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

If you think that I am advocating for "age fluidity," then you are mistaken. That's not a real thing. Legally, you can change your gender on documents such as birth certificates, passports, and drivers licenses. You cannot change your birthdate.

By using language like "perceived reality," I can tell your argument is in bad faith.

Chromosome fluidity isn't real either.

Biology influences sport performance.

The divisions exist because of biology.

Changing gender on a document reflects our acceptance that it is a man-made construct. That does nothing to change your genetics and the benefits that come with being an XY human.

For the umpteenth time, it is statistically impossible to "prove" that there is no difference between two groups.

If you disagree, then please show us the evidence that puberty blocker and cross hormone do NOT have any negative effect on a trans female's athletic performance.

I don't think that RR or anyone else has stated that puberty blockers nor cross hormone treatments (whatever that is) would not have a negative effect. It's more so that those treatments are not enough to level the playing field. Maybe one day there will be an option to change sex at conception but that day ain't today.

I'm leaning towards a Para Olympics model that would have classifications for trans participation in sport; divisions for DSD and trans athletes who have or have not taken puberty blockers, hormone treatments, had surgery, or anything else someone can come up with to advance participation in sport. They can have local and regional competitions to qualify for nationals and eventually World championships.

The reason I like this model is that it doesn't come at the expense of biological women and still rewards them for their efforts.

Of course putting healthy young males on chemically-castrating GnRHa drugs aka "puberty blockers" and cross-sex hormones has a negative effect on their sports performance.

I've always granted that males who've spent adolescence on these drugs won't do as well in sports as they would have if they'd been allowed to grow up without their normal, healthy male development being impeded.

I've also always granted that in competition against others of their sex, males who've taken these drugs are probably at a distinct disadvantage.

But like you said, I see no evidence that these drugs level the playing field between the sexes and thus make it fair for males who've taken these drugs to compete in female sports.

Also, many boys and men have physical and mental health problems - and take drugs - that have a negative effect on their sports performance and make it hard for them to excel and win when competing against others of their own sex. Some boys and men have health problems - and take drugs - that mean they can't cut it at all in sports when competing against others of their own sex and age group. So what?

Lots of kids and adults of both sexes have limiting health conditions and all sorts of disadvantages that make it hard or impossible for us to do well when competing against our age-and-sex-matched peers. But that doesn't give any of us a right to demand the special privilege of being able to "identify into" a lower-tier sports category where it's easier for us to keep up and we have a better chance of coming out on top.

Whether JAHJ and other gender identity activists intend this or not, the end result of the agenda they are pushing is that the female sports category gets turned into the sport category that serves as a safety zone, consolation prize, "failsafe" backup plan, second chance option and cruise-control choice for boys and men with all sorts of physical and mental health problems - and problems getting along with, fitting in with, and feeling fully at ease with their same-sex peers.

But if that happens, where are girls and women with the same sorts of problems - and a host of other problems that are unique to females - all supposed to go?

For example, I grew up with two siblings - a brother and sister - who had cystic fibrosis. Guys with CF typically have little or no chance performing well in boys' and men's sports because of how their disease affects them. But AFAIK, no one has ever argued that this means boys and men with CF should compete in the female category.

If my brother with CF had been allowed to use his unfortunate health condition and lowered life expectancy to wheedle his way into girls' sports, where would that have left my sister who also had CF?

I think your claim that it's impossible to prove that there's no difference between the two groups under discussion is hogwash.

If putting young males on "puberty blockers" at Tanner Stage 2 followed by the addition of exogenous estrogen at high doses really did prevent them from developing any of the male-typical physical characteristics that give males a huge advantage over females in sports the way you constantly claim - and thus make them no different to females in the ways that matter as far as sports performance is concerned - then it would be easy as pie to prove it in the case of at least some of those characteristics.

After all, the males who’ve been put on so-called “puberty blockers” (GnRHa drugs) and cross-sex hormones for reasons of "gender transition" all live in wealthy Western countries where they've gotten and still must get regular care from “gender medicine” clinicians who have all the resources of "state of the art," high tech Western medicine at their disposal - and who also get plenty of funding from the pharmaceutical industry and public sources like the NIH.

