Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tiruin]

[...]

Pretty stupid solution in all ongoing reality. It's the influence of impression versus what's actually going on (in that I'm really noticing that such a ruling...is not holistic or inclusive with information of what the context that pushed them to do so actually has).

[TD1]

Just sounds like a general solution to the issue of trans-athletes, to me.  No solution is going to be perfect.

As far as I'm concerned, the simplest solution is either to create a trans-specific athletic group a la the Paralympics, or to simply continue bracketing them according to their sex. Any other system seems open to abuse - a man saying he's a woman and trying to compete as such isn't fair. Even with chemical adjustment.

[Rolan7]

I don't know enough about physiology to really say.  I feel like enough time at specified testosterone levels would make it fair, but maybe that's wishful thinking.

[Tiruin]

Just sounds like a general solution to the issue of trans-athletes, to me.  No solution is going to be perfect.

As far as I'm concerned, the simplest solution is either to create a trans-specific athletic group a la the Paralympics, or to simply continue bracketing them according to their sex. Any other system seems open to abuse - a man saying he's a woman and trying to compete as such isn't fair. Even with chemical adjustment.

"Simplest" isn't appropriate there.
People transitioning (trans* people) who are athletes, commonly have consistent overwatch and direct communication with doctors to check their hormone levels, which means this runs over the whole implication that 'hormonal levels are higher than whatever norm was established to compete without bias', which is bloody insignificant when you shove in that context if that's the whole point of it anyway; what's lacking in that whole ban, if ever tied to people being trans, is any explanation or depth as to how that even applies given these contexts and denoting the variance for people who are not trans and who also have such a variance of hormonal levels.

[TD1]

And yet, the common divide considered appropriate by the athletic community and world at large is based on sex, not hormone level. Which seems better than suggesting people up-or-lower their chemical levels simply to fit into some hormone criteria. Going by sex limits such frankly disturbing scenarios.

[scriver]

This has nothing to do with trans-women. Trans people is a clear cut solution - they take hormonal supplements and should thus be treated as any other person who takes hormones and not be allowed to compete professionally.

This has to do with women with naturally high testosterone levels. The root of the problem is that South African athlete (I think she is a runner of some sort) who has been dominating her field for the last... I dunno, a decade maybe? Her testosterone levels are off the charts and as I understand it it's just a natural deviation from the median.

The reason some people are shouting racism is presumably because for reasons I heard yesterday but can't recall today the statute seems custom tailored to prevent her from competing. Similar (but not testosterone-related) was done towards Swedish winter-athlete Ingmar Bergman in the 70's when he was super dominating his fields to keep him from being able to compete fairly, because sports is not about who is best but making money and national prestige for the big countries.

[martinuzz]

Indeed, the IAAF decision has nothing to to with transgenders. It has to do with women who have a testosterone level that is naturally 'too high'.

[TD1]

I don't know that there was confusion on that point, the line of discussion just kinda got pointed towards tranners.

[TamerVirus]

The relevant athlete is Caster Semenya, a noted South African middle-distance runner. She's been under a lot of scrutiny for a long time now. She apparently has something called Hyperandrogenism, which results in those high testosterone levels

[Kagus]

And according to the news, it's getting blasted as blatant... raceism?

FTFY

Pfft.

In other news, have a shitshow.

Nice to see that political discourse is maintaining its lofty standards of quality.

[ChairmanPoo]

This has nothing to do with trans-women. Trans people is a clear cut solution - they take hormonal supplements and should thus be treated as any other person who takes hormones and not be allowed to compete professionally.

Fuck that. I say that professional sports should be a doping FFA. Let pharma companies go allout into making athletes into ubermensch. Faster! Higher! Stronger!

[TamerVirus]

The Olympics should really just be a competition between various Super Soldier programs from across the world.

[NJW2000]

They need to separate it into categories: Doping, GM, mechanically augmented... Give mad science a chance.

[Reelya]

Indeed, the IAAF decision has nothing to to with transgenders. It has to do with women who have a testosterone level that is naturally 'too high'.

With the recent debates about whether transgender women can compete or not, I'd argue that the rule is designed to set an objective rule that sets a line for transgender cases. Testosterone being the male hormone: there's absolutely no other justification for why you'd even think of making a ruling like this.

However, like all such rules it fails because it includes a lot of false-positives. And that's the thing: only women's sport is really impacted by the transgender thing, so that's where the infighting is going to be.  Fundamentally, it is a result of the fact that we have a "women's" anything that by design excludes the top performers in most sports. And now, the question of who actually qualifies for that itself is under question.

e.g. would a transgender chess player be allowed to play in the women's chess? It's going to happen, and with the much larger talent pool of male chess players than female chess players - which is the reason we have "women's" chess tournaments, then if and when transgender players start winning women's chess tournaments we're going to have a shitfight about that, and the whole nature/nurture , male/female division thing all over again.

[Kagus]

I remember that argument being brought up before on the boards, specifically outlining that both chemical and biomechanical augmentations should be allowed (like NJW2000 mentioned). Some comments were also made about this being a boon to scientific advancement, as related fields would be set to receive more government funding.

The issue with this (aside from the potential health issues, and the ethical issues of allowing athletes to expose themselves to those health risks), is that economically poorer countries would be at a marked disadvantage due to a lack of resources with which to beef up their contenders.


...would be bloody entertaining to watch though.