J K Rowling and the trans furore

It was fun watching it until the last minute. Before that point, it looked like it was anyone’s race to win. After that point, it becomes super obvious that Eastwood had been intentionally hanging back for much of the race when the other racers were giving it their all the whole time. That alone makes it very hard to watch.

There’s already a lot of variability contained in members of the XX contingent. It isn’t bigoted or crazy to not want to add to that variability by throwing in members of the XY contingent. (I think a case can be made for including XY individuals who are androgen-insensitive or transwomen who received HRT prior to puberty, though.)

I know people will argue that there are XX folks who have naturally high levels of androgens. Should they be prevented from competing against other females too? I say no. Just like I don’t think a XX person should be barred from competing based on having big muscles or long limbs. A single trait doesn’t make a superior athlete. A constellation of traits does.

Nothing is stopping transwomen from competing. They may prefer to play in female-restricted leagues, but this preference should never be mistaken for actual need. They have the same opportunities to participate in sports as any other male athlete.

I agree transwomen are people. So are men, though. Yet we don’t have a problem barring men from women’s leagues. Barring someone from a competition isn’t saying they aren’t people. It is saying they don’t meet the eligibility requirements for the competition.

I personally agree and think that women’s sports are for XX and men’s are for XY. I think it would be best if they were genetically separated. However, the times are changing and I don’t think it’s possible for that to be the reality going forward. I think there will be XY athletes in XX sports. Title IX is already addressing that with requirements like:

  • The athlete must have publicly identified as female for at least four years
  • Must demonstrate that their testosterone has been maintained below a maximum level for at least twelve months prior to competition
  • Must maintain that below-maximum testosterone level throughout the competition period
  • And are subject to testing to ensure testosterone levels are compliant.[20]

I think the lookback period of 4 years is good, but I disagree with having the testosterone level be at max. Most women aren’t at that level, so it seems ridiculous that a trans athlete can be at that level. A trans athlete can easily tweak their testosterone level to be at max, so they would likely always be a top competitor. I think that makes it inherently unfair and should be changed.

And although I’m not a woman or female, I do have daughters who are very competitive in sports. If a XY athlete was on the girl’s swim team and in the A relay or top heat, I would think that’s unfair and fight to change things. But if an XY athlete was on the non-competitive JV or participating in a way which didn’t seem unfair, I wouldn’t have a problem with that. I would support that level of participation since it would help the trans athlete have self confidence and acceptance to be able to compete as a girl. The problems start to come about when the underlying XY abilities have an unfair advantage and people oppose it based on that. Then it’s not just the anti-trans people opposing it, but it’s just the parents who want their kids to be able to compete fairly.

I thinks it only becomes impossible when people assume that it is. There is no reason why we can’t change the rules back to way they were. If something is unfair, the answer is to eliminate the source of unfairness. It’s not to come up with burdensome workarounds.

filmore

Title IX is already addressing that with requirements like:

  • The athlete must have publicly identified as female for at least four years
  • Must demonstrate that their testosterone has been maintained below a maximum level for at least twelve months prior to competition
  • Must maintain that below-maximum testosterone level throughout the competition period
  • And are subject to testing to ensure testosterone levels are compliant.[20]

Science shows that 12 months with suppressed testosterone doesn’t eliminate the physical advantages that males have over females.. So these criteria are inadequate and are not addressing anything. Eastwood almost lapping her opponents makes that case crystal clear.

The reality is that even changing it to 24 or even 48 months is still unlikely to make a big difference. Most of the advantages come from the transformative process we know as male puberty.

It’s like that scene in The Incredibles where Dash is racing non-supers, and the parents are yelling: Run! Run! No no, too fast! Slow down, just a little bit! Make it close! Meanwhile, Dash is moving through the pack without any apparent exertion.

Height alone is a big advantage in many sports - including swimming - and it isn’t changed by hormones or surgery. Hormone suppression makes the differences less drastic, but like that video you linked to said, it isn’t enough to produce a level playing field in most sports.

