Penn swimming in hot water???
- Thread starter BigD
- Start date
At the time, NCAA allowed transgender women to compete as long as they had completed at least 1 year of hormone replacement therapy (Thomas had completed more than 2 before competing as a woman). Rules have since changed. Different sporting bodies have different rules, but most either ban transgender women from participating in the female category, or they require transitioning prior to puberty. This makes the most sense, as it is generally accepted that at least some of the athletic advantage gained from going through puberty as a male are retained even through post-puberty hormone therapy.
Here’s what to know about former Penn swimmer Lia Thomas
The Daily Pennsylvanian took a look back at Thomas’ journey to Penn, her time representing Penn Athletics, and her impact after graduation.
www.thedp.com
Fryowa
Administrator
Athletic contests should be separated by chromosome groups, period. No ambiguity, and no need for any discussion of gender identity or social issues whatsoever. If XX wants to compete in XY that’s fine, XY not allowed in XX. There is indisputable scientific evidence that XY is naturally bigger/stronger/faster. Create a new division for people who gender-identify with a group other than their biological one. Run a few extra races at track meets and be done with it.At the time, NCAA allowed transgender women to compete as long as they had completed at least 1 year of hormone replacement therapy (Thomas had completed more than 2 before competing as a woman). Rules have since changed. Different sporting bodies have different rules, but most either ban transgender women from participating in the female category, or they require transitioning prior to puberty. This makes the most sense, as it is generally accepted that at least some of the athletic advantage gained from going through puberty as a male are retained even through post-puberty hormone therapy.
Here’s what to know about former Penn swimmer Lia Thomas
The Daily Pennsylvanian took a look back at Thomas’ journey to Penn, her time representing Penn Athletics, and her impact after graduation.
No ambiguity, no argument of unfairness, issue solved. Let the NCAA or high school pay the $200 for the one-time test and be done with this whole issue.
No more XXs winning the XY state 200m and 400m championship by 7 seconds. Let people choose their gender, but no one can “choose” chromosome group.
Put this ridiculous issue to bed once and for all.
Last edited:
HuckFinn
Well-Known Member
Never thought of this. If I understand your point, I am convinced it would be a good move. Clarity and consistency are tough to find these days.
Fryowa
Administrator
Let’s people identify with whatever gender they want, and prevents biological males (XY) with a huge advantage from stealing athletic competitions from biological females (XX). No way to argue it and level field for everyone.
JoeyLabasForPresident
Well-Known Member
This is my position as well. However, how do you actually enforce it in a nondescriminatory manner? DNA tests for every competitor? And what level of scrutiny does that get? I suppose some states is as simple as a birth certificate, but I imagine other states have really muddied the waters there. And I’d guess if they haven’t, plenty of states would intentionally make it difficult to use birth certificates for this purpose.
thedukeofearl
Well-Known Member
If during a women's basketball game one notices whiskers on a babe
That is a clue
Of course, the medical technology has bypassed that factor a while ago
Good thought, but it still doesn't work cleanly. There are some women who are XY and men who are XX. The cluster of genes that determines sex is located on the Y chromosome, known as the sex-determining region of Y (SRY). As part of the production of eggs and sperm, homologous chromosome pairs undergo a process known as crossing-over, which is essentially a process of genetic scrambling of some of your mom's and dad's genes to increase genetic diversity. Usually the sex chromosome do not engage in crossing-over, it is typically just #s 1-22...but sometimes things go a bit sideways, the sex chromosomes do exchange some of their genetic material, and the SRY gene ends up on an X chromosome. The offspring is then XX, but it is male. Likewise, you could have a Y chromosome without the SRY cluster of genes, and an XY individual is female.
In short, sexual determination is way more complex than most realize. There are more than 50 known ways that there can be a mismatch between chromosomes, gonads, and genitalia. These DSD (disorders of sexual development) are not super common, but also not super rare (about 1 of every 5,000 births).
DSD is a difficult issue for sporting organizations to deal with. No one can deny someone is DSD (there are numerous tests to verify), but it is unclear just how much performance advantage is conferred by this issue, especially considering there are so many different versions. People who have experienced DSD could just be banned from the male or female category because they are not cleanly one or the other, but that excludes over a million people worldwide from participating in sport at the highest levels.
