Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Cas, you've rather missed the point anyway. In order to have any leveling effect of HRT, you need to enforce it and therefore have standardised testing for what a woman is for sporting purposes. Many trans campaigners object to such a thing, claiming that self identification should be the only qualification.
I don't know of anyone who thinks that self-identification should be the only qualification - I've only ever seen that idea raised as a strawman by anti-trans sport campaigners. Do you have a source for it?
Is what Eugene suggested belittling, or trying to "logic away their feelings"?
I don't want to speak on his behalf, but I definitely think there's an issue that there are a million different ways that people can feel they don't "fit". Leaping to one specific course of action without fully knowing what the issue is seems unwise. There is an enormous grey area between feeling you are the wrong gender, that you don't feel you happen to fit with a societal idea of how a particular gender should present themselves, or that you sincerely feel you are in the wrong physical body.
I don't feel that what Eugene said was forbidding any consideration that the child may want to physically alter their body. Again, may well have misunderstood and don't want to speak for him, but the questions he posed seem very sensible to me as long as they are about understanding, rather than shutting down, the child's feelings.
I also think there is a paranoia that all leftie/progressive types are desperate for their kids to transition and are forcing it on their children (who could be confused/insecure for any number of reasons) but that kind of response- dismissing anything other than immediately going ahead with transitioning without questioning what the specific issues might be- doesn't seem particularly helpful either.
Puja wrote:
However, it is a descriptor and it's easier than saying "non-trans", "female assigned at birth", or any of the other ways of differentiating trans people from cis people, so it'll come up if anyone ever needs to refer to you as not a trans woman. There's no insult or requirement for you to adopt it as part of your identity, it's just used in conversation if it ever comes up that you need to be described as not-trans.
as ever seizing on the real issues how is this so? I've tried saying both aloud (and I realise I don't actually know how cis is pronounced but going with any seemingly obvious variant I can't make it cis woman/female easier to pronounce than non-trans, and non-trans is a lower number of letters to type, so logically it would seem non-trans is easier to say, albeit not preferred for whatever reason
morepork wrote:Great thread . This issue requires input from the full spectrum of formal knowledge, from civil rights through to Darwinian level biology (thanks for that input Vitamin P). I have a colleague at work that addresses the issue of Hermaphroditism in nematodes and the take home message of this work is that sexuality is one of the most dynamic processes in evolution. This work interrogates genetic pathways that have valid human homologues and so is considered relevant. My question is that if this facet of basic biology, that drives evolution no less, is apparent across phyla, then should the narrative not be focused on accommodation? This is the very bread and butter of why science matters. From a biological perspective, this is a very real issue, and one that needs to be made a discipline unto itself. That defines a clinical spectrum that is mainstream. Is the conversation difficult? Yes. Does this conversation matter? Absolutely. Eugene (Vitamin E?), your input here regarding the issues that confront the rule of law in this conversation is a welcome perspective from someone with boots on the ground.
Take home message? Too many MBA’s in the world.
When will your so called science ensure parents have the choice not to have a trans, or intrasex child?
cashead wrote:
Or, you know, you could accept that your kid might be suffering from gender dysphoria, support them through the commonly prescribed treatment (which is transitioning) and respect their preferred gender identity without making a fucking song and dance about it.
And it's worth noting that nothing for kids is permanent or lifetime. If it turns out to be just a phase, that's not an issue - they just go back to the gender they were assigned at birth, without any effect on their lives except a bit more knowledge about themselves and the comfort that their parents will always be there for them and won't ever belittle or try to logic away their feelings.
Puja
Seriously, Eugene, what you're suggesting is one of the worst things you can do in such a scenario. Like, holy shit. I've got a lot of experience with LGBT kids, and what you're suggesting is the kind of thing that would make them less likely to feel comfortable and secure enough around you to be able to come out. They want support and acceptance, not to be cross-examined like it's an episode of fucking Perry Mason.
I'm pretty sure Eugene didn't want to suggest he would impinge on his child's true feelings...
But they are still a child. They still get confused by many things. And they still need you to be there as a calming presence. And showing an interest in your child does not equal interrogation. By asking questions, being attentive, and showing them calm love, you can help them through what is obviously going to be a difficult period. If they want to become a woman, they can transition when they're ready and certain. Which is rarely immediately.