I didn’t know about the non-competitive (or competing only to beat your previous times) swimming events. That does seem like a nice way to include people who aren’t eligible/able enough for the main competition.

For the more popular sports surely it should be possible to create a transgender competition; a lot of the disabilities represented in the para Olympics must be rarer and that doesn’t stop them. I think this was less of an issue in the past because a lot of people transitioned fairly late in life, but as more people transition early it creates a bigger problem but also an opportunity for trans or non binary people on hrt to compete against each other.

Another week, another whistle-blower at the NHS gender clinic:

Now the person in charge of safeguarding children at the clinic is suing the NHS for not letting her do her job. She alleges that clinicians were discouraged from reporting safeguarding concerns to her, leaving children at risk of harm.

Sorry for the delay in replying. The chief problem with your suggested wording is that it doesn’t exclude the quite large percentage of women in the specified age range who do not have a cervix, and thus don’t need screening for cervical cancer. (Did you read the cite in my post #2092 that pointed out that something like 10 million women in the US get annual post-hysterectomy cervical cancer screenings that are entirely unnecessary?)

The wording “Individuals with cervixes in a certain age range”, on the other hand, specifically and accurately includes all individuals who should be screened for cervical cancer, and specifically and accurately excludes all individuals who don’t need to be screened for cervical cancer.

If readers need more information about which individuals do or don’t have cervixes, then sure, that additional information should be supplied, in addition to stressing the key fact that it’s people with cervixes who need cervical cancer screening.

ISTM that ultimately and ideally, we could take sex and gender out of this equation altogether by just directly measuring the characteristics that we’re currently using sex/gender as an inexact proxy for. The technology of sports science, biomechanics etc., has advanced so far in recent years that such direct measurement is looking more plausible all the time.

For instance, instead of having men’s and women’s varsity and JV teams, we might have four teams labeled, I don’t know, D, C, B and A, categorized by something called, say, a Physical Prowess Score. If you want to play a particular sport seriously, you get measured for your height, weight, muscle mass, strength, speed, flexibility, whatever qualities give you a physical advantage in that sport, irrespective of your talent or training level in that sport.

The people with the highest Physical Prowess Score levels—biggest, strongest, fastest, etc.—will overwhelmingly be cisgender men, with maybe an occasional transgender woman or transgender man, and perhaps once in a blue moon a very big/strong cisgender woman. Those people qualify to try out for the D team, but not for any of the other teams.

The people in the next lower Physical Prowess Score category can try out for the C team, and the next lower scorers for the B team, while the people who are the smallest/weakest of all are assigned to the A team tryout pool. The A pool will overwhelmingly, but perhaps not exclusively, be cisgender women.

Then when it comes to the actual team tryouts, exceptional sport-specific talent or skill can qualify you to compete at a higher Physical Prowess Score team level, but lack of skill doesn’t entitle you to play at a lower PPS level.

So on each of the teams, nobody’s getting a grossly disparate advantage based on sheer superior Physical Prowess, although a few exceptionally talented players can use their outstanding ability to compete at a higher PPS level despite their inferior Physical Prowess.

And at the same time, nobody’s getting barred from sports competition merely based on their biological sex or gender identity. Sex and gender aren’t even explicit criteria for competition categories any more: it’s all about your actual Physical Prowess capacity.

Yes, this means that some people with high Physical Prowess Score levels but low sport-specific ability won’t make the D team—because they’ll be outcompeted by other big/strong players—and won’t be allowed to play on any of the other teams—because they’re too big/strong to qualify. That seems reasonable, though: official sports competition is supposed to be about excelling at the play of the game, not just about being the biggest/strongest hulk on the field. (And perhaps we’d end up with five or six PPS-level team categories instead of four, if we need to accommodate larger numbers of competitive athletes.)

If you don’t make the official team at your PPS level due to lack of skill, you can avail yourself of club and intramural team opportunities, just as unskilled but enthusiastic athletes do already. We can continue to use the same sorts of rules we have now for club/intramural teams to balance out significant discrepancies in physical prowess among players.