Transgender is a different issue. In most cases, these individuals are not DSD. Physiologically (excluding the brain), they are all male or all female. But there is a mismatch between what their body is and what their brain is telling them they should be. In this case, a transgender women has ALL of the performance advantages of being a male until they start hormone therapy. That is typically not true of a DSD individual who appears female. For the transgender woman, once they start hormone therapy, they lose some of the advantages of maleness, but not all of them. In particular, if they went through puberty as a male, they retain the advantages of bigger stature, bigger, heart, bigger bones, etc.
Beyond that, this would be operationally unwieldy. Would you ascent to a DNA test on your kid in order to participate in HS sports? You could say go by birth certificate, but chromosomal sex would be incorrectly indicated on the birth certificate for many DSD individuals. What if you had a tomboyish daughter who loved sports and kicked ass, and parents from an opposing team demanded she be sex-tested...how pissed off would you be?
I get your desire for something clean and clear-cut, but I just don't think that is realistic with an issue as complex as this.
To add to my earlier reply:
They used the method you suggested from 1967-1991, but they have used more advanced technology since then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_verification_and_intersex_athletes_at_the_Olympic_Games
This is a pretty good run-down of some of the challenges associated with this issue, although at 5-years old, this is already a bit dated in this rapidly evolving area: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7259991/
HuckFinn
Well-Known Member
Please stop confusing me with more facts. Thank you.
Fryowa
Administrator
I read through your reply several times and understand your position. But...
No rule set in the history of the world has ever been perfect. What you need to ask is, "What rule set is closer to perfect?" Chromosomal testing is WAY more fair that what we have now. I don't think there's any question that the athletes causing the chaos are transgender XY males entering XX sporting events. I challenge anyone to dispute that with statistics. Thus, the solution to the problem...while not perfect as you stated...would nullify a "biological" male from entering a female race and winning a state title in the 400m by 7 seconds.
Would it be fair to those with conditions you describe? Possibly not without an extra division.
You stated that the rules I offered would be detrimental to a million people worldwide. Let's be ultraconservative and say it was truly 2 million people. There are 8.062 billion people on earth, and 2 million of those would be .02% percent of the total population, which would translate to .02% (or less) of the % of people participating in sports worldwide.
I think that's more than fair.
If my son were transgender and identified as a female, I would wholeheartedly still support a DNA test for classification because I believe it's fair. He can run a 4:22 mile, there is no way he should be allowed to compete against high school girls.
Re: other parents demanding a test, that isn't what we're discussing. That is a case of a female outperforming her peers, not a case of transgender crossover competition.
As you and I both mentioned in our posts, create a "DSD" division if needed for inclusivity.
I truly get where you're coming from, but I will always feel that a more-fair rule set is superior to a less-fair one even if imperfect.
You are addressing the issue of the rare XY female who is getting excluded...but you are not addressing the issue of the masculinized XX female who is being included. That is a big reason why they haven't used this approach (XX/XY genotyping) for over 3 decades. They now use testosterone measurements.
Have you used 23-and-me, or some similar genotyping tool? I have not, largely because I am not comfortable with a large corporation having my detailed genetic information. If subjecting to genotyping was a precondition to kids participating in sport, I would not be cool with that.
And if we only reserved it for those "questionable" cases, then that tomboy example is very relevant. There have been numerous examples where a cisgender girl who kicks ass at sports has been accused of being transgender.
Utah official faces calls to resign after falsely suggesting teen girl is transgender
Gov. Spencer Cox denounced the official, Utah State School Board member Natalie Cline, saying she has embarrassed the state.
www.nbcnews.com
I think we mostly agree, here. There are some huge issues with fairness created by DSD participation in sport, and even more so with transgender. The female category needs to be protected at the highest level of sport (I am more conflicted with youth sports). Perhaps the solution lies in separate transgender and DSD categories? I just strongly disagree that going by XX/XY is a reasonable solution, there is a reason that sporting bodies went away from that 3 decades ago.
