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.

 

[BlueE]

Thanks for that, BlueE. Puberty blockers used by emerging transgender athletes would probably negate the testosteronal advantage that is measured in current post-pubescent transgender people, would it not?

Reading through, the name (Professor) Lambelet Coleman stuck out for some reason. I googled and it turns out that some of her research had been profoundly misused by anti-trans conservatives in the U.S;

Here's a link to Idaho House Bill 500a (2020)

PDFs:

EDIT: Found a working link

And this in 2021 from North Carolina in the U.S

The wording of North Carolina's Bill is pretty much what the one in Idaho was

https://legiscan.com/NC/text/H358/id/2344771/North_Carolina-2021-H358-Amended.pdf

Professor Coleman has written articles with Martina Navratilova I've linked supporting preserving separate categories of sport for girls and women while also accommodating transgender women and girls.

Also in the link summarising the CAS decision she has enormous empathy and respect for Caster Semenya, while explaining biological advantages in sport.

 

[Blue1980]

l

Like any other self reporting group if it becomes acceptable to be a member we'll see an increase to population norms

Exactly your Jordan Peterson’s of the world fear monger that it will be exponential and most likely everyone will be trans by 2028.

 

[CM86]

The problem is that nothing will ever be accepted.

The CAS report is the Hockey Stick from the climate change debate.

It creates doubt, and the idea that 'experts' are corrupted.
So it doesn't matter the previous and future evidence. Because common sense tells us than trans are bad.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Professor Coleman has written articles with Martina Navratilova I've linked supporting preserving separate categories of sport for girls and women while also accommodating transgender women and girls.

Also in the link summarising the CAS decision she has enormous empathy and respect for Caster Semenya, while explaining biological advantages in sport.

The blanket ban on transgender athletes, which is what those U.S State house bills proposed ensuring that male-to-female transgender athletes cannot compete as women no matter what, was completely opposed by Professor Coleman.

From the protest letter she co-signed against her research being misused by conservative sponsors of those bills;

https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/idahopress.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/1/c8/1c8ecfa5-cf97-5a48-b98c-3f8601997e70/5e742726c40f9.pdf.pdf

Dear Mr. Wonderlich,

Allow me to introduce myself and Champion Women. I’m an Olympic champion, a civil rights
lawyer specializing in Title IX, and I lead Champion Women, a non-profit dedicated to providing legal advocacy for girls and women in sports. Doriane Lambelet Coleman is a national collegiate champion runner and a Professor of Law at Duke Law School who has written extensively on sex discrimination law including on sex in sport. Professor Coleman has testified on the subject before the House Committee on the Judiciary and the International Court of Arbitration for Sport.

We are writing to oppose HB 500, “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act”, and to urge Governor
Little to veto the bill. Idaho is misusing Professor Coleman’s scholarship in support of legislation that would bar all transgender women and girls from competing in school sports set aside for females. No other state has enacted such a flat prohibition against transgender athletes, and Idaho shouldn’t either.

As we wrote in an op-ed that was published in the Arizona Republic earlier this week, the legislation in this case is flawed because it permits no exceptions or accommodations for trans athletes, even for students who have not experienced male puberty. And because it requires anyone challenged about their sex to submit a doctor’s note to sports administrators providing intrusive information about their reproductive anatomy, testosterone levels and chromosomes.

It’s important to protect girls’ and women’s sport, and this does require paying attention to sex. But there is no legitimate reason to seek to bar all trans girls and women from girls’ and women’s sport, or to require students whose sex is challenged to prove their eligibility in such intrusive detail. Sex discrimination is only constitutional when it’s necessary to secure equality for females and when the means chosen to achieve that goal are not unnecessarily broad or intrusive. HB 500 fails this test.

It fails because it doesn’t make an exception for trans girls and women who’ve never experienced male puberty and so haven’t developed the traits the classification was designed to exclude. It fails because it doesn’t take into account the multiple goals of sport at different levels of play, which range from after-school clubs focused on participation, to elite competitions focused on college scholarships, podium spots, sponsorships, and immortality.

