Actually it was a similar argument in this thread, which I believe predates the disagreements from the dog one.
Incidentally, it's not the dog being defended, but the people affecting it that I'm 'prosecuting'. But I'm sure you knew that, given how often I've pointed it out.
I try not to 'imply' anything with my posts, as people tend to read into that whatever they want to hear.
Right now it's a messy bulk-buy Costco-special multipack of canned worms, with the various disagreements over the scientific evidence for any of the different perspectives, with the way the CAS/IOC have handled the matter, with the levels of publicity and privacy violations, with the legal procedures and interpretations underpinning the different hearings and rulings, and all manner of holes being picked in everything.
From a scientific perspective, you show me absolute peer-agreed proof that an individual has a definite and unfair advantage, not commensurate with their designated* sex, as a result of their specific biology, then that is the line.
Again, show me the same level of proof that it is specifically natural excess testosterone that has resulted in this particular advantage, in their particular discipline/event, that's where the line begins.
But as of the last time I bothered reading up on the subject, these factors and those in the above paragraph are all still being highly and hotly debated by various experts, so until those are globally settled you can't reliably start filling up your line-painting machine.
From a moral perspective, we have a wealth of both Trans-people and athletes being caught doping, both of which I consider artificial advantages. Someone who has been designated all their lives as female, by both the doctors of their own 'uneducated, backward, under-resourced' nation and previously by those of the official ruling bodies, and is competing in their 'natural state' without any kind of elective enhancement - I see no problem with them competing, unless you have the above-specified proof that the advantage they have is unfair. The argument is that most elite level athletes have some sort of advantage, which is precisely what got them to elite level in the first place. Whether those are unfair is again still debatable, but it seems even there the rules are still chopping and changing...
Either way, the details and reasoning behind any such ruling should not be made public, given how badly these athletes' privacy and personal lives have been put through the ringer.
*Designated by social and physical standards, completely ignoring any legal or self-certifying assertions.
You are literally parotting the 2021 IOC Framework on Fairness, Inclusion and Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sex variations.
Unfortunately it was well thought out as a chocolate fireguard.
The crux is exactly as you wish, you have to assume zero advantage is gained from any athlete competing in the Womens category and will only be ineligible if direct peer review scientific evidence can be put forward of a specific advantage. This framework was not for them to define tests but for the sporting bodies to use, i.e. passing this to each Sporting Federation (which in 2021 would have been the IBA).
The obviousness of it all is that the science around this specific subject is so incomplete as to be useless.. People can't even agree on testosterone, it depends on the individual, if they had elevated levels through puberty, if they are resilient to it etc, etc, etc, etc.. Never mind everything else..
(To repeat myself) So much so, in defending the IOCs decision (
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/a...failed-gender-tests-to-compete-paris-olympics) their spokesperson made some great admissions
"I would just say that everyone competing in the women’s category is complying with the competition eligibility rules. They are women in their passports and it is stated that is the case."
Adams conceded that rules regarding who should compete in the female category were “complex”, especially when it came to those who had undergone male puberty, but said it should be up to each sport to make a decision rather than the IOC.
“As for the question about testosterone and going through male puberty, we issued a framework document to all the federations,” he said. “And everyone would love to have a single answer: yes, no, yes, no. But it’s incredibly complex.
“And actually it boils down to not just sport by sport, but discipline by discipline. So people may have an advantage in this discipline and not in this discipline if they have been through male puberty or not.”
Adams added the IOC’s position was for sports to try to balance fairness in female sport with inclusivity. “Federations need to make the rules to make sure that there is fairness, but at the same time with the ability for everyone to take part who wants to,” he said.
“That’s a difficult balance. In the end it’s up to the experts for each discipline. They know very well where there is an advantage, and if that is a big advantage then that is clearly not acceptable. But that decision needs to be made at that level. “
So as stated it was down to the federations to just 'know' when there was an advantage and to what extent and then determine some acceptability criteria.. The IBA did this and banned them (And the IBA press conference above should help answer any further questions on that situation). The fact the IOC parted ways with the IBA and the net result is zero testing, just a passport check..
The problem has been around much longer, if you read a few papers on the subject (so I'll summarise from them) you can see that hyperandrogenic athletes have been constantly a source of concern, notably women with polycystic ovary syndrome (who are overrepresented in elite athletics), this extends to DSD and Trans in that it was believed that testosterone was the key defining difference, that and increased Haemoglobin levels (ability to carry more o2/co2 throughout the body) that it was believed back in 2011 that all they had to do was put a limit on testosterone and all would be good, they did put in the caveat 'unless it could be proven the hyperandrogenic athlete was not reactive to the increased circulating testosterone').
However in 2015 that rule was suspended because the science was disputed (it being incomplete , and so the IAAF had to effectively run on the basis that circulating testosterone levels didn't matter in hyperandrogenic athletes and that opened the door to where we are today. I agree that the subject is too complex for science at the moment, I think testosterone is not the marker that conclusively proves everything simply as having elevated circulating testosterone through puberty has an irreversible effect on the body, one that can't be entirely undone from just lowering circulating testosterone levels later on.
On the science, it's well documented how 'circulating' testosterone levels improve performance as well as the increased haemoglobin and all the good effects that can have.. what is almost impossible to prove due to the nature of the studies required is how testosterone and any other 'Y' chromosome effects contribute precisely to a persons performance over time, through puberty and on any individuals hormonal make up.
But we can look back at a time that some very barbaric practices show the effects. Eastern Germany/European nations in the 70s and 80s had a mass doping program running that in Eastern Germany alone affected at least 10,000 athletes, most unknowingly, given a raft of drugs including testosterone through puberty to irreversible alter their bodies and clearly from the fact they dominated at times (over 90% of the womens medals going to eastern european women who had been doped) this showed the dramatic performance enhancement that can come from boosting testosterone levels artificially for long periods of time especially through puberty.
Now imagine instead of the Stasi doping program you have someone that has a natural ability to produce a subset of those drugs and potentially do this through puberty.. then have increased levels of circulating testosterone for very long periods of time..
So to have a stance that unless there is absolute peer reviewed evidence of a specific advantage in such a complex area that science can't help is so disingenuous to a point that you end up ignoring the federation when they declare someone ineligible and then admitting it's too complex so can only rely on their passport. This is why (for other sports) we have the absolute mess of Laurel Hubbard.. 100% eligible for the womens category, yet born male, went through puberty as male, competed as a male, would only place last place internationally, transitions, lowers their testosterone and despite a small drop in performance instantly lifts enough to qualify sixth in the world..
reduxx.info