Fryowa
Administrator
Different issue, IMO. The arrows point two different directions. From the 30,000 foot view, the issue is that according to science there are two distinct biological genders needed to reproduce, and one has a very significant physical advantage. Yes, I am ignoring the outlier DSD population but that is EXCEEDINGLY rare. Science up to now has shown us that the most clear cut way to identify gender is by looking at a person's chromosomes. There's also a clear cut need (because of the physical advantage) to separate the two. What you're talking about in the case of a high-T female dominating her sport & gender is different. If you want to go the testosterone level route where do you stop? We've all seen WAY more diminutive males compete in HS sports and fail than we have masculinized females dominating.
Yes, that female might be masculine and high-T, but at the end of the day she's still a biological female competing in her own gender division. I could make the same argument that it was unfair for Brandon Scherff to play high school football against me because even if he never lifted a weight his whole life he'd still be able to push me through a brick wall no matter how much I worked out (I never played against him).
Do we allow diminutive males to have their own football or track teams?
Do we make genetic freaks like Wirfs and Proctor form their own league?
Do we test everyone and organize them into 4 different tiers of competitions according to their T threshold, and the person who's .05% over the line has to move up to a Wirfs/Proctor league no matter their strength/size/speed?
What about speed of aging (ignoring gender)? Because ten different 16 year olds can have 3-400% different natural strength/speed between all of them?
All of those things above are such complicated and convoluted scenarios that aren't practical. If you let everything get bogged down with minutiae nothing will ever get done as we see all too well at each level level of politics today. There will always--without fail--be "what about" questions. Always.
The simple solution is there are two biological genders in well over 99.9% of the human population and those are clearly marked by unique chromosome pairs. Those markers are clear cut, exist in virtually everyone (again, DSD can be handled separately), and are the most simple and effective divisor in the human population because they directly correlate with a massive physical advantage one vs the other.
Fryowa
Administrator
IMO, that reason was driven by political activism and appeasement of a very small but loud crowd rather than objectivity.
Fryowa
Administrator
It may be rare, but it's the case where the stakes are highest and needs to be addressed the most.
The issue is one of phycological assignment (transgender males wanting to compete as females) vs scientific assignment. As much as I'd like it to be true, we can't have our cake and eat it too. An XY athlete deciding in their mind they're a female psychologically does not not change their chromosomes.
As a HS baseball player I can't take a drop 6 bat up to the plate with me because it's illegal equipment and would give me a HUGE advantage. I can tell myself it's a drop 3 and genuinely believe it in my own mind, but it's a physical object with physical properties that I can't physically change. Just like (in essentially all cases) my DNA is a physical object with physical properties that I can't change. If I do change it, it's too late because in high school I've gained a whole lot of physical development by that age.
I can carry that bat around with me truly believing in my mind it's a drop 3, I can tell everyone it's a drop 3, and I can go hit BP happily and freely with it all day to my heart's content. But it doesn't change the length to weight ratio when I put it on a scale and measure it's length. I can't use it in competition against people that have to use a drop 3 because it's a huge advantage and there are rules that forbid it. As there should be.
No, there was no political activism surrounding this issue in the early 90s. There was a realization that XX/XY does not fully capture the primary driver of performance advantage, which is testosterone. Solely measuring testosterone also has its drawbacks: requires blood testing, can capture a moment of time but does not capture prior influences of hormone levels, hard to account for natural variability in female androgens, etc. But it is better than XX/XY.
I agree completely. But you also have to deal with the masculinized XX female, otherwise they have a similar unfair advantage that you are letting slide if you are only looking at XX/XY.
Fryowa
Administrator
Totally disagree. When you do that you now have to take all athletes and divide them by an arbitrary metric. DNA isn't arbitrary. It's clearly observable, relevant, and simple. Again, well over 99.9% of these issues aren't a matter of testosterone level, it's a biological male (XY) dominating an XX sport on their psychological whim.
Fryowa
Administrator
Not really beause we're using DNA as the divisor. Just like CFP selection, it ain't always fair but the rules are applied to everyone equally. We need to have rules that are the fairest to the maximum number of people for the least amount of complexity and convolution.
Fryowa
Administrator
I do think we're on the same page, just disagree on how to go about it. For perspective, I'm a moron...always keep that in mind when engaging with me.
