RugbyRebels

Cis comes from chemistry if anyone's interested. Isomers in particular.

Puja wrote:

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.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Puja wrote:

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

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

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:

Donny osmond wrote:

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.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... -all-about

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

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.

https://sportsscientists.com/2019/03/on ... dvantages/

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

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."

https://blogs.bmj.com/bjsm/2018/04/11/t ... ack-beggs/

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

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."

https://blogs.bmj.com/bjsm/2018/04/11/t ... ack-beggs/

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

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

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.

Digby wrote:

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.

Puja wrote:

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."

https://blogs.bmj.com/bjsm/2018/04/11/t ... ack-beggs/

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

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.

cashead wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

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.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... -all-about

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

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 really wasn't Donny!

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.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:It really wasn't Donny!

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.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

Coco wrote:I am a woman... period.

Is this a statement?

A definition?

Or a warning?

It just means I am a hormonal mess.

cashead wrote:

Puja wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:It really wasn't Donny!

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 Semenya situation is absolute, blatant discrimination and was found to be so by the Court of Sport Arbitration, and the IAAF has prior form in arbitrarily imposing restrictions more-or-less designed to prevent her from competing. Have you noticed how the new rules only seem to apply to the events Semenya competes in, and not others? Fancy that. And you could argue that Semenya has a natural advantage over her competitors, but she's not exactly obliterating records out there (she only holds the 600m World Record, by the way), and has been beaten every now and then.

And if we're talking about the natural chemicals that occur within our bodies, does the fact that Michael Phelps' body produces a considerably smaller amount of lactic acid mean he had a considerable advantage over his contemporaries when he was competing? Why does he get feted, while Semenya seems to get every inch of her body, including her reproductive organs, litigated extensively, to an uncomfortably intrusive degree?

So yeah, feel free to ponder the racial and gender politics of a board made up predominantly of old white men scrutinising and litigating every inch of a black woman's body and her reproductive organs. I know what conclusion I'm drawing.

If your muscles produce extra Lactic acid its likely to increase your natural testosterone, this is done through the leydig cells. (I read that somewhere) So, Phelps having a lower amount of Lactic acid and that giving him an advantage over other men does not equate to a similar comparison does it? Correct me if I am wrong.

On the "obliterating records out there" idea... obliterating records has nothing to do with it. If obliterating records was the litmus test, it would be cut and dry.

And Cashead... making it a black person vs. white person issue? What the hell is wrong with you? Color of her skin has nothing to do with it. Color of the people on the board have nothing to do with it. That statement is racist in and of itself and frankly weakens your stance, pretty much showing your inability to try and see things from another perspective. You know having a semblence of integrity and respect for other peoples opinions has its merits. You always resort to name calling when you get challenged or put off. Cant you just allow people to say their view without taking it personal or as if they are trying to prove you wrong? And for fucks sake leave skin color out of it FOR ONCE.

Coco wrote:

cashead wrote:

Puja wrote:
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 Semenya situation is absolute, blatant discrimination and was found to be so by the Court of Sport Arbitration, and the IAAF has prior form in arbitrarily imposing restrictions more-or-less designed to prevent her from competing. Have you noticed how the new rules only seem to apply to the events Semenya competes in, and not others? Fancy that. And you could argue that Semenya has a natural advantage over her competitors, but she's not exactly obliterating records out there (she only holds the 600m World Record, by the way), and has been beaten every now and then.

And if we're talking about the natural chemicals that occur within our bodies, does the fact that Michael Phelps' body produces a considerably smaller amount of lactic acid mean he had a considerable advantage over his contemporaries when he was competing? Why does he get feted, while Semenya seems to get every inch of her body, including her reproductive organs, litigated extensively, to an uncomfortably intrusive degree?

So yeah, feel free to ponder the racial and gender politics of a board made up predominantly of old white men scrutinising and litigating every inch of a black woman's body and her reproductive organs. I know what conclusion I'm drawing.

If your muscles produce extra Lactic acid its likely to increase your natural testosterone, this is done through the leydig cells. (I read that somewhere) So, Phelps having a lower amount of Lactic acid and that giving him an advantage over other men does not equate to a similar comparison does it? Correct me if I am wrong.

You're not wrong, just looking at the wrong bit for the sport. You're looking at strength training, which means he possibly has to work harder in the gym than his peers. However, swimming anaerobic exercise and stamina based, where the build-up of lactic acid in muscles causes fatigue and cramp. That gives Phelps a massive advantage, as he can push for longer. So he'd be a crap bodybuilder or weightlifter, but he's a ridiculous swimmer.

Testosterone has very little impact on stamina events, hence the rationale behind the Semenya rulings only covering shorter distance events, and why cyclists tend to cheat with blood doping rather than testosterone boosts.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Coco wrote:

cashead wrote: The Semenya situation is absolute, blatant discrimination and was found to be so by the Court of Sport Arbitration, and the IAAF has prior form in arbitrarily imposing restrictions more-or-less designed to prevent her from competing. Have you noticed how the new rules only seem to apply to the events Semenya competes in, and not others? Fancy that. And you could argue that Semenya has a natural advantage over her competitors, but she's not exactly obliterating records out there (she only holds the 600m World Record, by the way), and has been beaten every now and then.

And if we're talking about the natural chemicals that occur within our bodies, does the fact that Michael Phelps' body produces a considerably smaller amount of lactic acid mean he had a considerable advantage over his contemporaries when he was competing? Why does he get feted, while Semenya seems to get every inch of her body, including her reproductive organs, litigated extensively, to an uncomfortably intrusive degree?

So yeah, feel free to ponder the racial and gender politics of a board made up predominantly of old white men scrutinising and litigating every inch of a black woman's body and her reproductive organs. I know what conclusion I'm drawing.

