes should be given an initial cheek swabs test, and then if there are any abnormal results, get further assessment done to find out what the actual case is. Great thread explaining how this can easily be achieved:

its even pointed out in that thread that testing was stopped for a reason

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2805%2967841-5/fulltext

At what level do we do this?

While the initial swab may not be considered invasive the entire process of deciding whether women can compete / are even women is not going to be some nice happy tick box exercise

People won't stop being campaigners about women athletes they don't like, they'll just start accusing them of doctoring results

It all feels very witch hunt to me, and has for years, because again, historically that is what it has turned into in sports

 

[ShanDog]

its even pointed out in that thread that testing was stopped for a reason

Yes, and why a cheeky swab should therefore only be an initial screening test to determine if further testing is needed, which is exactly what I said...

At what level do we do this?

Good question - in the world according to ShanDog, it should be at any level that you would consider participants to be semi-professional. So it doesn't make it just full-time, paid athletes, but also those playing at a level clearly delineated from casual and recreational community-based competition. Individual sports governing bodies should determine where that lines is for them.

While the initial swab may not be considered invasive the entire process of deciding whether women can compete / are even women is not going to be some nice happy tick box exercise

People won't stop being campaigners about women athletes they don't like, they'll just start accusing them of doctoring results

It all feels very witch hunt to me, and has for years, because again, historically that is what it has turned into in sports

It's very much like the issue of PEDs in sport - an unpleasant aspect that is, unfortunately, needed to set standards for competition.

And on that topic, there's strict liability with drugs in sport, as we saw with the ASADA / Essendon shemozzle years ago, and generally speaking, nobody has any problem with that standard. We know that regardless of whether a performance enhancing drugs is in an athlete's system for reasons know to them, unknown, malicious or accidental, the effects of those drugs on their performance (and therefore unfair advantage) don't change. If we accept the requirements for the drug testing - which can also be targeted or randomised, and sometimes very invasive of privacy - what justification is there for frothing at the mouth regarding sex testing?

 

[BlueE]

This is exactly why athletes should be given an initial cheek swabs test, and then if there are any abnormal results, get further assessment done to find out what the actual case is. Great thread explaining how this can easily be achieved:

Also because by definition DSD, “Disorders of sexual development” is an umbrella term that describes a group of nearly 60 different conditions.

The International Boxing Assn have results from repeated blood tests from independent labs on Lin and Khelif and have not alleged 46XY, only XY.

However, the IOC ignores all gender test results presented to it in writing and refuses to consider their own scientific gender eligibility tests, other than if a passport indicates F(emale).

I think having this discussed all around the world would be embarrassing to both boxers, but in the words of Caitlin Jenner "Shame on the IOC for not protecting the integrity of women's sports, and shame on the IOC for not protecting the safety of women's sports."

 

[Gralin]

Yes, and why a cheeky swab should therefore only be an initial screening test to determine if further testing is needed, which is exactly what I said...



Good question - in the world according to ShanDog, it should be at any level that you would consider participants to be semi-professional. So it doesn't make it just full-time, paid athletes, but also those playing at a level clearly delineated from casual and recreational community-based competition. Individual sports governing bodies should determine where that lines is for them.



It's very much like the issue of PEDs in sport - an unpleasant aspect that is, unfortunately, needed to set standards for competition.

And on that topic, there's strict liability with drugs in sport, as we saw with the ASADA / Essendon shemozzle years ago, and generally speaking, nobody has any problem with that standard. We know that regardless of whether a performance enhancing drugs is in an athlete's system for reasons know to them, unknown, malicious or accidental, the effects of those drugs on their performance (and therefore unfair advantage) don't change. If we accept the requirements for the drug testing - which can also be targeted or randomised, and sometimes very invasive of privacy - what justification is there for frothing at the mouth regarding sex testing?

Comparing systematic doping to this is not really it I don't think.

Frothing at the mouth regarding sex testing?

“They’re Chasing Us Away from Sport”

The 120-page report, “‘“They’re Chasing Us Away from Sport’”: Human Rights Violations in Sex Testing of Elite Women Athletes,” documents the experiences of more than a dozen women athletes from the Global South who have been affected by sex testing regulations. Human Rights watch found that...

www.hrw.org

Do you know that the reason they started sex testing at the Olympics in 1928 was because they were afraid allowing women to compete in athletics would actually turn them into men?

There are decades of documented abuses done under the guise of sex testing, not to mention all the other cases of abuse that these governing bodies cover up

There is a reason there was a move away from doing this, there is a reason there are people as you say "frothing" at the mouth

just because you don't think its not a big deal or problematic doesn't mean it isn't

 

[ShanDog]

Comparing systematic doping to this is not really it I don't think.

Frothing at the mouth regarding sex testing?

“They’re Chasing Us Away from Sport”

The 120-page report, “‘“They’re Chasing Us Away from Sport’”: Human Rights Violations in Sex Testing of Elite Women Athletes,” documents the experiences of more than a dozen women athletes from the Global South who have been affected by sex testing regulations. Human Rights watch found that...

www.hrw.org

Do you know that the reason they started sex testing at the Olympics in 1928 was because they were afraid allowing women to compete in athletics would actually turn them into men?

There are decades of documented abuses done under the guise of sex testing, not to mention all the other cases of abuse that these governing bodies cover up

There is a reason there was a move away from doing this, there is a reason there are people as you say "frothing" at the mouth

just because you don't think its not a big deal or problematic doesn't mean it isn't

Yes, frothing - there are people who get extremely mad at even the suggestion that athletes should be tested for their sex in any way, including the cheek swab mentioned earlier. That is a massive overreaction in my eyes.

