Intersex / transgender etc competing. Thoughts?

[Hotwired]

Not sure if surprised or not that this is still going on...

The mens and womens race is entirely artificial and has nothing to do with nature.

The women are given a different category due to the well known lower maximum performance women have.

The extra performance in the mens category is not penis powered although you might look for one as strong evidence of being male.

The performance can be mostly put down to the vastly higher level of testosterone produced by males.


So if the main performance booster is testosterone.

And the sexed races are divided to have a protected division for the ones without the much higher levels of testosterone.

Then in the case of nature having a laugh and generating a hybrid it's still a matter of going back to WHY we divide the races up.

Testosterone.


How competitive someone is in each category and what sex they were brought up as is mud in the water. So are emotional feelings about it.

 

[ttaskmaster]

You're welcome to state your position on either or both - the question was firstly whether a biological male could compete as a female if she declares herself to be female and secondly where you draw the line?

Then no, he cannot.
If the entirety of society where he was born and grew up has universally regarded him as female, from family to doctors, to legal entities, to every day people on the street - That would be different, as everyone is declaring him female from the outset.
If genetics is such a thing, then why are men not being tested?

Straw man - I've not claimed she has done anything wrong

Then why is the question of her eligibility to compete still being raised, even after it has been ruled that she is allowed?

Straw man again, I've not stated she should change who she is

She is female.
Unaided, she has X level of testosterone.
You're saying she either cannot compete as a female, or she cannot have X level. That means either becoming male or taking drugs... or giving up her career.

Why are you carrying on with flawed analogies? Again, for the third time, there are no IQ or height categories in sports.

That's the point of an analogy, as opposed to the direct comparsion of an almost identical case.

 

[dowie]

Then no, he cannot.
If the entirety of society where he was born and grew up has universally regarded him as female, from family to doctors, to legal entities, to every day people on the street - That would be different, as everyone is declaring him female from the outset.

OK we're getting somewhere - so a man who declares himself to be female can't compete.

However you've dodged the second part of the question - where do you draw the line?

You seem to have indicated that in a case of a man who has been brought up as female 'that would be different' - how? In your opinion should he/she be able to compete as female?

Then why is the question of her eligibility to compete still being raised, even after it has been ruled that she is allowed?

it is still open to appeal actually and the issue of intersex athletes is a reasonable question in general regardless.

She is female.
Unaided, she has X level of testosterone.
You're saying she either cannot compete as a female, or she cannot have X level. That means either becoming male or taking drugs... or giving up her career.

I'm saying if she is intersex then IMO she shouldn't compete as a female and yes if she's not competitive when she can't compete as a female then then it does mean she can't have a career as a runner, just like the thousands of other non-females who run with similar times to hers

That's the point of an analogy, as opposed to the direct comparsion of an almost identical case.

the point was the analogy didn't fit it just illustrated a logical failing on your part

 

[ttaskmaster]

You seem to have indicated that in a case of a man who has been brought up as female 'that would be different' - how? In your opinion should he/she be able to compete as female?

Indicated?
That was an outright statement, since it included being recognised as female by everyone, including medical and legal entities.
Of course, that assumes the 'man' *hasn't* been stuck with needles and genetically tested each year to redefine their gender, of course... If that is to be the future, it's anyone's guess.

But again, I ask - If this is such an issue, then why aren't all athletes being genetically tested to ascertain their 'true' gender, regardless of whether or not their performance is above average?

it is still open to appeal actually and the issue of intersex athletes is a reasonable question in general regardless.

So far I'm not aware of any confirmed intersex athletes, although admitedly I don't pay much attention to such things, but as is it seems every one of them has been ruled as acceptably female - I assume disclosure of the reasoning behind it would be unacceptably public knowledge of the athletes' private (har har) information, but that's still up to them as the rule-makers, no?