You also forget the age this happens at. If the kid is 14, it's something completely different to if the kid is 8...
As a parent, I’m used to my child changing their mind frequently.
If my child decides they are trans gender or gay then I will support them. But I won’t condone any permanent changes until they are an adult. Whilst we all mature differently, I would want to be sure they were dead set on making such a change.
If that makes me a terrible parent in the eyes of some then so be it.
Sandydragon wrote:As a parent, I’m used to my child changing their mind frequently.
If my child decides they are trans gender or gay then I will support them. But I won’t condone any permanent changes until they are an adult. Whilst we all mature differently, I would want to be sure they were dead set on making such a change.
If that makes me a terrible parent in the eyes of some then so be it.
That is pretty much exactly how it works. No permanent changes are legally allowed until they're an adult - the most invasive is puberty blockers, which just defer puberty and will allow them to go through the right one when they're old enough to make a final decision. And even then, going through puberty isn't a final decision and can be changed with hormones.
Like I said earlier, if it is just a phase, no-one is harmed and the kid gets a bit more knowledge about who they are and the knowledge that their parents will support them. You sound like a pretty decent parent from that post Sandy.
Puja wrote:
However, it is a descriptor and it's easier than saying "non-trans", "female assigned at birth", or any of the other ways of differentiating trans people from cis people, so it'll come up if anyone ever needs to refer to you as not a trans woman. There's no insult or requirement for you to adopt it as part of your identity, it's just used in conversation if it ever comes up that you need to be described as not-trans.
as ever seizing on the real issues how is this so? I've tried saying both aloud (and I realise I don't actually know how cis is pronounced but going with any seemingly obvious variant I can't make it cis woman/female easier to pronounce than non-trans, and non-trans is a lower number of letters to type, so logically it would seem non-trans is easier to say, albeit not preferred for whatever reason
We all love a bit of incidental pedantry! For your edification, it is pronounced with a soft c, like "sis".
Quite apart from the fact that cis is one syllable and three letters, so I'm not sure how you're getting that non-trans is easier, I think the issue is that it's more equable in language to have two opposig words, rather than X and not-X, as it inherently defines X as weird. You can go on using "not-trans" if you like - it literally makes no difference to anyone as that's just the definition of cis, so you're saying exactly the same thing.
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Cas, you've rather missed the point anyway. In order to have any leveling effect of HRT, you need to enforce it and therefore have standardised testing for what a woman is for sporting purposes. Many trans campaigners object to such a thing, claiming that self identification should be the only qualification.
I don't know of anyone who thinks that self-identification should be the only qualification - I've only ever seen that idea raised as a strawman by anti-trans sport campaigners. Do you have a source for it?
Puja
I've seen and heard it. I wasn't taking notes. You can believe me or not believe me. I couldn't give a fuck.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Cas, you've rather missed the point anyway. In order to have any leveling effect of HRT, you need to enforce it and therefore have standardised testing for what a woman is for sporting purposes. Many trans campaigners object to such a thing, claiming that self identification should be the only qualification.
I don't know of anyone who thinks that self-identification should be the only qualification - I've only ever seen that idea raised as a strawman by anti-trans sport campaigners. Do you have a source for it?
Puja
I've seen and heard it. I wasn't taking notes. You can believe me or not believe me. I couldn't give a fuck.
Okay, well as I said earlier, there's a lunatic fringe in any group. It's not exactly something that's close to mainstream activism by trans groups, as they're mostly just working on keeping the right to play at all.
Besides, most trans female athletes are more than happy to be taking hormones to keep their testosterone waaay below the limits set by the governing bodies, cause they want to present as female.
Puja wrote:
However, it is a descriptor and it's easier than saying "non-trans", "female assigned at birth", or any of the other ways of differentiating trans people from cis people, so it'll come up if anyone ever needs to refer to you as not a trans woman. There's no insult or requirement for you to adopt it as part of your identity, it's just used in conversation if it ever comes up that you need to be described as not-trans.
as ever seizing on the real issues how is this so? I've tried saying both aloud (and I realise I don't actually know how cis is pronounced but going with any seemingly obvious variant I can't make it cis woman/female easier to pronounce than non-trans, and non-trans is a lower number of letters to type, so logically it would seem non-trans is easier to say, albeit not preferred for whatever reason
We all love a bit of incidental pedantry! For your edification, it is pronounced with a soft c, like "sis".
