Also in the News - Part 2

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Her strop is fantastic.

 

 

 

Yes KKK, it's the australian MPs calling you a nazi that made everyone think you're a nazi, not that your twitter profile has a barbie in an SS uniform as the profile picture, or the constant readings from Mein Kampf at your rallies, or these charming fellows with you in Victoria at the start of the week:

 

 

 

Well now. That has an effect on the landscape, doesn't it?

[The Doctor]

13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Well now. That has an effect on the landscape, doesn't it?

Watching her have this sort of meltdown at simply not being taken at face value and basic investigative journalism and political leadership makes the UKs subservience towards her hate movement even worse. We've got MPs engaging in Holocaust revisionism in defence of that movement while the press don't ever ask why, if this is actually a movement for women, polls consistently show that the majority of women oppose it and the majority of opposition to it comes from women (or for that matter, why her supporters are assaulting and laughing at the assault of women who dare to disagree with her - e.g. Lidia Thorpe, the aussie senator in Canberra earlier this week)

[urban.spaceman]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65071989.amp
 

Harmful to children:

Italian sculptures

Drag Queens

Kinder Surprise

 

Not harmful to children:

Easy access to weaponry

[The Doctor]

On 23/03/2023 at 23:43, Jon the Hat said:

Meanwhile in common sense, Bravo Lord Coe, a huge step to protecting womens sport.

should also address this, because Coe has actually just carried out a massive attack on women's athletics by not paying attention to the science at all. 

 

the policy invokes a maximum testosterone level of 2.5nmol/L, and while the typical range for a healthy adult woman with no underlying health conditions is 0.5-2.4nmol/L, there will be a handful of women who go above that range and exhibit a degree of hyperandrogenism, and other conditions like PCOS takes that range up well above 2.5nmol/L, and there's a strong correlation between hyperandrogenism in women and elite sporting attainment, meaning such a low limit that doesn't align with our knowledge on testosterone levels in women and the correlation between hyperandrogenism and athletic performance will result in previously unsuspecting women having their careers jeopardised.

 

The actions world athletics have taken will impact far more cis women than trans women, particularly given trans women are drastically underrepresented in women's sports - to take the Olympics as an example, Laurel Hubbard is the only qualifier since 2004, in which time 24k women have competed, meaning since trans women have been allowed to compete in women's categories, they've made up 0.004% of competitors, while, based on the UK census, making up 0.10% of the population of women, so assuming that rate is consistent globally, are 25x less likely to participate in elite level sport than the average woman. 

 

the threat to women's sports posed by trans people is pretty much entirely hypothetical, a paper based exercise not born out by practical application, but the threat posed by sex testing is all too real, having been done before and destroying the careers of multiple women who were previously unaware of any DSD or hyperandrogenism they had. 

Edited 25 March 2023 by The Doctor

[leicsmac]

40 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

should also address this, because Coe has actually just carried out a massive attack on women's athletics by not paying attention to the science at all. 

 

the policy invokes a maximum testosterone level of 2.5nmol/L, and while the typical range for a healthy adult woman with no underlying health conditions is 0.5-2.4nmol/L, there will be a handful of women who go above that range and exhibit a degree of hyperandrogenism, and other conditions like PCOS takes that range up well above 2.5nmol/L, and there's a strong correlation between hyperandrogenism in women and elite sporting attainment, meaning such a low limit that doesn't align with our knowledge on testosterone levels in women and the correlation between hyperandrogenism and athletic performance will result in previously unsuspecting women having their careers jeopardised.

 

The actions world athletics have taken will impact far more cis women than trans women, particularly given trans women are drastically underrepresented in women's sports - to take the Olympics as an example, Laurel Hubbard is the only qualifier since 2004, in which time 24k women have competed, meaning since trans women have been allowed to compete in women's categories, they've made up 0.004% of competitors, while, based on the UK census, making up 0.10% of the population of women, so assuming that rate is consistent globally, are 25x less likely to participate in elite level sport than the average woman. 

 

the threat to women's sports posed by trans people is pretty much entirely hypothetical, a paper based exercise not born out by practical application, but the threat posed by sex testing is all too real, having been done before and destroying the careers of multiple women who were previously unaware of any DSD or hyperandrogenism they had. 

I wonder, in this case and possibly being aware of this information and therefore the possibility of excluding quite a few cis women, why Coe decided to act as he did?

[The Doctor]

22 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I wonder, in this case and possibly being aware of this information and therefore the possibility of excluding quite a few cis women, why Coe decided to act as he did?

I mean my immediate take is very uncharitable, but they'd only be excluded if they were tested, so I guess based on suspicions towards athletes or sore loser tantrums. now, I wonder if there's a common theme among athletes who are suspected of being secretly trans or doping. like purely high profile, I wonder what could possibly connect the Williams sisters and Caster Semenya

 

 

for a more charitable take, trans inclusion is a hot button issue and might be putting off sponsors as a result of the massive fuss made by a handful of people 

Edited 25 March 2023 by The Doctor

[Otis]

6 hours ago, The Doctor said:

particularly given trans women are drastically underrepresented in women's sports - to take the Olympics as an example, Laurel Hubbard is the only qualifier since 2004, in which time 24k women have competed, meaning since trans women have been allowed to compete in women's categories, they've made up 0.004% of competitors, while, based on the UK census, making up 0.10% of the population of women, so assuming that rate is consistent globally, are 25x less likely to participate in elite level sport than the average woman. 

