As I said before, the argument for why Ivy doesn't belong in women's sports is based on Ivy's sex, not on Ivy's height or weight.
As I said before, that’s your faith. Trans women have a different faith, based on their bodies now, not natal gonadal characteristics two decades back.
Scientists are focused on objective fairness metrics based on current physiology, and WA is hyperaware, certainly trying to be, of state of the art science.
Lance Armstrong had a different faith, based on the steroids and hgh running through his veins
Huh? No one has ever suggested instituting "a cutoff on size to maintain fairness" in women's and girls' sports. This is another straw man ploy. Or straw transwoman, rather.
The way to establish and maintain a fundamental baseline of fairness in women's and girls' sports is simply to exclude males. ALL males across the board.
You got it, the above faith-based dictat is all you got, one based on definitional exclusion, not on the argument that there is some set of performance-impacting metrics on which ALL (not just 99%) males are known to be far superior to all females.
Why is it fair to include like 50% of elite women whose performance related metrics are superior to 1% of elite men, but not trans women whose same metrics are also in that range? Just because they were natally testicular?
Please try responding concisely to the point.
This is another straw transwoman ploy, though. No one has ever said males are excluded from female sport because "ALL males are known to be far superior to all females." That's a dumb claim I can't imagine anyone has ever made with straight face.
No one has ever said males are excluded from female sport because "they were natally testicular" either.
People who "were natally testicular," to use your disingenuous phrase, are beside the point here anyways. The males with DSDs and opposite-sex gender identities who are creating such contention and controversy by demanding to be included in women's and girls' sports today all still have their testes intact and in full working order.
The whole reason there is a focus on the natural testosterone levels of male DSD athletes like Caster Semenya and France Niyonsaba and trans-identified athletes like Veronica Ivy and Lia Thomas in women's sports today is that all these athletes still have their testes - and they very much want to keep them.
If these male athletes didn't all still have their testes - and their testes weren't still just as capable of pumping out massive amount of testosterone like they did when these athletes were in utero and when they went through the male puberties of infancy and adolescence - they wouldn't be constantly kvetching about regulations requiring that they take medications to lower their T for a time in order to gain eligibility for women's sports.
You got it, the above faith-based dictat is all you got, one based on definitional exclusion, not on the argument that there is some set of performance-impacting metrics on which ALL (not just 99%) males are known to be far superior to all females.
Why is it fair to include like 50% of elite women whose performance related metrics are superior to 1% of elite men, but not trans women whose same metrics are also in that range? Just because they were natally testicular?
Please try responding concisely to the point.
Did you mistype or do you believe that 50% of elite woman have performance metrics superior to 1% of elite men? You might like the bottom 1% of elite men? They wouldn’t be elite if women were better lol
By ‘performance metrics’ they are referring solely to testosterone levels, height, and weight based on graphs from here:
Look at height! Also complete overlap. In fact, in the sample of elite athletes, the shortest athlete was a man!
This kind of complete overlap between genders is true for any and ALL physiometric characteristics you can pick. pic.twitter.com/u0O0ygV5AS
‘Performance metrics’ is deservedly in quotes because you couldn’t pick a lamer way to categorize ‘performance’ than by looking at that data in isolation. Cherry picking all the way.
The fact that athletes like Veronica Ivy, Lia Thomas and Caster Semenya are, as you would say, "testicular" - and they have been "testicular" all their lives since about 8 weeks in utero, long before they were "natal" - is only part of what's relevant to discussions about their demands to be included in women's sports.
By virtue of their genetics, all athletes who are now and ever were "testicular" (except for the those with one rare male DSD, CAIS) respond - and always have responded - to the male-typical amounts of testosterone their testes have pumped out over the long course of their development into mature adulthood in ways that are characteristic of, and unique to, males.
Because they have a Y chromosome and possess the SRY gene, and their Y chromosome and SRY gene is in every single nucleated cell in their bodies, they also have male androgen receptors and male physiology. As a result, for all of their lives starting when they were still inside their mothers' wombs, their bodies have responded to the high amounts of endogenous T their testes have made and still make in the distinctive ways that males customarily do.
