Gender neutral / Gender Non-Binary

[Raw Dykes]

On 25/10/2017 at 19:12, Lionator said:

Caster Semenya is a good example. People state that she shouldn't be running in Women's races and looks built like a man, is she a woman or man?

Clue's in the name.

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, The Doctor said:

I don't necessarily disagree, proper psychological help should be (and tbf, is) the first step, but just looking at the nhs website entry of gender dysphoria: https://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Gender-dysphoria/Pages/Treatment.aspx - quoting sex change operations as having a 96% success rate. For practically any other issue, a treatment with that level of success and we wouldn't be arguing about whether it was right to do. Not saying that should be the case here, for one I doubt it'd be as effective if there wasn't the live as the other side for a year requirement, but it seems a bit of a stretch to say therapy should be it with that in mind.

This.

 

Just seeing a shrink doesn't work as much as physical transitioning. Ideally, both should be available and encouraged.

[Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo]

1 hour ago, Raw Dykes said:

Clue's in the name.

Caster(ated) or Semenya?

[The Doctor]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

This.

 

Just seeing a shrink doesn't work as much as physical transitioning. Ideally, both should be available and encouraged.

Not sure if encouraged is the word I'd use - if seeing a shrink makes it manageable then I'd suggest staying at that (shrinks are discreet and the general public aren't great at this sort of thing), but yes, it should be seen as a treatment option and available as such. 

[SheppyFox]

The vast majority of people won’t comment on these subjects, unfortunately free speech is the biggest lie of the western world. 

[Jimothy]

6 hours ago, Raw Dykes said:

Clue's in the name.

It's an anagram of A Secret Man Yes.

[Guest the fox]

imo, a man who had a surgery to be a woman shouldn't be allowed to compete against biological females in sports. you got a larger amount of testosterone compared to a woman,you are built differently. did anyone see caster semenya! thats is just unfair. and don't get me started on the ones who compete in combat sports. that's just a plain old beat down, a microwaved wallop!

[The Doctor]

18 minutes ago, the fox said:

imo, a man who had a surgery to be a woman shouldn't be allowed to compete against biological females in sports. you got a larger amount of testosterone compared to a woman,you are built differently. did anyone see caster semenya! thats is just unfair. and don't get me started on the ones who compete in combat sports. that's just a plain old beat down, a microwaved wallop!

Semenya isn't a great example given she was tested and cleared by the IAAF to compete in the female categories. She might have higher than typical testosterone if she's got some sort of endocrine problem, but to be eligible to compete she'd still have to be below the typical male range

[Guest the fox]

Just now, The Doctor said:

Semenya isn't a great example given she was tested and cleared by the IAAF to compete in the female categories. She might have higher than typical testosterone if she's got some sort of endocrine problem, but to be eligible to compete she'd still have to be below the typical male range

still, caster had a history of having way above average levels, try 3 time the amount expected from a female athlete

 

"Her winning time of 1:55.45 was more than eight seconds faster than her best time from the previous year—an astounding progression by the standards of elite-level athletics. This meteoric improvement (and, most likely, Caster’s distinctly muscled physique) then prompted the IAAF to request that Semenya undergo a sex-verification test, which allegedly revealed that she had three times the amount testosterone typically expected in female athletes. (In a massive instance of indiscretion by the IAAF, news about the test broke while the world championships were still in progress.)"

 

you may ask yourself, how much change a "triple" can make, so just read this:

"Researchers measured blood testosterone levels in 1,332 female athletes competing across 21 track and field disciplines at the 2011 and 2013 world championships. Those with the highest levels of testosterone demonstrated significant advantages over those with the lowest levels – notably in the 400m (2.7% faster), the 400m hurdles (2.8% faster), the 800m (1.8% faster), the hammer throw (4.5% longer) and in the pole vault (2.9% higher).

Although these margins appear small, at the highest level a performance boost of a few percentage points might mean the difference between winning gold and missing out on a medal.

 

and those levels are just the highest a biological female can have, i can only imagine what double that would do.
yes, caster may now have a cleared level of testosterone but digging deeper, the max level which the IAAF set at 10 nanomoles per liter of blood (nmol/L), which is way too high considering that the organization cited a study that found that 99 percent of elite female athletes had androgen levels below 3.08 nmol/L, meaning that another competitor can have 3 times as much nanomoles  and still be cleared to compete against you.

 

you think that's bad, have another look

 

"In 2015, however, Indian sprinter Dutee Chand successfully challenged the hyperandrogenism rule through the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on the grounds that the IAAF needed more evidence proving the relationship between athletic performance and androgen levels. The rule has been suspended since that time, and the CAS gave the IAAF two years to bolster its case. That deadline falls at the end of this month, at which point the IAAF is expected to submit its evidence to have the hyperandrogenism rule reinstated."

