Biological male wins Oregon girls' state championship in 200m - Crowd boos

He can respond as needed but those specific snippets read to me like a tautological claim that not going through male puberty will not confer the advantages of going through it.

On the other hand your obsession with heart or pelvis or other anatomical structures is irrelevant and unnecessary given the huge intra-group variance. For performance fairness, it is *sufficient* to directly compare the running (or sport-specific) performance of transwomen post-GnRH+hormone therapy with cis women and show that the groups are statistically similar.

Sufficient, but not necessary. Even if that is not true, a weaker condition —equality of outcomes— is also sufficient for arguing that a social policy is fair, i.e., in this context, the fraction of trans women winning medals is no higher than that of cis women. That sufficiency is especially compelling when the trans women are a tiny fraction of the population and are the perceived threat to fairness. The outcome threat is nonexistent in elite T&F today.

-chuckle

Fair enough. So here are some more recent examples.

A year ago today on another thread you were arguing that “early transitioning” males should be allowed to compete in the female category of sports not just because of the GnRHa drugs they take, but also because they take Big Pharma estrogen too:

“Puberty blocker usually suppresses the t-level to "normal female range." It is usually followed by estrogen supplement to induce female puberty.”

To your credit, you did retract the claim that Big Pharma estrogen induces female puberty in trans-identified males when other posters told you it's hogwash.

More recently, in post #155 on this thread two days ago, you highlighted this point made by someone else in post #154:

“once a male has gone through male puberty, they will have some natural strength advantages over females, regardless what they get their later testosterone level down to”

You responded to this by saying,

“You are ignoring the existence of transgender girls / women who did not go through male puberty.”

Based on these and many other statements you’ve made over time, including in the past year, I was under the impression that even today you continue to maintain that when males go on GnRHa drugs to suppress their testosterone starting before age 12, Tanner 2, and they remain on these drugs until surgical castration circa age 18 per the Dutch protocol, it stops them from going through any aspect of male development that could give them an advantage over females in sports.

Indeed, your very own words from two days ago - “did not go through male puberty” - gave me the impression you believe that these drugs prevent males from going through any aspect of normal male development during adolescence at all.

That interpretation seems reasonable to me given that in direct exchanges you and I have had in the past year, you said you supported the trans policies put in place by FINA/World Aquatics in 2022 and World Athletics in 2023.

Both those policies are based on the premise that physically normal/healthy males (meaning males without DSDs) who’ve used gonad-suppressant drugs continually since age 12 , or Tanner Stage 2, to keep their serum testosterone levels below 2.5 nmol/L for reasons of "gender affirmation" cannot and do not acquire any of the male-typical features that give males as class such a massive advantage in sports over females as a class - and therefore such males should be allowed to compete in female sports.

I personally don’t buy that premise. But I thought you did?

Anyways, if I’ve misunderstood and misrepresented your current position, I apologize.

There is no evidence that a trans person under such condition has "massive" advantage over other females. But neither World Athletics or World Aquatics (for that matter any other organization) is claiming that there is no advantage or there cannot be any advantage.

The premise of the argument is that whatever advantage that might exist has not been proven and probably cannot be proven because of (a) relatively small size of potential advantage and (b) extremely small sample size. And CAS has made it clear that any uncertainty should be decided in favor of athletes. So if those trans athletes are banned without any evidence, the sports organization will be sued and is likely to lose in the court.

BJP may have genetic advantage over cis girls. That has not been proven. Both her current record and rate of progress fall within the range of her competitors. If she makes a huge progress in the next few years and threatens the national HS record, then that will cast doubt on the current premise. I don't think that's likely to happen.

Wow this has been happening a lot lately. Crazy

Agree, although I would alter #2: anyone born with any male sex organs should compete in the biological male category.