HB 500 would prohibit even reasonable accommodations like the NCAA’s current testosterone rule, which allows trans women to compete with hormone suppression.

Finally, anything more than a doctor’s certification of the athlete’s reproductive sex and ongoing testosterone levels is unnecessary scientifically and deeply intrusive.

People of good faith across the political spectrum understand that girls’ and women’s sport has enormous societal value and is worth protecting. We are among them. But accommodating trans athletes can be done; it just requires taking into account our different, sex-linked biology, something the Constitution and Title IX clearly permit.

To pass muster at the end of the day, any policy addressing this issue must draw lines intelligently based on the scientific evidence, and thoughtfully based on an ethics of care for all student-athletes. Again, because HB 500 violates those principles, we urge Governor Little to veto it.

Please feel free to reach out to us for any further clarification.

Nancy Hogshead-Makar,
J.D., OLY

Doriane Lambelet Coleman,
J.D.CEO, Champion Women Professor of Law, Duke Law School

Restrictions on a case-by-case basis where advantage is clear is fair enough, but an absolute ban on ALL trans athletes competing as the gender which they want to live their lives as?

Not on.

 

[BlueE]

The problem is that nothing will ever be accepted.

The CAS report is the Hockey Stick from the climate change debate.

It creates doubt, and the idea that 'experts' are corrupted.
So it doesn't matter the previous and future evidence. Because common sense tells us than trans are bad.

What a weird post.

Did you read the CAS decision or at least the excerpts?

 

[BlueE]

The blanket ban on transgender athletes, which is what those U.S State house bills proposed ensuring that male-to-female transgender athletes cannot compete as women no matter what, was completely opposed by Professor Coleman.

From the protest letter she co-signed against her research being misused by conservative sponsors of those bills;



Restrictions on a case-by-case basis where advantage is clear is fair enough, but an absolute ban on ALL trans athletes competing as the gender which they want to live their lives as?

Not on.

The key point from the letter Professor Coleman co-signed, is this.

It fails because it doesn’t make an exception for trans girls and women who’ve never experienced male puberty and so haven’t developed the traits the classification was designed to exclude.

Most if not all of the International Sporting Association's that have introduced eligibility criteria for women's sport based on the CAS decision and further research, including one published in the JAMA with Lambelet Coleman as a co-author (and which I've linked) have an inclusion policy for trans athletes that recognises this.

As an example, World Aquatics, which came into effect in June 2022, declares in the first sentence under Section E, “The Policy Objective”:

“World Aquatics is committed to the inclusion of all Aquatics athletes from all countries in the sport, subject to the eligibility requirements set out in this Policy.”

Those who identify as, transgender or 46 XY DSD should have opportunities to compete in the category – that 1/ “reflects their gender identity” 2/ “based on eligibility criteria that are consistent with and do not undermine” 3/ “World Aquatics’ goals for the women’s category.”

That is, within the rules to “maintain the separation of Aquatic sports into men’s and women’s categories according to scientifically grounded, sex-based criteria.”

Section F, point 2, subsection c, World Aquatics “reserves the right to include a chromosomal sex screen in its anti-doping protocol to confirm such certification.”

Section D, it defines “female” to mean “possession of XX chromosomes and (in the absence of medical intervention) ovaries and increased circulating estrogen and progesterone starting at puberty.”

It defines male as XY and increased testosterone at puberty. It further defines male to include “athletes with 46 XY DSD.”

Section F, point 4: “female” athletes, regardless of their “legal gender, gender identity, or gender expression,” are eligible for the female category – with the caveat, subsection b, only if they have not gone through male puberty.

Section G: “Classifying athletes on the basis of sex is necessary to meet World Aquatics’ goals for female Aquatics athletes and the women’s competition category.”

https://resources.fina.org/fina/document/2023/03/27/dbc3381c-91e9-4ea4-a743-84c8b06debef/Policy-on-Eligibility-for-the-Men-s-and-Women-s-Competiition-Categrories-Version-on-2023.03.24.pdf

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

There is no blanket ban then, and a distinction has been made. The case for puberty blockers being a clear pathway for future transgender athletes is stronger as a result.