I'm saying if she is intersex then IMO she shouldn't compete as a female and yes if she's not competitive when she can't compete as a female then then it does mean she can't have a career as a runner, just like the thousands of other non-females who run with similar times to hers

Should it not be proven that she is intersex first, rather than having one of a number of other possible conditions that might elevate her testosterone while still keeping her female?
That is the part I have the big issue over - The assumption that she has all these blokey internals.

the point was the analogy didn't fit it just illustrated a logical failing on your part

A direct comparison of the same defining factor would only be a parallel case, rather than an actual analogy.

 

[dowie]

Indicated?
That was an outright statement, since it included being recognised as female by everyone, including medical and legal entities.
Of course, that assumes the 'man' *hasn't* been stuck with needles and genetically tested each year to redefine their gender, of course... If that is to be the future, it's anyone's guess.

But again, I ask - If this is such an issue, then why aren't all athletes being genetically tested to ascertain their 'true' gender, regardless of whether or not their performance is above average?

I'm not sure it is necessary to test everyone, I've certainly not proposed doing so. I did however ask you a question - where do you draw the line?

You've said that in the case of a man brought up as a female 'that would be different' - how? In your opinion should he/she be able to compete as female? At what point do you believe we should limit participation in female events?

 

[dowie]

So far I'm not aware of any confirmed intersex athletes, although admitedly I don't pay much attention to such things, but as is it seems every one of them has been ruled as acceptably female - I assume disclosure of the reasoning behind it would be unacceptably public knowledge of the athletes' private (har har) information, but that's still up to them as the rule-makers, no?

not quite - there was a court ruling that will quite likely be appealed

Should it not be proven that she is intersex first, rather than having one of a number of other possible conditions that might elevate her testosterone while still keeping her female?
That is the part I have the big issue over - The assumption that she has all these blokey internals.

it doesn't really matter - for the purpose of this discussion

I think we know what she quite likely is since it has been leaked to the media but it isn't all about her, you can share your views in general re: intersex athletes.

A direct comparison of the same defining factor would only be a parallel case, rather than an actual analogy.

you're yet to provide a relevant analogy

 

[ttaskmaster]

I'm not sure it is necessary to test everyone, I've certainly not proposed doing so. I did however ask you a question - where do you draw the line?

I draw the line at someone who physically looks every inch a male and who society regards as male.

You've said that in the case of a man brought up as a female 'that would be different' - how? In your opinion should he/she be able to compete as female?

Yes, on the basis that your "brought up" also includes everyone else regarding them as female.
I'd put in another analogy, but I'm sure you'd dismiss it...

not quite - there was a court ruling that will quite likely be appealed

So a court of law has ruled in favour of the governing organisation and people are still arguing it?

it doesn't really matter - for the purpose of this discussion

Since the discussion seems to revolve around the plight of people who have not been proven intersex in the first place, I thought it rather relevant.

I think we know what she quite likely is since it has been leaked to the media but it isn't all about her, you can share your views in general re: intersex athletes.

You think you know, sure... but there's nothing beyond the same phrases being repeated verbatim in newspapers to substantiate it.

you're yet to provide a relevant analogy

You're yet to acknowlege the relevant points of the analogy, choosing instead to nitpick the specifics of the surrounding details.

 

[dowie]

I draw the line at someone who physically looks every inch a male and who society regards as male.

How exactly do you expect that rule to be applied?

So someone who is biologically male but say trans could compete so long as society considered them female?

Do you not see why a lot of people would see that as a flawed approach - the reason for segregation by gender being biological advantages thus allowing a biological male to compete undermining the whole reason for segregation by gender?

You're yet to acknowlege the relevant points of the analogy, choosing instead to nitpick the specifics of the surrounding details.

If you're able to then why not explain how your analogy applies then and discuss it? Or address the criticism of it.

 

[dowie]

So a court of law has ruled in favour of the governing organisation and people are still arguing it?

This is an internet forum, people are able to discuss their opinions on matters, yes - not exactly a novel concept. You don't have to agree with every court judgement that has even happened.

the court has told the IAAF they can appeal

Since the discussion seems to revolve around the plight of people who have not been proven intersex in the first place, I thought it rather relevant.