If your muscles produce extra Lactic acid its likely to increase your natural testosterone, this is done through the leydig cells. (I read that somewhere) So, Phelps having a lower amount of Lactic acid and that giving him an advantage over other men does not equate to a similar comparison does it? Correct me if I am wrong.

You're not wrong, just looking at the wrong bit for the sport. You're looking at strength training, which means he possibly has to work harder in the gym than his peers. However, swimming anaerobic exercise and stamina based, where the build-up of lactic acid in muscles causes fatigue and cramp. That gives Phelps a massive advantage, as he can push for longer. So he'd be a crap bodybuilder or weightlifter, but he's a ridiculous swimmer.

Testosterone has very little impact on stamina events, hence the rationale behind the Semenya rulings only covering shorter distance events, and why cyclists tend to cheat with blood doping rather than testosterone boosts.

Puja

Ah ha! Thank you for clarifying.

The “obliterating records thing” is entirely relevant because it would be proof positive of advantage conferred by being transgender if manifest. Because it is not, the thought experiment stands. If you want to go down that road then the conversation that needs to be had is that has an athlete in question transitioned for the express purpose of receiving praise for excellence in a non professional competition? The weight of formal psychiatric data available for transgender people suggests this is near if not actually at the bottom of the list of potential motivators. I would respectfully suggest it isn’t actually a problem. If what I posit holds water, would not the process of publically scrutinizing the gender of an athlete, with all of the physical and psychological stress incurred, be completely out of proportion to the perceived problem?

morepork wrote:The “obliterating records thing” is entirely relevant because it would be proof positive of advantage conferred by being transgender if manifest. Because it is not, the thought experiment stands. If you want to go down that road then the conversation that needs to be had is that has an athlete in question transitioned for the express purpose of receiving praise for excellence in a non professional competition? The weight of formal psychiatric data available for transgender people suggests this is near if not actually at the bottom of the list of potential motivators. I would respectfully suggest it isn’t actually a problem. If what I posit holds water, would not the process of publically scrutinizing the gender of an athlete, with all of the physical and psychological stress incurred, be completely out of proportion to the perceived problem?

And here's the crux of it.

Why the fuck are we focusing on this? It's not a problem currently and is such a potentially tiny problem, too, that it just seems ridiculous to focus on it!

I was actually having a discussion about trans women the other day with someone who couldn't get their head around the idea that gender and sexuality are not always linked. "Why would a man want to become a woman and then still fuck women?"...

Yeah, now THAT Is a problem. And that should be the crux of it here.

There is a stigma attached to trans that doesn't exist for homosexuals. Mainly because you cannot "accidentally" have sex with a gay guy. And we have depictions such as Jim Carrey in whatever film that was showering furiously after finding out the woman was trans...or in Family Guy...and there are plenty more.

If you have a problem with a trans woman or man using your bathroom, you have a problem with yourself and you are projecting. They're not out to get you. They just want to be who they really are.

As for the original post, is it not the case that homosexuals want their own label? That they want it to be "OK to be gay".

While trans people just want to be a woman or a man. They don't want it to be "OK to be trans", they just want to be left in peace as a woman or a man.

Or have I read that wrong?

Oh, and Cash, there's no need to be a dick.

Just compare: Puja said

You're not wrong, just looking at the wrong bit for the sport.

You said

You're wrong, but Puja's beaten me to it.

Which one do you think is more likely to get a positive response? Which one do you think is more likely to get someone to change their opinion on something?

Wealth inequality
Climate change
Perpetual war and crimes against humanity
Access to effective medicine
A handful of female athletes that can run faster than other females


Guess which one sets the voters off the most?


People can be such cunts.

While unwilling to sanction Cas’s damn the torpedoes debating style, I do feel that the aim of debate should be to illuminate the facts, not change opinion. The former is more important than the latter in the greater scheme of things.

morepork wrote:While unwilling to sanction Cas’s damn the torpedoes debating style, I do feel that the aim of debate should be to illuminate the facts, not change opinion. The former is more important than the latter in the greater scheme of things.

And you do that by treating others with respect. Otherwise they're going to just double down. It's so damn important.

Former swimming Olympic silver medalist and hawt babe Sharron Davies defies interwebz LGBTQSTUV1234....∞ hate mob:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... _share-top

'When you speak up, you're called a hater. The thing that woke me up a little more after the IOC changed the rules about trans women competing against women was all the flack poor Martina got.'

She means tennis player Martina Navratilova, who was one of the first global sportswomen to come out as lesbian.

She is an honoured champion of gay rights but was roundly turned upon when she, like Sharron, said earlier this year that allowing trans women to compete in women's sport was 'unfair'.

Accusations of transphobia followed and she was chucked off the LGBTQ athlete advocacy group's advisory board. She has since apologised for using the term 'cheating' and called for a debate based 'not on feeling or emotion but science.'

'To be a sportswoman, you work so hard for so many years,' says Sharron. 'I worked six hours a day for six days a week with no holidays from the age of eight.

'I just wanted to win a race. To have to turn round and see someone in the lane next to me who's gone, 'Do you know what, I identify as a woman.

'OK, so I have at least a 10 per cent advantage over you because of my biology, but you're going to have to deal with it' is something I'd have a massive problem with.'

She ticks off on her fingers examples of the 'unfairnesses'.

Take the New Zealand power-lifter who was 'nothing really special' as a man, but retired, transitioned, returned to compete as a trans woman and outlifted the next female opponent by 19kg.

Or in the 17 American states where boys self-identify as girls and go from being 'pretty average' male athletes to the 'very best' female athletes, thus securing lucrative scholarships to some of the most sought-after American sport colleges.

'They've not taken a hormone. They've not had surgery,' says Sharron. 'All they've done is self-identify, and they're wiping the floor with all the girls.'