Maybe because most transwomen don't want to compete in women's sports as they quite rightly consider it cheating. 

 

[The Doctor]

10 minutes ago, Otis said:

Maybe because most transwomen don't want to compete in women's sports as they quite rightly consider it cheating. 

 

potentially, I'd suspect a far more likely explanation is systemic barriers to participation. trans people are likely to be unemployed or underemployed due to discrimination in employment practices (1 in 3 UK employers say they would be less likely to hire someone if they're trans), and as a result experience high levels of poverty. Much as everyone loves a rags to riches story, the ability to participate in elite sports often comes down to having had a financial advantage to access training facilities and coaching to nurture any innate talent 

[Captain...]

1 hour ago, Otis said:

Maybe because most transwomen don't want to compete in women's sports as they quite rightly consider it cheating. 

 

Or feel they will get accused of cheating and don't want to have constantly justify their gender.

[Captain...]

On the subject of transgender women in sport. It's another impossible situation to legislate for but it's also a cop out to just blanket ban all trans woman especially in an individual non contact sport. 

 

I have no idea how practical or fair it would be but could trans women and cis women with high testosterone levels like Caster Semenya compete off a handicap (no idea how they would work it out), it would require some testing and refinement, and probably have people up in arms the first time a trans woman wins anything. It would allow all women to compete in a fair, inclusive and competitive manner.

 

This then does beg the question should all biological advantages be handicapped, should your high jump ability be factored against your height. What is the greater achievement a person 2m tall jumping 2m or a someone who is 1.80m jumping 1.90m. That's for another day.

Edited 25 March 2023 by Captain...

[Otis]

1 hour ago, Captain... said:

Or feel they will get accused of cheating and don't want to have constantly justify their gender.

They are biological males competing in female sport, how do you consider that fair or safe?

If they want to compete then why not in their birth gender?

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Otis said:

They are biological males competing in female sport, how do you consider that fair or safe?

If they want to compete then why not in their birth gender?

... and making that distinction based on hormone levels that clearly also discriminates against "biological women" (whatever that term means)?

 

I notice none of the usual people who discuss this has actually addressed that scientific point that the Doctor brought up earlier.

 

@ClaphamFoxis smart and repped your post, perhaps they might.

[leicsmac]

12 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65071989.amp
 

Harmful to children:

Italian sculptures

Drag Queens

Kinder Surprise

 

Not harmful to children:

Easy access to weaponry

Child labour

And now given recent news, to add to this list.

[ozleicester]

hmmm... 1936...

[The Doctor]

16 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65071989.amp
 

Harmful to children:

Italian sculptures

Drag Queens

Kinder Surprise

 

Not harmful to children:

Easy access to weaponry

pffft, Simpsons did it already lads:

 

[ClaphamFox]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

... and making that distinction based on hormone levels that clearly also discriminates against "biological women" (whatever that term means)?

 

I notice none of the usual people who discuss this has actually addressed that scientific point that the Doctor brought up earlier.

 

@ClaphamFoxis smart and repped your post, perhaps they might.

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in 😀

 

My answer is that I don’t think adjusting testosterone levels can eliminate the physical advantages of having experienced male puberty, so I support the decision by World Athletics to not allow male-to-female athletes who have gone through male puberty the female competition.

 

I think the scientific point that the Doctor referred to was in relation the rules governing DSD athletes, which I agree is more complex and about which I can’t claim any expertise. I don’t know what the correct solution is for DSD athletes, and judging from  the media reports I’ve read, scientists can’t agree on it either. 

 

Edited 26 March 2023 by ClaphamFox

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in 😀

 

My answer is that I don’t think adjusting testosterone levels can eliminate the physical advantages of having experienced male puberty, so I support the decision by World Athletics to not allow male-to-female athletes who have gone through male puberty the female competition.

 

I think the scientific point that the Doctor referred to was in relation the rules governing DSD athletes, which I agree is more complex and about which I can’t claim any expertise. I don’t know what the correct solution is for DSD athletes, and judging from  the media reports I’ve read, scientists can’t agree on it either. 

 

Fair enough - just for the sake of clarity, I mentioned that point because it is a point being used to not allow trans women athletes that will also exclude some cis women athletes too, so it is indicative of the whole thing being rather more complex than perhaps a fair few people account for - as indeed you acknowledge in your last sentence here.

 

So, in light of that, people might be thoughtful to back away from reductive binary positions on the matter.