 

"In a detailed dissection of the British Journal of Sports Medicine study, sports scientist Ross Tucker, who regards the hyperandrogenism rule as “the best solution to an impossible problem,” argued that the 1.8 to 4.5 percent range was well short of the benchmark that CAS had set in the Dutee Chand vs. IAAF case. Zeroing in on the language of that decision, Tucker notes that CAS appeared to require that the IAAF prove that female athletes with male levels of testosterone had an advantage “of commensurate significance to the competitive advantage that male athletes enjoy over female athletes.” That advantage, according CAS, would be somewhere between 10 and 12 percent—significantly more than what the recent study found that high-T women had over their peers. For that reason, Tucker thinks it’s unlikely that the IAAF will able to reinstate the hyperandrogenism rule unless it has further, heretofore undisclosed, evidence."

"The problem, in Tucker’s view, is that the 10 to 12 percent benchmark was always too high.“This should never have been an issue of men vs. women,” Tucker writes. “Rather, it should be about whether women who possess a Y-chromosome, and who produce T in the male range, have an unnaturally large advantage over women who do not have those male-level T values.”

 

you may ask yourself, what about males, do they have the same advantage if they have a higher level of androgen, and this will answer your question

"On July 3, the first (and so far only) major piece of that evidence was released. The IAAF announced that it would be bolstering its case with a study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine in which researchers took blood samples from 2,127 elite track and field athletes (male and female) at the 2011 and 2013 IAAF World Championships. After comparing androgen levels with competition results, the study found that women with high testosterone had an advantage ranging from 1.8 to 4.5 percent, while no such advantage was found in males with higher testosterone. One of the co-authors of the study, Dr. Stéphane Bermon, was quoted in an IAAF press release: “If, as the study shows, in certain events female athletes with higher testosterone levels can have a competitive advantage of between 1.8-4.5% over female athletes with lower testosterone levels, imagine the magnitude of the advantage for female athletes with testosterone levels in the normal male range.”

 

with time, higher levels of testosterone can allow you to have a bigger, stronger, faster body. just having a treatment to lower the levels to compete doesn't take away the years that your body had to develp because of a an unfair advantage

[The Doctor]

39 minutes ago, the fox said:

still, caster had a history of having way above average levels, try 3 time the amount expected from a female athlete

 

"Her winning time of 1:55.45 was more than eight seconds faster than her best time from the previous year—an astounding progression by the standards of elite-level athletics. This meteoric improvement (and, most likely, Caster’s distinctly muscled physique) then prompted the IAAF to request that Semenya undergo a sex-verification test, which allegedly revealed that she had three times the amount testosterone typically expected in female athletes. (In a massive instance of indiscretion by the IAAF, news about the test broke while the world championships were still in progress.)"

 

you may ask yourself, how much change a "triple" can make, so just read this:

"Researchers measured blood testosterone levels in 1,332 female athletes competing across 21 track and field disciplines at the 2011 and 2013 world championships. Those with the highest levels of testosterone demonstrated significant advantages over those with the lowest levels – notably in the 400m (2.7% faster), the 400m hurdles (2.8% faster), the 800m (1.8% faster), the hammer throw (4.5% longer) and in the pole vault (2.9% higher).

Although these margins appear small, at the highest level a performance boost of a few percentage points might mean the difference between winning gold and missing out on a medal.

 

and those levels are just the highest a biological female can have, i can only imagine what double that would do.
yes, caster may now have a cleared level of testosterone but digging deeper, the max level which the IAAF set at 10 nanomoles per liter of blood (nmol/L), which is way too high considering that the organization cited a study that found that 99 percent of elite female athletes had androgen levels below 3.08 nmol/L, meaning that another competitor can have 3 times as much nanomoles  and still be cleared to compete against you.

 

you think that's bad, have another look

 

"In 2015, however, Indian sprinter Dutee Chand successfully challenged the hyperandrogenism rule through the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on the grounds that the IAAF needed more evidence proving the relationship between athletic performance and androgen levels. The rule has been suspended since that time, and the CAS gave the IAAF two years to bolster its case. That deadline falls at the end of this month, at which point the IAAF is expected to submit its evidence to have the hyperandrogenism rule reinstated."

 

"In a detailed dissection of the British Journal of Sports Medicine study, sports scientist Ross Tucker, who regards the hyperandrogenism rule as “the best solution to an impossible problem,” argued that the 1.8 to 4.5 percent range was well short of the benchmark that CAS had set in the Dutee Chand vs. IAAF case. Zeroing in on the language of that decision, Tucker notes that CAS appeared to require that the IAAF prove that female athletes with male levels of testosterone had an advantage “of commensurate significance to the competitive advantage that male athletes enjoy over female athletes.” That advantage, according CAS, would be somewhere between 10 and 12 percent—significantly more than what the recent study found that high-T women had over their peers. For that reason, Tucker thinks it’s unlikely that the IAAF will able to reinstate the hyperandrogenism rule unless it has further, heretofore undisclosed, evidence."

"The problem, in Tucker’s view, is that the 10 to 12 percent benchmark was always too high.“This should never have been an issue of men vs. women,” Tucker writes. “Rather, it should be about whether women who possess a Y-chromosome, and who produce T in the male range, have an unnaturally large advantage over women who do not have those male-level T values.”