If these athletes truly were female the way Ivy preposterously claims to be, they would have physically responded to their high levels of natural T very differently. Because a fact that "experts" like Ivy and most others in these convos overlook is that the bodies of female humans do not utilize and respond to the endogenous T that our ovaries, adrenals and fat cells make in the same ways that the bodies of male humans respond to the endogenous T that their testes make. In certain aspects, there is an overlap or similarity in response between the two sexes. But in myriad other ways, male and female bodies respond to our own natural testosterone very, very differently.
This is why women with conditions that cause our natural testosterone to be unusually high - such as PCOS and pregnancy - do not pack on muscle and gain physical speed and strength and other sports advantages from our high natural T like males in puberty of adolescence do from their high natural T. On the contrary, women who are pregnant and have PCOS tend to get fat and to be slowed down because of the very conditions that make us naturally hyperandrogenic. The difference between how males and females respond to the high natural T our bodies make also helps explain why pregnant women generally don't spend a whole lot time masturbating the way teenage boys do.
Huh? No one has ever suggested instituting "a cutoff on size to maintain fairness" in women's and girls' sports. This is another straw man ploy. Or straw transwoman, rather.
The way to establish and maintain a fundamental baseline of fairness in women's and girls' sports is simply to exclude males. ALL males across the board.
You got it, the above faith-based dictat is all you got, one based on definitional exclusion, not on the argument that there is some set of performance-impacting metrics on which ALL (not just 99%) males are known to be far superior to all females.
Why is it fair to include like 50% of elite women whose performance related metrics are superior to 1% of elite men, but not trans women whose same metrics are also in that range? Just because they were natally testicular?
Please try responding concisely to the point.
You are wasting your time here. Other posters are 100% satisfied with their own definition of "men" and "women" and have no interest in engaging any further discussion. All they want is to repeat their talking point over and over. It does not matter whether their position is defensible at CAS, because they are not the ones who have to defend it.
I will give you my answer regarding why t-level is overemphasized. It is easily quantifiable, and there is virtually no overlap between men and women. The lack of ambiguity is the main reason.
"Having gone through male puberty" is not quantifiable. But "having started testosterone suppression by age 12" is quantifiable. That's why the new FINA rule is written the way it is. They have consulted legal experts to make sure the new policy is defensible.
You got it, the above faith-based dictat is all you got, one based on definitional exclusion, not on the argument that there is some set of performance-impacting metrics on which ALL (not just 99%) males are known to be far superior to all females.
Why is it fair to include like 50% of elite women whose performance related metrics are superior to 1% of elite men, but not trans women whose same metrics are also in that range? Just because they were natally testicular?
Please try responding concisely to the point.
Did you mistype or do you believe that 50% of elite woman have performance metrics superior to 1% of elite men? You might like the bottom 1% of elite men? They wouldn’t be elite if women were better lol
Of course the bottom 1%. There’s enough prior context in this thread for anyone to fill in that blank, I would think.
As I said before, that’s your faith. Trans women have a different faith, based on their bodies now, not natal gonadal characteristics two decades back.
Scientists are focused on objective fairness metrics based on current physiology, and WA is hyperaware, certainly trying to be, of state of the art science.
Lance Armstrong had a different faith, based on the steroids and hgh running through his veins
You’ve gone into irrelevance now. Try articulating something substantive on the topic.
You got it, the above faith-based dictat is all you got, one based on definitional exclusion, not on the argument that there is some set of performance-impacting metrics on which ALL (not just 99%) males are known to be far superior to all females.
Why is it fair to include like 50% of elite women whose performance related metrics are superior to 1% of elite men, but not trans women whose same metrics are also in that range? Just because they were natally testicular?
Please try responding concisely to the point.
You are wasting your time here. Other posters are 100% satisfied with their own definition of "men" and "women" and have no interest in engaging any further discussion. All they want is to repeat their talking point over and over. It does not matter whether their position is defensible at CAS, because they are not the ones who have to defend it.