Relevant yes, does it matter whether she is or not in the context of the wider discussion? Not really as the discussion isn't just about her.

 

[ttaskmaster]

How exactly do you expect that rule to be applied?

Do they have official legal documentation that says they're female?
Then that'll do for starters.

So someone who is biologically male but say trans could compete so long as society considered them female?

At what level does "biologically" mean?
If they have a **** still, then no, they're obviously male.
But once they have completed the processes, taken whatever they have to take to change genders and have been 'sorted' long enough that any arguable effects residual from the medications will have long since passed, then I would assume they'd be as female as they could get and thus perfectly elligible.

However, if you're having to do detailed DNA testing or somesuch, then perhaps that's going just a little too far... especially as you'd have to similarly test every individual to avoid discrimination and, TBH, I expect a lot more people would find out a lot more about themselves than they or anyone else would want to.

Do you not see why a lot of people would see that as a flawed approach - the reason for segregation by gender being biological advantages thus allowing a biological male to compete undermining the whole reason for segregation by gender?

No more flawed than allowing someone to change their god-given gender in the first place, surely?
But again, if the people of society and their legal institutions all recognise someone as belonging to the 'in-club' anyway, why would there be such a problem?

If you're able to then why not explain how your analogy applies then and discuss it? Or address the criticism of it.

The analogy is about disallowing someone, based on their natural state giving them an advantage in a competition where they pretty much meet all the stated requirements, likening them to those who cheat.
Doesn't matter if it's gender, IQ, height, weight or whatever the defining factor is - They meet the entry requirements and have not doped, dosed or done anything wrong to achieve what they have.

This is an internet forum, people are able to discuss their opinions on matters, yes - not exactly a novel concept.

I was referring more to the general dispute of it.

the court has told the IAAF they can appeal

Wasn't the IAFF the one that wanted her competition allowed?

Relevant yes, does it matter whether she is or not in the context of the wider discussion? Not really as the discussion isn't just about her.

From the very first post, she's been the centre of it, though. Barely any of the other Might-Be-A-Blokes have even been mentioned... also none of whom (to my knowledge) have anything that actually proves/disproves their gender either. So again, I'm not seeing anything about confirmed intersex athletes to begin with... just those that people think might be, assuming their questioned performance is not down to some other condition.

I'm almost at the point of thinking it's an irrelevant topic of debate, based on the idea that intersex athletes would have to declare themselves in order to be allowed in, which again is discrimination, unfair and very much against what the Olympics are supoosed to be.

 

[dowie]

The multi quotes are getting silly - so basically your position is that as long as they don't have a penis and are legally female (so based on social gender) they can compete?

It is rather flawed as the whole point of gender segregation is separate males from females due to the physical advantages of males - those physical advantages aren't derived from simply possessing a penis.

You still don't seem to have presented an analogy though what you have typed in your attempt there is based on the assumption that the person in question does fit the category when this discussion is about who should fit the category in the first place.

 

[ttaskmaster]

The multi quotes are getting silly - so basically your position is that as long as they don't have a penis and are legally female (so based on social gender) they can compete?

Pretty much, yeah.

It is rather flawed as the whole point of gender segregation is separate males from females due to the physical advantages of males - those physical advantages aren't derived from simply possessing a penis.

Then you are firmly into the territory of publicly testing every single athlete, to prove beyond all genetic doubt that they are either 100% within their assigned category, or otherwise unable to compete.
To do otherwise is unfair on those you do test and to keep the test results private lacks the neccesary legal transparency.

You still don't seem to have presented an analogy

You seem to think analogy means to compare two things that are exactly the same situation, rather than drawing on the parallel similarities.

though what you have typed in your attempt there is based on the assumption that the person in question does fit the category when this discussion is about who should fit the category in the first place.

My argument is that the person *does* fit the category, no assumption needed, so should not be used as the prime example of why the discussion even needs to happen.

 

[dowie]

No I'm not firmly into the territory of publicly testing every single athlete nor have I proposed that.