If you get a growth spurt or bulk up between seasons, you get re-tested for your PPS. And perhaps you go up a PPS level and have to try out for the higher-prowess team, just as athletes nowadays age out of their initial age categories for competition and have to compete against older players.

Boy, girl, cis, trans, it doesn’t matter any more on an individual level (although in the aggregate, as I said, the biggest/strongest players will still be overwhelmingly cisgender male and the smallest/weakest ones overwhelmingly cisgender female). At the individual level, it’s just about your personal size/strength/speed/physical prowess to determine what category/ies you’re allowed to compete in. And then it’s about your talent and guts and hard work to determine whether you’re good enough to make the team in that category.

This kind of division happens naturally in lots of recreational leagues. When people are competing for their enjoyment of the game, they will typically segregate into whichever category gives them the most even level of competition. The best players are in A and the less skilled go down from there. There’s nothing stopping an A player from being on a D team, or a D player being on an A team, but that kind of skill mismatch isn’t fun so people typically don’t do it.

But one thing that doesn’t always translate is dedication to the sport. It may take the same level of intense coaching and dedication for both boys and girls to reach the top of their sport, but the top girls will only be at the level of the mid-range boys. Boys can reach the ability of the top girls with much less effort. For example, there was this tennis battle of the sexes:

Braasch was able to beat the two top women players with little effort or dedication. Even though the women’s dedication and commitment to tennis was at the level of the top men, the difference in ability means that a man who does little training can walk on the court and beat them. If tennis was mixed and ranked by ability, the top women would not be able to train in highly competitive environments. They’d be on the B/C team with the men who don’t need to train to be at that level. Splitting sports by gender means that each gender can have highly competitive teams. Combining genders means that the highly competitive women are on teams with more causal men.

This also highlights the issue of having XY players on an XX team. The XX player may need to be highly dedicated to their sport and make many sacrifices in order to reach the top level, while the XY player can be less dedicated and still reach that level. That means the XY player can use their extra time to work, take extra classes, hang with friends, etc.

I think it is clear that having any kind of ability-segregated, rather than gender or sex-segregated sport means the end of big money for women in those sports.

Who would pay big bucks, often enough, to watch the lower levels where the biological females would compete?

The upshot of some of the suggestions being made would mean far fewer females making a living at it.

Allowing transgender males to compete as females without any requirement for medical interevention means the end of female sport as a meaningful category. However, requiring medical intervention in order to compete as a woman seems to be in direct conflict with the concept of gender self-identification and seems destined to fill the courts for some time to come.

As an outsider to it I just don’t see an easy way to square this circle.

Reply to @Omar_Little in the other thread:

As far as I can see they transitioned after those films were made, so no, they don’t.

That’s what I’m wondering too. How is a four-category system going to do anything except disadvantage female athletes more than they are being disadvantaged by forcing them to compete against transwomen? I feel like I’m missing something.

The whole point of my “Physical Prowess Score” categorization scheme is that players are restricted to certain competition categories solely on the basis of their physical capacities and advantages. Not on the basis of how much “coaching and dedication” or “ability” or “effort” they bring to the skills of any particular sport.

So the boys (or for that matter transgender girls) who are innately bigger, stronger, faster, etc., than most girls would not even be allowed to try out for the lower-PPS-level team(s) that are mostly populated by girls.

A lower-PPS-level (i.e., smaller/weaker) person with exceptional ability or training could try out for a higher-PPS-level team, but not vice versa.

That’s not what I’m proposing, though. Didn’t you read my post #2454 that you’re replying to? Innately stronger/bigger/faster people (i.e., mostly men) would not be allowed to play against innately weaker/smaller/slower people (i.e., mostly women), [b]no matter how much sport-specific “talent” or “ability” or “training” any of them exhibited.

Not with regard to my proposed “Physical Prowess Score” competition categories in particular (and apologies if that wasn’t what you were referring to, but that seems to be what people are talking about here).