Moreover, as you yourself have pointed out many times, so-called "gender affirming care" for youth is supported by a plethora of the most powerful and moneyed establishment organizations in North America such as the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society, the Biden administration, US Assistant Secretary of Health Rachel Levine, the governors and legislatures of about half the US states, the Canadian federal government, the governments and healthy systems of the Canadian provinces, the pharmaceutical industry, and virtually all the mainstream media and most social media platforms too.

Also, clinicians in Western countries have been putting males with sex/gender issues on GnRHa drugs aka "puberty blockers" at Tanner 2 followed by exogenous estrogen for more than 25 years now. Some of the males put on these drugs are in their early 30s. Many more are in their 20s. Still more are adolescents in their mid and late teens.

Given all that background, if “puberty blockers” and cross-sex hormones during adolescence really do cause males to develop like females in some/many/most of the physical aspects that play a large role in giving males a massive advantage in sports performance, then clinicians in “youth gender medicine” should have no problem conducting and publishing scientific studies which prove that. This could be easily done whilst protecting the privacy of the individual males in the studies .

For example, clinicians working in “youth gender medicine” could easily use anonymized medical imaging to show that the male patients they’ve put on GnRHa drugs as "puberty blockers" followed by the addition of exogenous cross-sex hormones in high doses all ended up developing hearts, lungs and throats that are the same size as the hearts, lungs and throats of girls and women of the same age.

Anonymized medical imaging could also be easily done to show that male youth gender medicine patients who were put on so-called puberty blockers and estrogen ended up developing female-shaped and sized pelvises - and as a result they all have female Q-angles too.

Anonymized medical imaging could also be easily done to show that male gender medicine patients who were put on blockers at Tanner 2 and estrogen ended up developing female-typical heights in late adolescence and adulthood as well.

If the medical interventions done on young males in the name of “gender affirming care” since the so-called "Dutch protocol" was first rolled out in the 1990s really did miraculously transform male bodies into such close approximations of female bodies in all the ways that matter in sports like you constantly claim, then the gender vendor industry would have come up with plenty of receipts by now which prove beyond doubt that there's no difference between these two groups in numerous sports-relevant physical aspects that are easy to measure. And you’d be proudly waving those receipts in the faces of skeptics like me, triumphantly saying, “See, told you so!”

But you don't have any receipts. All you have is baseless claims that you keep repeating over and over without anything to back them up.

As a result, you keep resorting to the same lame-ass tactic of pointlessly posting carefully posed, doctored and curated still photos of pretty-faced males you seem to think rightfully belong in female sports because they outwardly look and dress "girly," and they say they "identify as" the sex that they are not.

It is sad that we care so little about womens sports that we allow this to happen.

It is also sad that the crowd booed an athlete that broke no rules.

Then why don't you use the same anonymized medical imaging to prove that there IS difference between trans female and cis female?

That's far easier than proving what is statistically impossible to prove.

JustAnotherHobbyJogger and I just made cross-posts. As he was posting the comment above, I was composing and editing a post asking him to respond to my earlier post where I made this point:

If the medical interventions done on young males in the name of “gender affirming care” since the so-called "Dutch protocol" was first rolled out in the 1990s really did miraculously transform male bodies into such close approximations of female bodies in all the ways that matter in sports like you constantly claim, then surely the gender vendor industry would already have come up with plenty of receipts [published studies] by now which prove beyond doubt that there's no difference between these two groups in numerous sports-relevant physical aspects that are easy to measure - such as the size of their hearts, lungs and throats; their adult heights; the width, shape and structure of their pelvises; and their Q angles.

And you JAHJ would be proudly waving those receipts in the faces of skeptics like me, triumphantly saying, “See, told you so!”

So please, JAHJ, explain why in all this time, no one has produced any receipts.

Please explain why in the past 20 years, not a single doctor, therapist, clinic or researcher in the burgeoning field of "youth gender medicine" has published a single study showing that when young males spend their adolescence on GnRHa drugs aka "puberty blockers" and Big Pharma estrogen, it causes them to become so physically similar to females in many, most or all of the respects that make a major difference in sports performance that they really do end up on the exact same level as girls and women their age and, therefore, it's fair for them to compete in the female category.