To be frank, I really don't care why they started sex testing a century ago. I'm sure it was nefarious. I'm sure there's been abuses for quite some time, and I'm absolutely certain that black athletes have copped a disproportionate share of that abuse. Absolutely no arguments from me.

But in no way does past injustice absolve us of doing the right thing today.

We didn't shut down mental health care and research after the pseudoscience and abuses of the past were recognised as such - we improved the system and put safeguards in place so that we could still research, test, and help people.

There's no good reason today to abandon the idea of testing to preserve the integrity of women's competition.

 

[Gralin]

Yes, frothing - there are people who get extremely mad at even the suggestion that athletes should be tested for their sex in any way, including the cheek swab mentioned earlier. That is a massive overreaction in my eyes.

To be frank, I really don't care why they started sex testing a century ago. I'm sure it was nefarious. I'm sure there's been abuses for quite some time, and I'm absolutely certain that black athletes have copped a disproportionate share of that abuse. Absolutely no arguments from me.

But in no way does past injustice absolve us of doing the right thing today.

We didn't shut down mental health care and research after the pseudoscience and abuses of the past were recognised as such - we improved the system and put safeguards in place so that we could still research, test, and help people.

There's no good reason today to abandon the idea of testing to preserve the integrity of women's competition.

Then why did they stop doing it?

 

[ShanDog]

Then why did they stop doing it?

Because people can be wrong.

 

[Gralin]

Because people can be wrong.

Yes but that isn't an answer about why blanket sex testing was stopped is it.

You want to ignore the history because you're certain it will be different this time, except these aren't ancient issues from a century ago

this is stuff that has happened in the last 20-30 years

I also question why women should have to waive their own human rights because a private sporting body says they should to compete

If a workplace or Government was calling for that I'm sure you'd generally be up in arms about it.

But on this topic anyone against it is according to you "frothing"

At what point does the cost of "fairness" look nothing like fairness?

 

[ShanDog]

Yes but that isn't an answer about why blanket sex testing was stopped is it.

You want to ignore the history because you're certain it will be different this time, except these aren't ancient issues from a century ago

this is stuff that has happened in the last 20-30 years

I also question why women should have to waive their own human rights because a private sporting body says they should to compete

If a workplace or Government was calling for that I'm sure you'd generally be up in arms about it.

But on this topic anyone against it is according to you "frothing"

At what point does the cost of "fairness" look nothing like fairness?

That's just not true - if there is justifiable reason for it, then I'd be fine with people being asked to "waive their human rights". Athletes aren't being forced to participate (well... Apart from perhaps a couple of dictatorships...) and the human rights argument cuts both ways - women wanting to complete against other women have rights too. This has always been an issue of competing rights, as are many tricky subjects.

I'm also not going to pretend I can give a succinct and accurate list of reasons for sex testing being abandoned over the last 20-30 years any more than you can.

 

[Gralin]

That's just not true - if there is justifiable reason for it, then I'd be fine with people being asked to "waive their human rights".

wow isn't this getting into murky fash adjacent territory

and no I'm not saying you're a fascist, I don't believe you are a fascist

I am saying this is heading in that direction

Athletes aren't being forced to participate (well... Apart from perhaps a couple of dictatorships...) and the human rights argument cuts both ways - women wanting to complete against other women have rights too. This has always been an issue of competing rights, as are many tricky subjects.

yes and now we circle back to what is a woman, and who gets to define what a woman is, and what women should be subjected to in relation to this

of course your comment also cuts both ways, nobody is making women compete in a competition where they can't be certain that the other competitors meet "their" definition of what a woman is, so why should that desire trump others rights to body autonomy and privacy?

I'm also not going to pretend I can give a succinct and accurate list of reasons for sex testing being abandoned over the last 20-30 years any more than you can.

I mean there have been some examples of why presented here, and in the previous thread

Ethics
Human Rights
Bad Science
Harm minimization


You can argue that they got it wrong but to do that you'd first need to look at why they did stop, what the issue were, how you'd address those issues, you know, do the research.

Of course the sex testing would mean they can just blanket ban trans athletes for failing the sex test without having to deal with whether they should ban them, same for DSD athletes

Makes things much simpler, but its not a simple issue to begin with so a simple solution isn't going to be a good fit, just an easy one

 

[ShanDog]

wow isn't this getting into murky fash adjacent territory

and no I'm not saying you're a fascist, I don't believe you are a fascist

I am saying this is heading in that direction

It's not fascist to have people voluntarily waive rights in order to participate in something, and it's not heading in that direction either. This happens all walks of life, particularly associated with different professions (mine being an example), and as I mentioned before, there's already a version of this that happens with drug testing of athletes! You're way off base here.

I mean there have been some examples of why presented here, and in the previous thread

Ethics
Human Rights
Bad Science
Harm minimization


You can argue that they got it wrong but to do that you'd first need to look at why they did stop, what the issue were, how you'd address those issues, you know, do the research.

I have no issue with requiring the work to be done to ensure the system isn't abused. In fact, we should demand that to be the case with this, and with drug testing or any other comparable systems that involve our medical consent. Your arguments seemed to be, "It was a system prone to abuse previously, so we shouldn't consider going back to it," and I agree - don't go back to that system. Make a better one.

Of course the sex testing would mean they can just blanket ban trans athletes for failing the sex test without having to deal with whether they should ban them, same for DSD athletes

Makes things much simpler, but its not a simple issue to begin with so a simple solution isn't going to be a good fit, just an easy one

I've never come across a problem where having less information has helped me to solve it.