Quite apart from the fact that cis is one syllable and three letters, so I'm not sure how you're getting that non-trans is easier, I think the issue is that it's more equable in language to have two opposig words, rather than X and not-X, as it inherently defines X as weird. You can go on using "not-trans" if you like - it literally makes no difference to anyone as that's just the definition of cis, so you're saying exactly the same thing.
Puja
X is a bit weird though, or at least different and people react to the different. So I'd guess even a large percentage of people who otherwise think trans people can identify as whatever they choose and rights should be equal across the board would baulk at dating someone who was trans. It's not fair, but it's just the way it is.
cashead wrote:
Do you know what anti-androgens are?
They block androgens such as testosterone. Which is fine if someone has been on them since puberty started (and I am really not going to get into a debate about when is an appropriate age to start transitioning as I'm not remotely qualified to comment on either the psychology or science of that).
But what about where someone hasnt been on them since puberty started and has had years of male levels of testosterone coursing through their body? The effects of that are life long and as far as I know irreversible.
I know we're getting into Caster Semenya territory here and again I dont remotely know all the science behind intersex bodies, but simply in the context of a discussion about someone born into the wrong body and transitioning, a trans woman who hasnt had anti androgens since puberty has a significant physical advantage over non trans women.
Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk
Once again, the actual evidence does not match what you're actually arguing. A transwoman athlete on an appropriate anti-androgen (one that lowers her testosterone level to an appropriate level) for an appropriate amount of time (e.g. 12+ months, as per IOC rules), does not have any significant physical advantage, and if anything, the dramatic loss in physical strength and stamina can put them at a significant disadvantage.
The available data isn't huge (there aren't actually that many transwomen competing at a serious level), but what is clear at this stage is that a cis woman, with a serious level of training, can compete against and outperform a transwoman in strength-based sports and competitions (case in point Fallon Fox getting the shit knocked out of her by cis-gendered Ashlee Evans-Smith, who has since gained an unimpressive 3-4 record in the UFC, including getting immediately tapped out in her first fight despite probably being on PEDs - she tested positive to a masking drug).
The below article says otherwise. Its not a science paper but it does link to publications. Unfortunately I cant access them without paying, but the summary provided in the article says that, although there is some dispute, at least one researcher specifically advocates that testosterone effect is long lasting and significant.
It was so much easier to blame Them. It was bleakly depressing to think They were Us. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Heres a long read that attempts to address the issues without getting bogged down in science. Annoyingly the author seems to present a well balanced argument that doesnt back anyones claims, damn him!! However as part of that he does recognize that there is evidence for long lasting benefits from testosterone to skeleton size and structure as well as heart and lung size.
Last edited by Donny osmond on Wed Jul 03, 2019 4:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It was so much easier to blame Them. It was bleakly depressing to think They were Us. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Another one that takes a middle ground but does include the recognition that "Elite trans-women athletes who take hormone therapy and/or have gender reassignment surgery to lower their testosterone to IOC-acceptable levels are likely to retain some of the male physiological advantages prior to transitioning, such as skeletal structure, and heart and lung size."
It was so much easier to blame Them. It was bleakly depressing to think They were Us. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Donny osmond wrote:Another one that takes a middle ground but does include the recognition that "Elite trans-women athletes who take hormone therapy and/or have gender reassignment surgery to lower their testosterone to IOC-acceptable levels are likely to retain some of the male physiological advantages prior to transitioning, such as skeletal structure, and heart and lung size."
But they're maintaining that skeletal structure and organ size without the musculature, red blood cell count, and the hormone balance that supports it. Obviously there are cases like netball where being 6'6 is a distinct advantage, but otherwise the skeletal size is a disadvantage as you're dragging around a heavier frame.