AFAICT, no one in the field of "youth gender medicine" has even bothered trying to do studies to see if there's any credence to the extraordinary claims you make - or to see if there's any validity to the pie-in-the-sky promises made to the confused, distressed young males who've been snookered into going on GnRHa drugs and factory-made estrogen in the hopes that these Big Pharma products will turn them into "real girls." Why do you think that is?

I disagree with that claim that you’ve made many times. It’s unnecessary to defend your positions. Statistically speaking, it is plain wrong, and any mathematical model and standard of proof you have in mind while making that claim has no practical relevance.

-chuckle (hi!)

Wrong right on the opening sentence. World Athletics formally defines a “Transgender Female” athlete, so it’s wrong even in the context of the sport of running.

It’s okay to not like or believe in the rules and regulations of a sport, but if so, the only recourse is to switch to a different sport.

-chuckle

I don't think she sandbagged earlier meets.Aayden is brand new to the sport,and only took it up 3 months ago.She was into weights before that.I'd like to know how fast she could run after a year or two of solid training,and racing.

This is very simple.

Most transgender people who have gone through Dutch protocol in the last three decades have never been competitive athletes, and have never been interested in participating competitive sports. Less than 1% of trans girls in US high schools compete in school sponsored sports. That's compared to 30% of cis gender girls.

Most doctors who treat transgender people are not interested in competitive sports, either. The main objective of puberty blocker and cross hormone therapy is to reduce the discomfort trans people have with their body, and increase the likelihood of them being accepted as their preferred gender by people around them. So they are primarily concerned about the outward appearance. (A very inconvenience truth is that a trans person is more likely to be accepted as their preferred gender if they can "pass." But that's reflection of how shallow our society is.)

So the doctors are not interested in measuring the size of hearts and lungs. They might be interested in measuring height or shoulder and hip width. Judging from photos, Nicole Maines is at least a few inches shorter than her brother, Jonas. And they are identical twins. If puberty blocker and estrogen had no impact on her height, they should have the identical height today. Georgie Stone is about the same height as her brother Harry. But they are fraternal twins, and Harry was born significantly smaller, and he was always shorter until he hit puberty.

I don’t know about that bolded part. Can Verbosa actually agree that hormonal therapy does induce a nontrivial reduction in athletic performance of trans women relative to cis?

There have been studies showing, for example, that some forms of athletic advantages entirely disappear and for running in particular, the advantage halves post-therapy compared to pre. Of course any study can and will be criticized, especially one with politically charged implications, but the findings are consistent with common sense understanding of physiology.

As for whether it is enough “to level the playing field”, that question relies implicitly on a definition of what fairness means. Insisting that anything not organized along gamete possession lines is unfair is simply religion, not a measurable axis with any give to it. It is worth noting that the distributions of male and female performance heavily overlap and intra-group variance is an order of magnitude higher than inter-group differences at the elite or average level. Is it unfair if the fraction of trans women winning medals relative to the total population of trans women is comparable to the corresponding fraction for cis women? If so, by what (non-religious) measure of fairness? Right now, that fraction for trans women is literally 0 in T&F.

-chuckle

That’s not science. That’s a sentence you just made up, little different from one like “.. because the first one has dark hair” coming from someone suffering from negrohirsuphobia.

Mentioning chromosomes doesn’t automatically make something science. Science is something very specific and I’m confident you don’t understand what that is.

Thanks for replying.

True as what you say might be, most of your post is beside the point at this stage in the game. Coz the fact is, the medical interventions known as the Dutch protocol are being used in the courts and the court of public opinion today as a/the central reason for why males like Becky Pepper Jackson and all the other males who are in a similar situation to Becky, or will be following in Becky's footsteps, must be allowed to compete in female sports now and forevermore.

Even though the clincians who first came up with and have since administered the Dutch protocol did not intend for these medical interventions to be used as the rationale for males demanding inclusion in female sports, that's how the Dutch protocol is being used.

I acknowledge that "most transgender people who have gone through Dutch protocol in the last three decades have never been competitive athletes, and have never been interested in participating competitive sports." But enough males who've gone through the Dutch protocol have particpated in female sports already to create unfairness for many girls - and the numbers of these males coming up and demanding to compete in girls' sports are growing every day.