I'm happy with an analogy that draws parallels but I'm also happy to point out flawed analogies. You're welcome to explain yours as I've pointed out several times.

Again the whole discussion is about who fits the category, to make an assumption that someone does fit the category then base some argument around that is missing the point somewhat.

At least we've finally been able to get you to state an actual opinion on the matter itself now, even if there doesn't appear to be much reasoning behind it.

 

[drunkenmaster]

Semenya wasn't publicly tested for anything, more than that, ALL athletes are routinely tested for testosterone levels to partake in the sport. They already, by way of trying to stop cheating, highlight everyone with abnormal levels for the group they compete in.

Precisely because all athletes are tested already and precisely because Semenya had such ridiculously abnormal numbers she had to undergo further testing. First to determine if she was cheating, second once they have a reasonable belief she wasn't actively cheating (as in taking extra testosterone), to determine the cause of her high testosterone level. The leaked results(which haven't been refuted anywhere afaik, however nasty it is to leak the results) say she has testes, she is a man in every way except genitalia... which happens.

She was originally given the choice, compete with men with higher test levels or compete with women with lower test levels in which case you have to lower your test levels to fit into that category, she chose the latter and wasn't competitive. A frankly ridiculous ruling that people with abnormal test levels can compete with those with lower test levels led to her being able to come off medication and blow everyone away performance wise.

What if a man or woman can induce a disease or illness causing higher testosterone levels without actively injecting testosterone, would that be legal seeing as it was natural?

 

[ttaskmaster]

No I'm not firmly into the territory of publicly testing every single athlete nor have I proposed that.

No, you have not outright stated that in words.... but you leave no other option.

I'm happy with an analogy that draws parallels but I'm also happy to point out flawed analogies. You're welcome to explain yours as I've pointed out several times.

Explain how it's flawed, then, rather than just going on about how it doesn't portray two cases that are exactly the same thing, which then isn't an analogy in the first place...

Again the whole discussion is about who fits the category, to make an assumption that someone does fit the category then base some argument around that is missing the point somewhat.

OK, like everyone else, I'll assume she doesn't fit the category and then base the argument around that, yes?
How is that any better?

At least we've finally been able to get you to state an actual opinion on the matter itself now, even if there doesn't appear to be much reasoning behind it.

It's an opinion.
If you want an in-depth study, supported by nothing but pure scientific fact, leading to logical reasoning and conclusions, then say so...

ALL athletes are routinely tested for testosterone levels to partake in the sport.

What happens to the blokes with abnormally low testosterone, if any?
What would happen?
Do they get booted out for not being manly enough for the man-races?

The leaked results(which haven't been refuted anywhere afaik, however nasty it is to leak the results) say she has testes, she is a man in every way except genitalia... which happens.

Until a source of this 'leak' can be verified, though, I would have to remain skeptical.

What if a man or woman can induce a disease or illness causing higher testosterone levels without actively injecting testosterone, would that be legal seeing as it was natural?

It likely wouldn't be considered natural.
It's something that she did to herself to gain an advantage.
I also don't believe you can induce any of those conditions I mentioned earlier... I imagine a couple might be possible with certain drugs, but again you're into taking substances in order to gain an advantage. I honestly don't think any woman of sound mind would want her ovaries to become polycystic, no matter what glory followed, given the range of other symptoms that come with PCOS!

 

[dowie]

No, you have not outright stated that in words.... but you leave no other option.

Nope, putting forth the opinion that intersex athletes with internal testes shouldn't be allowed to compete as 'female' doesn't logically imply that I support public gender testing for all athletes. This is again you coming to dubious conclusions as a result of some flawed reasoning on your part.

Explain how it's flawed, then, rather than just going on about how it doesn't portray two cases that are exactly the same thing, which then isn't an analogy in the first place...

Perhaps you can present a coherent analogy first?

OK, like everyone else, I'll assume she doesn't fit the category and then base the argument around that, yes?
How is that any better?

I wasn't referring to her in particular.