I will give you my answer regarding why t-level is overemphasized. It is easily quantifiable, and there is virtually no overlap between men and women. The lack of ambiguity is the main reason.
"Having gone through male puberty" is not quantifiable. But "having started testosterone suppression by age 12" is quantifiable. That's why the new FINA rule is written the way it is. They have consulted legal experts to make sure the new policy is defensible.
I don't disagree.
If “virtually” means almost no overlap but not no overlap (as it usually does in English), we agree. The existence of this small percentage of cis women indistinguishable from some cis men is of great importance to the small percentage of people who happen to be trans women and excluded.
Glad we agree going through male puberty is not (easily) quantifiable. Glad we also agree that FINA doesn’t agree with simplistic “women are born women, period!” arguments because the 12 year limit is clearly not the same thing as natal gonadal characteristics (sex organs at birth for the reading challenged) that the simps keep harping.
You are wasting your time here. Other posters are 100% satisfied with their own definition of "men" and "women" and have no interest in engaging any further discussion. All they want is to repeat their talking point over and over. It does not matter whether their position is defensible at CAS, because they are not the ones who have to defend it.
I will give you my answer regarding why t-level is overemphasized. It is easily quantifiable, and there is virtually no overlap between men and women. The lack of ambiguity is the main reason.
"Having gone through male puberty" is not quantifiable. But "having started testosterone suppression by age 12" is quantifiable. That's why the new FINA rule is written the way it is. They have consulted legal experts to make sure the new policy is defensible.
Actually, I've participated with other women and men in putting together position papers and binders of well-researched and thoroughly-sourced information for various sports governing bodies on this topic. Although you are correct that I will never get a chance to defend my position at CAS, I and others with my views certainly would be willing to defend our position(s) in any court or public forum that would do us the courtesy of hearing us out.
BTW, exactly which part of my positions as stated on this thread (and others) do you think might prove not "defensible at CAS"?
Also, just FYI: the legal experts that FINA consulted included experts affiliated with CAS. A rep from CAS spoke at the public presentation that FINA gave to unveil and explain its new policy. The whole presentation can be seen on YouTube.
One of the reasons FINA came up with its new policy - and UCI AND British Triathlon have come up with new policies of their own - is because in the past couple of years, these organizations took the time to consult female athletes and a broad range of (female and male) experts in physiology, sports science, law and policy on the matter of male inclusion in women's and girls' sports.
For the first time in many years, policy makers have started seeking out and paying attention to those who have come to the conclusion that fairness and safety for female athletes cannot and should not be compromised to placate and accommodate male athletes who either have DSDs or make gender identity claims. This marks a departure from past practice. Since sports policy makers (most of whom are men) first began tinkering with the rules governing women's elite sports in the 1990s, all their decisions to make women's and girls' sports inclusive of males with DSDs and opposite-sex gender identities were made exclusively in consultation with those who advocated for opening up female sports to some males. Those with different views - including past and present female athletes, supporters of female-only sports, and experts in male and female sex differences - were left of out of the decision-making process pretty much entirely.
But since you keep mentioning size as in your repeated references to "natal gonad size" and "natal gamete size" - and now you've brought up adult height and body weight too - it seems only fitting to share this photo of Ivy next to some of the female cyclists Ivy triumphed over when competing in women's events under one of Ivy's previous names:
Knock it off. You are the one prattling on and on about gametes for the last two pages AFTER I corrected myself. Please demonstrate reading comprehension ability of my posts 58 and 64. We have no difference of understanding of your definitions. Sex organs at birth (your definition of male/female) = natal gonadal characteristics. You agreed with me AFTER I already clarified that “size” is largely not important but not altogether irrelevant precisely because of DSD/intersex pathologies exactly as both of us pointed out.
So cut this nonsensical nitpicking distraction and focus on substance.
The Sonksen et al analysis is for elite men and women, so your claim is simply incorrect.
If you don’t have a clean discriminator based on performance metrics, all you have is a definition: women are those who were natally ovarian. Again, what part of the following statement, that is practically tautologically true, do you disagree with?