I do think case-by-case examination of post-pubescent transgender athletes who want to participate is fair too, though. Individual levels do tend to vary person-to-person and there may very well be those who fall within the acceptable levels.

 

[BlueE]

There is no blanket ban then, and a distinction has been made. The case for puberty blockers being a clear pathway for future transgender athletes is stronger as a result.

I do think case-by-case examination of post-pubescent transgender athletes who want to participate is fair too, though. Individual levels do tend to vary person-to-person and there may very well be those who fall within the acceptable levels.

It seems some US States and International Associations have differing rules, or no rules at the moment.

Puberty blockers seem a big commitment to make for under 12s year old's, but accepted facts are there is a "wide and complete" bimodal separation in the normal range of testosterone in adult male bodies (7.7nmol/L to 29.4nmol/L) and in adult females (0.06nmol/L to 1.68nmol/L).

The data show that 99% of females with PCOS have testosterone levels of less than 3.47nmol/L - a level at which the ergogenic impact of testosterone is normally "extremely limited."

This takes into account differing levels of testosterone in adult males with a complete "bimodal separation", is there evidence of post puberty male levels being below 7.7nmol/L or around 3.47nmol/L?

 

[BlueE]

The problem is that nothing will ever be accepted.

The CAS report is the Hockey Stick from the climate change debate.

It creates doubt, and the idea that 'experts' are corrupted.
So it doesn't matter the previous and future evidence. Because common sense tells us than trans are bad.

But is was accepted and resulted in changed International laws and eligibility criteria for women's sports.

This was because the experts evidence was accepted by the CAS tribunal with almost all opposition evidence retracted in group sessions or rejected as baseless.

How does this create doubt and the "idea that 'experts' are corrupted"?

What on earth is the "Hockey Stick of the climate change debate"?

 

[CM86]

But is was accepted and resulted in changed International laws and eligibility criteria for women's sports.

This was because the experts evidence was accepted by the CAS tribunal with almost all opposition evidence retracted in group sessions or rejected as baseless.

How does this create doubt and the "idea that 'experts' are corrupted"?

What on earth is the "Hockey Stick of the climate change debate"?

The 'hockey stick' from the climate change debate was one aspect of information that was taken out of context and used effectively to cast doubt on all climate change research and expert opinion.
It wasn't understood by the masses who would repeat the misleading arguments.

It was one of the major ways that the anti-climate change position became mainstream.

It was a single bit of information that was used to oppose all action on climate change.


Much like that, the Cass review is one piece of information, and it is being used to oppose all trans health care.

It's being wielded as a weapon to attack the legitimacy of even the existence of transgenderism.
It's being used as a "see, we told you it was harming kids".

It's a single piece of information, that opposes years of evidence based outcomes, that is being heralded as the only source of truth, because it can be used to bolster the anti-trans position.

Even Dr Cass has called out the harmful weaponization of her review by anti-trans groups.

 

[BlueE]

The 'hockey stick' from the climate change debate was one aspect of information that was taken out of context and used effectively to cast doubt on all climate change research and expert opinion.
It wasn't understood by the masses who would repeat the misleading arguments.

But it was one of the major ways that the anti-climate change position became mainstream.

It was a single bit of information that was used to oppose all action on climate change.


Much like that, the Cass review is one piece of information, and it is being used to oppose all trans health care.

It's being wielded as a weapon to attack the legitimacy of even the existence of transgenderism.
It's being used as a "see, we told you it was harming kids".

It's a single piece of information, that opposes years of evidence based outcomes, that is being heralded as the only source of truth, because it can be used to bolster the anti-trans position.

Even Dr Cass has called the weaponization of her review by anti-trans groups.

So what is the 'hockey stick' of the CAS report?