The one thing that is clear on this subject is that there isn't enough research and that which there is points in diametrically opposed directions and has poor methodology. However, I would've thought a useful data point would be that there aren't many top level trans female athletes out there. Can you name one without googling?
That's where the real data lies....out in the field, so to speak. Sample sizes in current studies are either too small or have not had appropriate methodology applied. Simply, there isn't enough data out there. The muscle memory thing should be approached with caution as it is not a valid driver of evolution.
morepork wrote:Great thread . This issue requires input from the full spectrum of formal knowledge, from civil rights through to Darwinian level biology (thanks for that input Vitamin P). I have a colleague at work that addresses the issue of Hermaphroditism in nematodes and the take home message of this work is that sexuality is one of the most dynamic processes in evolution. This work interrogates genetic pathways that have valid human homologues and so is considered relevant. My question is that if this facet of basic biology, that drives evolution no less, is apparent across phyla, then should the narrative not be focused on accommodation? This is the very bread and butter of why science matters. From a biological perspective, this is a very real issue, and one that needs to be made a discipline unto itself. That defines a clinical spectrum that is mainstream. Is the conversation difficult? Yes. Does this conversation matter? Absolutely. Eugene (Vitamin E?), your input here regarding the issues that confront the rule of law in this conversation is a welcome perspective from someone with boots on the ground.
Take home message? Too many MBA’s in the world.
When will your so called science ensure parents have the choice not to have a trans, or intrasex child?
Thank you Dr. Sarcy-Eugenics. There is currently no biomarker amenable to testing.
Donny osmond wrote:Another one that takes a middle ground but does include the recognition that "Elite trans-women athletes who take hormone therapy and/or have gender reassignment surgery to lower their testosterone to IOC-acceptable levels are likely to retain some of the male physiological advantages prior to transitioning, such as skeletal structure, and heart and lung size."
But they're maintaining that skeletal structure and organ size without the musculature, red blood cell count, and the hormone balance that supports it. Obviously there are cases like netball where being 6'6 is a distinct advantage, but otherwise the skeletal size is a disadvantage as you're dragging around a heavier frame.
The one thing that is clear on this subject is that there isn't enough research and that which there is points in diametrically opposed directions and has poor methodology. However, I would've thought a useful data point would be that there aren't many top level trans female athletes out there. Can you name one without googling?
Puja
If it does give a performance benefit, it's almost guaranteed that we'll soon see Russian/Ukrainian /Romanian /Bulgarian /Belarusian... Female trans athletes.
Donny osmond wrote:
They block androgens such as testosterone. Which is fine if someone has been on them since puberty started (and I am really not going to get into a debate about when is an appropriate age to start transitioning as I'm not remotely qualified to comment on either the psychology or science of that).
But what about where someone hasnt been on them since puberty started and has had years of male levels of testosterone coursing through their body? The effects of that are life long and as far as I know irreversible.
I know we're getting into Caster Semenya territory here and again I dont remotely know all the science behind intersex bodies, but simply in the context of a discussion about someone born into the wrong body and transitioning, a trans woman who hasnt had anti androgens since puberty has a significant physical advantage over non trans women.
Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk
Once again, the actual evidence does not match what you're actually arguing. A transwoman athlete on an appropriate anti-androgen (one that lowers her testosterone level to an appropriate level) for an appropriate amount of time (e.g. 12+ months, as per IOC rules), does not have any significant physical advantage, and if anything, the dramatic loss in physical strength and stamina can put them at a significant disadvantage.
The available data isn't huge (there aren't actually that many transwomen competing at a serious level), but what is clear at this stage is that a cis woman, with a serious level of training, can compete against and outperform a transwoman in strength-based sports and competitions (case in point Fallon Fox getting the shit knocked out of her by cis-gendered Ashlee Evans-Smith, who has since gained an unimpressive 3-4 record in the UFC, including getting immediately tapped out in her first fight despite probably being on PEDs - she tested positive to a masking drug).
The below article says otherwise. Its not a science paper but it does link to publications. Unfortunately I cant access them without paying, but the summary provided in the article says that, although there is some dispute, at least one researcher specifically advocates that testosterone effect is long lasting and significant.