“You should either be able to identify performance advantageous metrics for inclusion/exclusion exclusion purposes OR accept that you also just have a definition that doesn’t necessarily confer any performance advantage or disadvantage. Do you understand this framing? What part of it do you disagree with?”
No, my claim is not incorrect. First, only weight and height were compared without any regard to whether those metrics are advantageous in the respective sports. What about strength, stamina, etc.? Second, even still, the men are taller and heavier at the extremes. Third, where there is overlap that frequency for men is far greater than women.
When discussing elite athletes, there is a clear gap between men and women. Attempting to blend the two categories at lower levels creates unnecessary complication as well as a situation where certain childish individuals (men like Ivy) are going to find ways to compete against athletes (women) with whom they have unfair advantages (sandbagging being the obvious method).
I understand it is not easy to accept when proven wrong. Rest assured you won’t see that ego in me.
Heres what you said: “At the elite level, it’s an unarguable fact that the men are stronger, faster, taller, etc. (whatever matters most for that particular sport) than the women. Sure, at the non-elite level there is overlap but to call that ‘unfair’ makes one sound like a whiny child.“.
I gave you scientific evidence to the contrary for one of those, height, being true even at elite level, not just general population. Weight is universally correlated with strength, your other metric, in elite bodies whose compositions are all optimized for the sport.
Now you’d like sport-specific analysis of more performance advantageous metrics, yes? Will you care to actually read the paper and have the openness to change your mind if the data in the paper contradicts your intuition?
There is a clear gap between men and women is not true. There is an overlap of distributions. What you probably mean is that almost all men are much more dominant in any athletic sport than most women, which is universally acknowledged and being disputed by no one.
Did you mistype or do you believe that 50% of elite woman have performance metrics superior to 1% of elite men? You might like the bottom 1% of elite men? They wouldn’t be elite if women were better lol
By ‘performance metrics’ they are referring solely to testosterone levels, height, and weight based on graphs from here:
‘Performance metrics’ is deservedly in quotes because you couldn’t pick a lamer way to categorize ‘performance’ than by looking at that data in isolation. Cherry picking all the way.
You are incorrect. It’s silly to say “their” metrics are restricted to solely those metrics when one points to a paper studying those particular metrics. I pointed to the paper to prove your claim incorrect that there was no overlap amongst elites, only amongst the general population, for a couple of metrics you stated.
You are welcome to come up with a list of your favorite metrics (VO2Max, aerobic capacity, muscle mass, endogenous T, leg length, etc.) that you think are critical predictors of performance and study those instead. Others have done some of it and more is being done. The science as of today doesn’t have all the answers.
If “virtually” means almost no overlap but not no overlap (as it usually does in English), we agree. The existence of this small percentage of cis women indistinguishable from some cis men is of great importance to the small percentage of people who happen to be trans women and excluded.
Glad we agree going through male puberty is not (easily) quantifiable. Glad we also agree that FINA doesn’t agree with simplistic “women are born women, period!” arguments because the 12 year limit is clearly not the same thing as natal gonadal characteristics (sex organs at birth for the reading challenged) that the simps keep harping.
Who exactly are the women you mean when you speak of "The existence of this small percentage of cis women indistinguishable from some cis men"?
How are these women physically indistinguishable from men? If they are physically indistinguishable from men how can you tell they are women?
I personally am taller than my father, and a much better skier and swimmer than my adult son - than many guys I know, in fact. When I was in late stages of pregnancy, I weighed more than the average man my age - I weighed more than my brother who went to college on a football scholarship. None of that made me somehow mannish, more man-like or closer to be indistinguishable from a guy.
Olympic swimmer Missy Franklin is the exact same height and weight and has the same wingspan, hand and foot size as one of the men on the American Olympic swim squad who competed at the same time as she did. (Lochte, I think, though I am not sure.) But the guy she was physically similar to in these ways to still beat her times by 9-12%.
As for your whiny reference to "natal gonadal characteristics (sex organs at birth for the reading challenged) that the simps keep harping [on]" - the reason you are getting challenged on this silly, puerile lingo is that gonads are not "natal" organs that suddenly appear "at birth."