[The Doctor]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

 "biological women" (whatever that term means)?

it's a very dubious categorisation tbh because biological sex is not this neatly divided binary. Like obviously there's genetic sex, which is based on chromosomal configuration (although that's still not quite true because the gene that causes masculinisation of the foetus is the SRY gene which is typically but not always found on the Y chromosome), but then there's reproductive sex based on gonads and fertility, which was historically used and why Judaism had six sexes (male, female, both, neither, infertile male, infertile female), and there's endocrinological sex, which is arguably day to day the most important one because it determines a lot of your biology and your responses to medicines and where symptoms are gendered to a degree (e.g. heart attacks). typically they align but not always, and in the case of a post-op trans woman she'd be likely genetically male, reproductively neuter and endocrinologically female, three different sexes depending on how you judge it, and to suggest she fits neatly into "biological man" (and conversely trans men into biological women) is a huge oversimplification 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

it's a very dubious categorisation tbh because biological sex is not this neatly divided binary. Like obviously there's genetic sex, which is based on chromosomal configuration (although that's still not quite true because the gene that causes masculinisation of the foetus is the SRY gene which is typically but not always found on the Y chromosome), but then there's reproductive sex based on gonads and fertility, which was historically used and why Judaism had six sexes (male, female, both, neither, infertile male, infertile female), and there's endocrinological sex, which is arguably day to day the most important one because it determines a lot of your biology and your responses to medicines and where symptoms are gendered to a degree (e.g. heart attacks). typically they align but not always, and in the case of a post-op trans woman she'd be likely genetically male, reproductively neuter and endocrinologically female, three different sexes depending on how you judge it, and to suggest she fits neatly into "biological man" (and conversely trans men into biological women) is a huge oversimplification 

You know and I know it and most people familiar with the topic know it.

 

However it's also clear that there are many people, including some policymakers as well as people that elect them, that don't know it or give a fvck.

[The Doctor]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Fair enough - just for the sake of clarity, I mentioned that point because it is a point being used to not allow trans women athletes that will also exclude some cis women athletes too, so it is indicative of the whole thing being rather more complex than perhaps a fair few people account for - as indeed you acknowledge in your last sentence here.

 

So, in light of that, people might be thoughtful to back away from reductive binary positions on the matter.

for reference the ban on trans women is different to the near ban on DSD women. Most trans women who've been hormonally transitioning for a while will more than meet the 2.5nmol/L requirements, with a lot sitting at the lower end of the female range during hormone therapy in this study: https://ec.bioscientifica.com/configurable/content/journals$002fec$002f8$002f7$002fEC-19-0196.xml?t:ac=journals%24002fec%24002f8%24002f7%24002fEC-19-0196.xml

 

which is kinda to be expected? women do have natural endogenous testosterone, it's produced by the ovaries to a lesser extent than the testes, trans women who are blocking teste function won't have that to compensate and will be reduced to the small amount from the adrenal glands

[Foxdiamond]

2 hours ago, ozleicester said:

hmmm... 1936...


 

As a southpaw I am appalled 

[The Doctor]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

You know and I know it and most people familiar with the topic know it.

 

However it's also clear that there are many people, including some policymakers as well as people that elect them, that don't know it or give a fvck.

the answer is don't give a ****. that's what happens when you kowtow to Christian conservatives creating a moral panic to try and undo gay marriage (there's a reason this fuss about trans people didn't start until about 2015). Like generally research into transfeminine athletic performance indicates after 12 months hormone therapy your key markers of athletic capacity are within the female range but in the top 5%, probably still an unfair advantage sure, but the research doesn't go past 12 months often because of a lack of funding. if the objections from those with power were genuinely motivated by concerns about fairness, they'd also be announcing studies into participation, increasing funding to establish what fair restrictions would be. they're not because it isn't about fairness, it isn't motivated by the science, it's driven by lawmakers who want to undo every last bit of progress towards LGBT equality and have identified a divide and conquer approach 

[The Doctor]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

 

edit: not sure why it posted twice

Edited 26 March 2023 by The Doctor

[ozleicester]

28 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

As a southpaw I am appalled 

You arent really a lefty, its unnatural... everyone is a right hander and you just need to change yourself 

[RobHawk]

I don't have a real strong opinion either way on trans issues. I'm not well versed on it and may unintentionally come across as ignorant. I've tried to write multiple posts in this thread but haven't had the conviction to post any of them.

 

I've read posts In this thread and not understood them, I haven't heard of that British women out in Australia and it's not a issue that's close to home for me. I've had transitioning friends in the past and it was never much of an issue either way for me. 

 

I think when we talk about elite level sport, there's no answer that suits everyone. And at what point does inclusivity take precedent. 

 

For me, if you are born male, you should not be allowed to transition and compete as a female. That may not be inclusive, but it is fair. Laurel Hubbard for instance, was a junior champion weightlifter as a male, gave up, transitioned in her early 30s and then become a champion female weightlifter. It's pretty obvious to me that there's an unfair advantage to her being male for 30 years before transitioning. 

 

A possible solution which would be inclusive but probably not viable at this point would be a trans Olympics. Much like we allow Paralympics, this would allow all to compete.

 

This may be to simple a answer to a complicated question. But sometimes we need to get a little more basic to include more in the conversation 😉