If we're going with something from Channel 4, then here's an article where the writers actually A) went and talked to the researcher that worked with the IOC in drawing up their rules and 2) went and talked to an actual trans woman playing a sport about her experiences.
I saw the article you've linked to, and it relies far too much on reckons, dismisses actual lived experiences of trans women competing in sports post-transition, and tries to pass off hypotheses as conclusions.
I'm a god
How can you kill a god?
Shame on you, sweet Nerevar
cashead wrote:
Once again, the actual evidence does not match what you're actually arguing. A transwoman athlete on an appropriate anti-androgen (one that lowers her testosterone level to an appropriate level) for an appropriate amount of time (e.g. 12+ months, as per IOC rules), does not have any significant physical advantage, and if anything, the dramatic loss in physical strength and stamina can put them at a significant disadvantage.
The available data isn't huge (there aren't actually that many transwomen competing at a serious level), but what is clear at this stage is that a cis woman, with a serious level of training, can compete against and outperform a transwoman in strength-based sports and competitions (case in point Fallon Fox getting the shit knocked out of her by cis-gendered Ashlee Evans-Smith, who has since gained an unimpressive 3-4 record in the UFC, including getting immediately tapped out in her first fight despite probably being on PEDs - she tested positive to a masking drug).
The below article says otherwise. Its not a science paper but it does link to publications. Unfortunately I cant access them without paying, but the summary provided in the article says that, although there is some dispute, at least one researcher specifically advocates that testosterone effect is long lasting and significant.
If we're going with something from Channel 4, then here's an article where the writers actually A) went and talked to the researcher that worked with the IOC in drawing up their rules and 2) went and talked to an actual trans woman playing a sport about her experiences.
I saw the article you've linked to, and it relies far too much on reckons, dismisses actual lived experiences of trans women competing in sports post-transition, and tries to pass off hypotheses as conclusions.
In fairness theres not enough evidence for me to stand by a claim of significant and life long advantage so I would take that particular claim back, although now I think about it was Eugene's claim so I'm off free.
Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk
It was so much easier to blame Them. It was bleakly depressing to think They were Us. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
The IAAF seems to have done a lot of work on testosterone levels - though not specifically I think transwomen. They've come up with a sophisticated set of rules. I'm content to think they've probably got it largely right on testosterone. I get that there are some lasting advantages such as height since a transwoman can have reached heights that her cis sisters simply cannot. It's clearly something which needs more information and research though.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
The IAAF seems to have done a lot of work on testosterone levels - though not specifically I think transwomen. They've come up with a sophisticated set of rules. I'm content to think they've probably got it largely right on testosterone. I get that there are some lasting advantages such as height since a transwoman can have reached heights that her cis sisters simply cannot. It's clearly something which needs more information and research though.
I do have a lot of sympathy for the likes of Semenya and Chand on the testosterone limits, as they are definitely women, but are being punished for having bodies that naturally give them an advantage, just like Indurain's ridiculous resting heart rate, Thorpe's feet, or Margo Dydek's height (7'2 cis female basketballer). Seems unfair to laud some physiological differences that give competitive advantage and penalise others on an arbitrary limit.
There's not an easy answer. One of the articles I linked when noting that sex was more complicated than XX/XY pointed out that the IOC has been trying to find a definitive test that separates men from women perfectly for decades and are no closer now than they were when they started.
Puja
ETA. Looking up "tall female basketballers" led me to this top 10 list where they're all over 6'6: https://sport.one/the-top-10-tallest-fe ... -the-wnba/ So even a very tall tran woman who is still hauling around a male skeletal structure and height with a woman's muscles isn't going to be of a height unreachable by cis women in sport.
The IAAF seems to have done a lot of work on testosterone levels - though not specifically I think transwomen. They've come up with a sophisticated set of rules. I'm content to think they've probably got it largely right on testosterone. I get that there are some lasting advantages such as height since a transwoman can have reached heights that her cis sisters simply cannot. It's clearly something which needs more information and research though.
Height is only an advantage in certain sports and not all of them. And besides, with the loss in phyisical strength and the often observed increased brittleness in bones, lugging around a bigger frame would be a significant disadvantage.
I'm a god
How can you kill a god?
Shame on you, sweet Nerevar