 

[CM86]

So what is the 'hockey stick' of the CAS report?

I didn't say that. Please look again.

The CAS report is the Hockey Stick from the climate change debate.

The 'hockey stick' from the climate change debate was one aspect of information that was taken out of context and used effectively to cast doubt on all climate change research and expert opinion.
It wasn't understood by the masses who would repeat the misleading arguments.

It was one of the major ways that the anti-climate change position became mainstream.

It was a single bit of information that was used to oppose all action on climate change.


Much like that, the Cass review is one piece of information, and it is being used to oppose all trans health care.

It's being wielded as a weapon to attack the legitimacy of even the existence of transgenderism.
It's being used as a "see, we told you it was harming kids".

It's a single piece of information, that opposes years of evidence based outcomes, that is being heralded as the only source of truth, because it can be used to bolster the anti-trans position.

Even Dr Cass has called out the harmful weaponization of her review by anti-trans groups.

You didn't even read my post, did you.

 

[BlueE]

I didn't say that. Please look again.

You didn't even read my post, did you.

Yes I did and putting it in large font still has the same meaning.

You don't even understand what you've posted?

"The CAS report is the Hockey Stick from the climate change debate."

"The 'hockey stick' is one aspect of information that was taken out of context and used effectively to cast doubt research and expert opinion."

Again, what is the hockey stick of the CAS report?

 

[CM86]

Yes I did and putting it in large font still has the same meaning.

"The CAS report is the Hockey Stick from the climate change debate."

Again, what is the hockey stick of the CAS report?

There seems to be a miscommunication between us, and I'm not sure how to correct it.


And literally as I'm typing and I'm trying to fix this, you laugh emoji at me. Which makes me think you're just trolling me.

 

[BlueE]

View attachment 2136657


There seems to be a miscommunication between us, and I'm not sure how to correct it.


And literally as I'm typing and I'm trying to fix this, you laugh emoji at me. Which makes me think you're just trolling me.

I've made this very clear for you when I edited my post.

You are the one trolling or somehow can't comprehend your own argument and that is weird.

From your post.

The 'hockey stick' is one aspect of information that was taken out of context and used effectively to cast doubt on research and expert opinion.

"The CAS report is the Hockey Stick from the climate change debate."

Again, what was taken out of context and used to cast doubt on research and expert opinion in the CAS report?

What is the hockey stick of the CAS report?

 

[CM86]

I've made this very clear for you when I edited my post.

You are the one trolling or somehow can't comprehend your own argument and that is weird.

From your post.

The 'hockey stick' is one aspect of information that was taken out of context and used effectively to cast doubt on research and expert opinion.

"The CAS report is the Hockey Stick from the climate change debate."

Again, what was taken out of context and used to cast doubt on research and expert opinion in the CAS report?

What is the hockey stick of the CAS report?

The Cass review IS the Hockey Stick from the climate change debate.
NOT.
'There is a hockey stick within the Cass review.'


And I explained how in this post.

The 'hockey stick' from the climate change debate was one aspect of information that was taken out of context and used effectively to cast doubt on all climate change research and expert opinion.
It wasn't understood by the masses who would repeat the misleading arguments.

It was one of the major ways that the anti-climate change position became mainstream.

It was a single bit of information that was used to oppose all action on climate change.


Much like that, the Cass review is one piece of information, and it is being used to oppose all trans health care.

It's being wielded as a weapon to attack the legitimacy of even the existence of transgenderism.
It's being used as a "see, we told you it was harming kids".

It's a single piece of information, that opposes years of evidence based outcomes, that is being heralded as the only source of truth, because it can be used to bolster the anti-trans position.

Even Dr Cass has called out the harmful weaponization of her review by anti-trans groups.

https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/

 

[CM86]

I've worked it out.

This was my mistake, I'm sorry.

I wrote the CAS report, meaning the final report of the Cass review.

And you're talking about the CAS report. Which makes sense as that's what it's called.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. This was entirely my fault.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

 

[Gralin]

Yes exactly