 

you may ask yourself, what about males, do they have the same advantage if they have a higher level of androgen, and this will answer your question

"On July 3, the first (and so far only) major piece of that evidence was released. The IAAF announced that it would be bolstering its case with a study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine in which researchers took blood samples from 2,127 elite track and field athletes (male and female) at the 2011 and 2013 IAAF World Championships. After comparing androgen levels with competition results, the study found that women with high testosterone had an advantage ranging from 1.8 to 4.5 percent, while no such advantage was found in males with higher testosterone. One of the co-authors of the study, Dr. Stéphane Bermon, was quoted in an IAAF press release: “If, as the study shows, in certain events female athletes with higher testosterone levels can have a competitive advantage of between 1.8-4.5% over female athletes with lower testosterone levels, imagine the magnitude of the advantage for female athletes with testosterone levels in the normal male range.”

 

with time, higher levels of testosterone can allow you to have a bigger, stronger, faster body. just having a treatment to lower the levels to compete doesn't take away the years that your body had to develp because of a an unfair advantage

That 10nmol/l level is the bottom end of typical male levels. 10nmol = 1x10-8 moles, mw of testosterone is 288.42, so 10nmol = 2884.2ng/l, 288.42ng/dl; male levels range from 280-1100ng/dl, average around 680ng/dl. If Semenya is 3 fold the typical upper limit that would put her at 266.5ng/dl, unhealthily low by the standards of men. You claim that higher testosterone is not associated with better performance in men, but is in women - that is explicable through any response plot: increased response (in this case athletic performance) will always plataeu after a certain threshold (law of diminishing returns), bearing in mind men at peak physical strength will have average at worst hormone levels. What I expect you'd see in a study with various levels of testosterone is a response plot that shows a plateau at typically lower than average levels for men, but beyond that of those shown in women.

 

should they be allowed to compete with that inherent advantage, and is the bottom of typical male levels an acceptable limit? Unless you want to introduce a third, mixed catagory, predominately for those like Semenya and intersex athletes, the answer would have to be yes,

[Raw Dykes]

2 hours ago, Facecloth said:

It's an anagram of A Secret Man Yes.

Wow! You're not kidding. Did you spot that?

[Jimothy]

4 minutes ago, Raw Dykes said:

Wow! You're not kidding. Did you spot that?

I'd like to claim I did but it was pointed out on a comedy panel show a couple of years back, I just remembered it.

[Guest the fox]

40 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

That 10nmol/l level is the bottom end of typical male levels. 10nmol = 1x10-8 moles, mw of testosterone is 288.42, so 10nmol = 2884.2ng/l, 288.42ng/dl; male levels range from 280-1100ng/dl, average around 680ng/dl. If Semenya is 3 fold the typical upper limit that would put her at 266.5ng/dl, unhealthily low by the standards of men. You claim that higher testosterone is not associated with better performance in men, but is in women - that is explicable through any response plot: increased response (in this case athletic performance) will always plataeu after a certain threshold (law of diminishing returns), bearing in mind men at peak physical strength will have average at worst hormone levels. What I expect you'd see in a study with various levels of testosterone is a response plot that shows a plateau at typically lower than average levels for men, but beyond that of those shown in women.

 

should they be allowed to compete with that inherent advantage, and is the bottom of typical male levels an acceptable limit? Unless you want to introduce a third, mixed catagory, predominately for those like Semenya and intersex athletes, the answer would have to be yes,

this was never a case of men vs women which a lot of people are trying to make. this is about competitors having an unfair advantage. this is like saying a Citroën C3 WRC should have a race with a normal Citroën C3 because said Citroën C3 WRC isn't fast enough to be considered a formula 1 car (i know it's not the best of metaphors but, a bit tired and i can't think of a better one atm)

 

people keep bringing the levels of hormones in men to this, it's about how much of an advantage competitors like caster are having . do the levels have to be similar to men in order for them to act. espacial looking at how a small gap in a hormone can create a big difference in women's sports

[The Doctor]

1 minute ago, the fox said:

this was never a case of men vs women which a lot of people are trying to make. this is about competitors having an unfair advantage. this is like saying a Citroën C3 WRC should have a race with a normal Citroën C3 because said Citroën C3 WRC isn't fast enough to be considered a formula 1 car (i know it's not the best of metaphors but, a bit tired and i can't think of a better one atm)

 

people keep bringing the levels of hormones in men to this, it's about how much of an advantage competitors like caster are having . do the levels have to be similar to men in order for them to act. espacial looking at how a small gap in a hormone can create a big difference in women's sports

And that applies to the likes of Semenya vs women with typical T-levels, but not men vs the likes of Semenya? She's still well below the levels of an average male, indeed below the lower limit for a healthy male - should she be classified as a man due to her hormone levels? Of course not. If you're talking unfair advantage based on a biological quirk then the only solution for a level playing field would be a mixed/intersex category instead, not instead putting her in the position of all her competitors having an advantage over her.

[ozleicester]

have a read....

 

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/hannah-mouncey-and-limits-anti-discrimination-law

[Guest MattP]

Are you genderqueer @ozleicester ?

[leicsmac]

6 hours ago, MattP said:

Are you genderqueer @ozleicester ?

I'm honestly hoping it doesn't matter to folks if they are. That's kind of the message that is needing to be said throughout this whole thread, after all.