Probably the most famous young male to have gone through the Dutch protocol is Jazz Jennings, star of the "I Am Jazz" TV series on TLC. In Jazz's role as a much-celebrated young adult "trans activist," Jazz frequently makes public statements bitterly complaining that some people in the Jennings family's community in Florida when Jazz was growing up didn't want Jazz to play girls' sports. Jazz uses this to illustrate how bigoted, hateful, transphobic and misinformed much of the world is. Yet at the same time, on several occasion during the "I Am Jazz" series, Jazz openly gloated that Jazz was "always the best player" on all the girls' sports teams Jazz played on and against growing up.

What's more, the "I Am Jazz" series ran footage of teenage Jazz with some of the girls Jazz played with and against in middle school soccer in which Jazz behaved in ways that some viewers thought made Jazz seem like a self-centered, inconsiderate, entitled jerk - and the girls' faces made it clear that they found Jazz's self-aggrandizing, self-centered manner tiresome and off-putting. When it turned out on the next season that at the end of 8th grade Jazz had a "falling out" with the girls Jazz went to middle school with and no longer was in touch with any of Jazz's former friends, viewers weren't suprised.

In HS, Jazz became the only student in 9th grade to make the girls' varsity soccer team. After the first couple of games, Jazz went on social media and complained that it wasn't as easy for Jazz to score multiple goals per game as it had been in middle school now that Jazz was playing with/against HS girls several years older than Jazz.

Given all this, it's inevitable that questions are going to be raised about exactly which ways and to what extent the Dutch protocol impacts male development. And people like me are bound to want to know whether feeding males a steady diet of GnRHa drugs + estrogen through adolescence really does put them on an equal physical footing with females in sports the way you claim it does.

More recently, in the Becky Pepper Jackson lawsuit against the state of West Virginia's statute restricting female school sports to female athletes, a central pillar of the argument Jackson's lawyers made for why Jackson, a teenage male, rightfully belongs in female sports rather than male sports is the fact that Jackson has been on "puberty blockers" since age 10 and on estrogen since age 12. Take away the medical intervention element, and Jackson's weakens considerably. Indeed, some would say it totally falls apart.

You're the one who's decided to make the extraordinary claim that the Dutch protocol causes young males to develop so similarly to females physically that the only fair, right and just result is for males who've been put on the protocol to compete in female sports. No one forced you to take this position. But since that is your position, you best get prepared to back it up. Because just asserting that what you say is true and expecting others simply to take your word for it isn't going to fly.

I don’t see where he or anyone else made that claim. Do you have a citation or quoted snippet?

Just Another Hobby Jogger has often claimed that if/when young males are put and kept on GnRHa drugs aka "puberty blockers" to suppress their testosterone during male puberty of adolescence, they won't have any advantage over females in sports. This is based on the premise that the entire male-over-female advantage in sports is due solely to the ways that male bodies are affected by testicular production of testosterone during and after male puberty of adolescence - a premise I believe is faulty and false.

A sampling of some of JAHJ's posts:

06/02/2021 11:55am EDT
most trans girls will be on puberty blocker and will not have any "male puberty" advantage in sports.

09/16/2022 11:31pm EDT
Most trans girls playing HS sports started medical transition at early ages (and probably have no notable physical advantage of male puberty).

06/23/2022 6:44pm EDT
[Males who’ve managed to] get puberty blocker… don't develop that “unfair advantage"

05/23/2021 2:41pm EDT
If puberty blocker becomes the standard practice, this problem can simply go away.

The problem JAHJ was referring to in this last comment is the widely-held view that males shouldn’t compete in female sports due to unfair physical advantages, and the conundrum this creates for sports policy makers under pressure to make female sports inclusive of males who have, or claim to have, a trans gender identity.

BJP threw 35-3 SP this year. That's 6th among 8th grader in West Virginia. She threw 28-10 last season. So that's improvement of 6-5.

The girl at #1 went from 33-11 to 40-1.5 (6-2.5 improvement). #2 went from 27-8 to 37-8.(10). #3 went from 34-4.5 to 36-6 (1.5). #4 went from 32-8 to 36-5. (3-9). #5 went from 31-6 to 35-10. (4-4). The average improvement is 5-1.85.

The sample size is small. But the range of improvement is quite large (not unusual at this age), and BJP falls within the expected range.