Human gonads develop prenatally. They begin developing when an embryo is 4-5 weeks old. In the 7th week, the gonads differentiate sexually, becoming testes in males and ovaries in females. By the 8th week, which is when a human embryo is generally considered to becomes a fetus, the testes are fully formed and start producing testosterone:
"By the eighth week of gestation, Leydig cells of the testes begin to produce testosterone and the testes can influence sexual differentiation of the genital ducts and external genitalia. Formation of the external genitalia is completed by the 12th week."
Another reason you are getting called out on your silly schoolboy phrasing is that for many decades now, a standard part of prenatal care for pregnant women who have access to medical care is a sonogram in the second trimester which reveals the genital configuration of the fetus. Thus the "gonadal characteristics" of human fetuses are usually observed and recorded in medical records many months before birth - any time from week 14 on. Some women choose not to know the sex of our babies until birth, but if we got medical care during pregnancy all of us will have had at least one sonogram revealing whether our offspring was "testicular" in utero - and this info will have been put in our medical records.
Also, since the 1970s and especially since the late 1980s-early 90s when CVS became available, a great many women have gotten fetal DNA testing during pregnancy too. So our children's sex chromosomes and genetic sex was known long before birth. Since the introduction of the NIPT, women have been able to learn their offspring's genetic sex from 8-9 weeks of pregnancy forward simply by giving a small sample of blood drawn in the standard ways.
(sex organs at birth for the reading challenged) that the simps keep harping.
And there it is folks, it only took 112 pages but Testy finally revealed their actual motivation: misogyny. Was mommy mean to you?
I think testy revealed that this is "their" motivation long ago when "they" had one of my posts removed for poking fun at testy - and then testy testily barked out bunch of orders at me telling me of the strict rules that testy has decided my posts must conform to going forward, or else.
Seems that lifelong exposure to natural testosterone of testicular origin starting in utero causes some people with male androgen receptors to develop a very thin skin.
No, my claim is not incorrect. First, only weight and height were compared without any regard to whether those metrics are advantageous in the respective sports. What about strength, stamina, etc.? Second, even still, the men are taller and heavier at the extremes. Third, where there is overlap that frequency for men is far greater than women.
When discussing elite athletes, there is a clear gap between men and women. Attempting to blend the two categories at lower levels creates unnecessary complication as well as a situation where certain childish individuals (men like Ivy) are going to find ways to compete against athletes (women) with whom they have unfair advantages (sandbagging being the obvious method).
I understand it is not easy to accept when proven wrong. Rest assured you won’t see that ego in me.
Heres what you said: “At the elite level, it’s an unarguable fact that the men are stronger, faster, taller, etc. (whatever matters most for that particular sport) than the women. Sure, at the non-elite level there is overlap but to call that ‘unfair’ makes one sound like a whiny child.“.
I gave you scientific evidence to the contrary for one of those, height, being true even at elite level, not just general population. Weight is universally correlated with strength, your other metric, in elite bodies whose compositions are all optimized for the sport.
Now you’d like sport-specific analysis of more performance advantageous metrics, yes? Will you care to actually read the paper and have the openness to change your mind if the data in the paper contradicts your intuition?
There is a clear gap between men and women is not true. There is an overlap of distributions. What you probably mean is that almost all men are much more dominant in any athletic sport than most women, which is universally acknowledged and being disputed by no one.
Height alone is meaningless. For some sports it is disadvantage. So yes, I want to see sport-specific performance metrics and not just in isolation. If you want to say some WNBA players are taller than NBA players and use that to prove a point you are proving nothing. Taller in isolation does not equal performance in basketball. Much like speed doesn’t equate to performance in football (soccer). Much like weight doesn’t equate to performance in running, cycling, cross country skiing, or any other endurance sport. Some overlap of one/some metric(s) is meaningless to performance.
The ‘clear gap’ I refer to is at the elite level, or if you look at anthropomorphic data, at any given percentage of the population. There is no arguing that.