It's an opinion.
If you want an in-depth study, supported by nothing but pure scientific fact, leading to logical reasoning and conclusions, then say so...

I don't nor have I suggested that, but some basic reasoning to support your opinion might be nice...

What happens to the blokes with abnormally low testosterone, if any?
What would happen?
Do they get booted out for not being manly enough for the man-races?

Why would they? FYI They're unlikely to be elite athletes in the first place.

Until a source of this 'leak' can be verified, though, I would have to remain skeptical.

it is irrelevant and sidetracking regardless - for the purpose of the discussion you can still talk about how you feel intersex athletes in general should be treated without having to take about one specific individual who likely is intersex based on leaked reports.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Nope, putting forth the opinion that intersex athletes with internal testes shouldn't be allowed to compete as 'female' doesn't logically imply that I support public gender testing for all athletes. This is again you coming to dubious conclusions as a result of some flawed reasoning on your part.

How will you know they're intersex unless you actually test them, though...?

Perhaps you can present a coherent analogy first?

Perhaps you can learn what an analogy is, so you can understand them, then...

I wasn't referring to her in particular.

So just general assumptions then. Fair enough.

Why would they? FYI They're unlikely to be elite athletes in the first place.

So it's okay for them to cross the defined barriers as long as they're not too good for everyone else...?

it is irrelevant and sidetracking regardless - for the purpose of the discussion you can still talk about how you feel intersex athletes in general should be treated without having to take about one specific individual who likely is intersex based on leaked reports.

When you find one, let me know.

 

[dowie]

How will you know they're intersex unless you actually test them, though...?

You don't.

But that isn't a reason for public testing, frankly a ridiculous proposal. You can test where there is some suspicions, reason to test - such as dubious testosterone levels.

So just general assumptions then. Fair enough.

no, nothing to do with assumptions I'm just talking about the general case, you seem to be fixated on one particular case and it is sidetracking really as it doesn't matter for the purpose of the discussion in general

So it's okay for them to cross the defined barriers as long as they're not too good for everyone else...?

Nope. Again we segregate men an women because men have an inherent advantage physically. If we've got an athlete that isn't fully male or female but has aspects of that male physical advantage then he/she shouldn't (IMO) be in the female category (which is essentially the protected one). IMO therefore anyone not female (i.e. including people who are socially female but are intersex with some male advantages such as testes and high testosterone) should be in the male category.

You're also advocating crossing the defined barriers though your argument is that anyone claiming to be female not in possession of a penis is OK - which is really dubious as it negates the obvious physical advantages a man has... frankly a good male club runner could go for an operation, declare himself female and set world records according to where you'd want to draw the line.

When you find one, let me know.

Why? Again you're fixated on the individual cases which is irrelevant to the discussion. Intersex people exist, the final three of the women's 800m were all suspected to be intersex, whether they are or not though isn't relevant as far as a general discussion about whether intersex people should compete as females.

 

[ttaskmaster]

You can test where there is some suspicions, reason to test - such as dubious testosterone levels.

So as long as they don't get caught, they can compete in either gender.

no, nothing to do with assumptions I'm just talking about the general case, you seem to be fixated on one particular case and it is sidetracking really as it doesn't matter for the purpose of the discussion in general

But the discussion in general seems to hinge around how certain athletes are 'clearly male', because the papers said so... There's very little being discussed that doesn't depend on or refer to that assumption.

You're also advocating crossing the defined barriers though your argument is that anyone claiming to be female not in possession of a penis is OK - which is really dubious as it negates the obvious physical advantages a man has...

You seem to think this is a bad thing.

frankly a good male club runner could go for an operation, declare himself female and set world records according to where you'd want to draw the line.

If he is legally recognised as female and everyone else accepts him as female, what's the problem?

whether they are or not though isn't relevant as far as a general discussion about whether intersex people should compete as females.

Then you'll have to create a new category, or set of categories, because there is NO WAY you can exclude someone from competing on the basis that they were born different - You'd start a war!

 

[tom_e]

Are you two not bored yet?