The whole point is that the four (or more) PPS-level competition categories would be segregated not by sport-specific “ability” or talent or expertise, but rather by sheer physical size, strength, muscle mass, and other natural physical capabilities.

Within a specific PPS-level category, players would compete against one another based on their sport-specific competitive ability produced by talent, training, dedication, hard work, etc. But no player would have a built-in grossly disparate advantage over other players in his/her PPS-level category simply because of his/her physical configuration.

So the highest PPS-level category or D teams would still, as I said, be mostly or almost entirely cisgender male, while the lowest PPS-level category or A teams would still be mostly or almost entirely cisgender female. But within those categories, players would be maximizing their talent and ability in fundamentally equal contests against other players of the same general physical capacity.

Why do you think that that would be less attractive to audiences than watching women’s sports is now? The A-level or lowest-PPS teams would still be mostly or almost entirely cisgender female, competing against other people of similar physical capacity. Players who are big/strong/fast/etc. enough to qualify for B-level teams would not be allowed to play in the A category, and so on up the scale.

You and everybody else (at least, those who replied to me) seem to be missing something here. Which probably means that I didn’t explain it clearly enough the first time. Is it clearer now?

To respond to your specific point about transgender female athletes in competition: In my PPS-level competition category scheme, many if not most transgender female athletes would have a PPS score high enough to disqualify them from trying out for the A-level, or even B-level, PPS category teams where most of the cisgender female athletes would be clustered.

So if a transgender girl is significantly bigger or stronger or faster, etc., than most cisgender girls, then she has to compete in the C- or D-level categories that are populated mostly by cisgender boys, irrespective of how talented or well-trained any of them happen to be in their sport of choice.

The whole point is to segregate competition categories based directly on measured natural physical capacity, so nobody is “disadvantaging” the naturally smaller/weaker athletes by forcing them to compete against athletes who are significantly bigger/stronger than they are. Within a competition category, athletes of similar size/strength characteristics compete to the best of their ability.

I think the challenge with a system like that is how to test for capabilities which accurately correlate to performance. In a general sense there is correlation, but there are many non-testable attributes which make a top athlete. Someone who has good strategy and ball control may be consistently better than someone who is objectively faster and stronger.

So like in something like soccer, a varsity girl may be much better than the JV boys, but it wouldn’t be because she was bigger, faster, or stronger. If the varsity girl played soccer from a young age on club teams, she will likely be able to outperform JV boys who may have just started playing and only practice on the school team. And some JV boys could be stronger and faster than the Varsity boys, but the higher skill of the Varsity boys would mean they are better players. So maybe theoretically a testing system could be used to divide players, but it would be pretty challenging to implement in a way that created fair teams.

But we don’t want the “Physical Prowess Score” system to test for performance in a specific sport. We just want to classify people into a few different categories based on some fundamental natural differences in physical configuration, such as size, strength, etc.

The point is not to protect athletes from having to play against people who are better than they are at their sport of choice, but simply to protect them from having to play against people who have a significant natural advantage over them in fundamental physical qualities like size, strength, and muscle mass, irrespective of their playing ability.

Right. Which is why the objectively slower/weaker but more talented player is allowed to try out to play against the objectively faster/stronger players. BUT NOT VICE VERSA.

Right. Which is why such a girl would be allowed to try out for a higher-PPS-level team populated mostly or entirely by boys who are innately stronger/faster than she is. BUT NOT VICE VERSA.

Right. Which is why some strong and fast but unskilled boys will not make the cut when trying out for the higher-PPS-level team(s) that they qualify for, but will not be allowed to try out for the lower-PPS-level team(s) populated by weaker and slower (even if in some cases more skilled) players.

Geez Louise. I really thought this hypothesized “Physical Prowess Score” categorization system for sports competition was going to be much more intuitively comprehensible than it’s turning out to be.

And I don’t really see how to explain it better than I have done. Li’l help from any other poster who does understand what I’m talking about here?

How do you determine what’s naturally endowed and what’s been acquired through training? Strength is a function of both. I think that’s the point @filmore is making.