I’ve been proven wrong and changed my position on many things on my lifetime. I happen to like learning which is why I get involved in these discussions at all. If I’m missing some big piece of the picture, the best way for me to discover that is to try and argue my stance. I’ve honestly learned a lot from RunRagged’s posts on these forums. From yours, not so much, but there’s still time.
But you go on to say this: “What you probably mean is that almost all men are much more dominant in any athletic sport than most women, which is universally acknowledged and being disputed by no one.”
…which I’m not quite sure how to interpret. If you take a male who is dominant in a men’s sport and put them in the female equivalent they will dominate. If you take a dominant woman and do the same, they most certainly will not be dominant any more. You can go several steps further down in the male category before you find one who won’t be dominate in female sports. And that is all one should need to know to realize that men don’t belong in women’s sports.
If “virtually” means almost no overlap but not no overlap (as it usually does in English), we agree. The existence of this small percentage of cis women indistinguishable from some cis men is of great importance to the small percentage of people who happen to be trans women and excluded.
Glad we agree going through male puberty is not (easily) quantifiable. Glad we also agree that FINA doesn’t agree with simplistic “women are born women, period!” arguments because the 12 year limit is clearly not the same thing as natal gonadal characteristics (sex organs at birth for the reading challenged) that the simps keep harping.
Who exactly are the women you mean when you speak of "The existence of this small percentage of cis women indistinguishable from some cis men"?
Indistinguishable on the performance-predictive metrics (eg endogenous T or others) under consideration, not indistinguishable in entirety. These are silly nitpicks.
Learn to write in fewer than many long paragraphs in every post simply by staying on point.
I understand it is not easy to accept when proven wrong. Rest assured you won’t see that ego in me.
Heres what you said: “At the elite level, it’s an unarguable fact that the men are stronger, faster, taller, etc. (whatever matters most for that particular sport) than the women. Sure, at the non-elite level there is overlap but to call that ‘unfair’ makes one sound like a whiny child.“.
I gave you scientific evidence to the contrary for one of those, height, being true even at elite level, not just general population. Weight is universally correlated with strength, your other metric, in elite bodies whose compositions are all optimized for the sport.
Now you’d like sport-specific analysis of more performance advantageous metrics, yes? Will you care to actually read the paper and have the openness to change your mind if the data in the paper contradicts your intuition?
There is a clear gap between men and women is not true. There is an overlap of distributions. What you probably mean is that almost all men are much more dominant in any athletic sport than most women, which is universally acknowledged and being disputed by no one.
Height alone is meaningless.
Please avoid “sky is blue” type of statements that no one has any disagreement with as the basis of your argument. No one said height alone is sufficient to predict performance.
But since you keep mentioning size as in your repeated references to "natal gonad size" and "natal gamete size" - and now you've brought up adult height and body weight too - it seems only fitting to share this photo of Ivy next to some of the female cyclists Ivy triumphed over when competing in women's events under one of Ivy's previous names:
Knock it off. You are the one prattling on and on about gametes for the last two pages AFTER I corrected myself. Please demonstrate reading comprehension ability of my posts 58 and 64. We have no difference of understanding of your definitions. Sex organs at birth (your definition of male/female) = natal gonadal characteristics. You agreed with me AFTER I already clarified that “size” is largely not important but not altogether irrelevant precisely because of DSD/intersex pathologies exactly as both of us pointed out.
So cut this nonsensical nitpicking distraction and focus on substance.
No, you knock it off. And stop telling me what to do as though you've been appointed LRC's finger-wagging hall monitor.
You have responded to none of the substantive points I have made in my posts countering your claims, which you just repeat again and again the way toddlers keep banging their spoons against their high chairs just for the fun of making a racket and being annoying.
In fact, you actually went so far as to get one of my meaty posts removed because in it I poked fun at you and expressed the view that just like Veronica Ivy, you're a BSer and bamboozler who doesn't know what you're talking about.
Why not address the points I've made rather keep telling me to knock it off, listen up, shut up, do as you say? Why not rebut the points I made in the post of mine you got deleted rather than running to the moderators like a child starting out in middle school?