No announcement yet.

Jordan's Article on Sex Divison in Sports

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I haven't read Jordan's article, but your thoughts on the track standards made me think of other gender bridges, I mean bridges between types of sex toys that are either "only for men" or "only for women". Sorry if I digress from the current topic. I think the concept of gender is applicable neither to toys, since there are many types of these products on the Internet, nor to sports, cause sports is for everyone and it's unjust to make some sports inaccessible for intersex people. If you take a look at a typical massager (like this you will find that it's for men, but what about trans people? I, as a trans person, can say that such massagers and other toys are quite suitable for satisfying my and my partner's desires. It would be stupid to separate toys only for men and for women because they are multifunctional and suitable for every Person!
    Last edited by MelLond; 07-04-2021, 07:12 PM.


    • #17
      Thanks for reading the article, y'all. The goal was to provide a resource for people to learn more about the topic and spark some discussion. I personally don't have strong feelings about what the best policy would be for either trans or DSD athletes. I think the issue is complicated and deserves careful thought when discussing policy and that's my position. If we layer in the the values presented in the Olympic Charter and IOC in various places, I think it's pretty clear that there should be a place for trans and DSD athletes to compete, though the specific eligibility requirements and divisions are likely to vary from sport to sport.

      A few things worth responding to in this thread:

      I think given the evidence presented by Jordan, the IOC guidelines regarding trans participation in sport are a pretty reasonable way to balance fairness, the olympic spirit of sport, inclusivity, and the arbitrary nature of having sex divisions. If and when we have more data, the IOC guidelines can be updated and our policies and conclusions may change.
      I agree with this x 1000.

      To me the disagreeable part of his conclusion was that he weighed the policy of inclusivity more heavily than I would.
      Reading the above, I think it's reasonable to set aside your or my preferences for inclusivity and use the IOC's. I also don't think I would universally weight any policy towards inclusivity above all else, see: safety.

      I don't think Jordan wrote that article to truly understand the issue. I think likely already had a position and wrote the article to advocate for that position.
      That is an interesting position to hold considering the positive and negative data presented and presenting policy options on both sides. Having been relatively familiar with this issue prior to penning the article, I suppose one could argue that I didn't write it to understand it more....rather as a resource for people to use if they wanted.

      But the problem with with that study is it studied females in the normal testosterone range of 20-60 ng/dL,
      That's not true. Both Bermon studies include women with a range of total testosterone from ~0.2-3.0+ nmol/L. There is also data missing from both papers as highlighted by Pielke Jr and others calling for the retraction. Additionally, Semenya's reduction in performance may have been multifactorial- from the medication itself, a training injury she was dealing with, and stress of the ongoing case. It would be difficult to make the case it related to her testosterone levels, especially considering the data on T doesn't really support that assertion.

      So to summarize, sex is very simply and accurately determined: Penis + XY chromosomes = Male, Vagina + XX chromosomes = Female. If you are outside this norm you have a rare abnormality but this doesn't bar you from participation in every classification, you might just have a harder opponent genetically. It's scientifically impossible to include every rare abnormality in a classification, but 99.9% coverage is perfectly acceptable as a standard.
      So, you're in favor of medical exams for all athletes to determine eligibility? This has been done before without much success.

      As to the appeal, "99.9% coverage is perfectly acceptable" - then you would probably be okay with people using a government-issued ID or self-identifying for a particular division, as this would also work "99.9%" of the time without an ethical issue.

      I know from what research I have read I would pose the question of what role “muscle memory” plays in function post transition. It’s well known that there are physiological differences post trans but not enough research or any for that matter has actually looked at the impact previous training history has on post trans performance. I’m not saying one way or the other if it is fair or not. I simply think looking further into that specific factor would be pretty cool and provide a nice insight into it all.
      In addition to these biological factors, I think psychological, social, and environmental differences should be better characterized.
      Barbell Medicine "With you from bench to bedside"
      ///Website /// Instagram /// Peri™ Rx /// Whey Rx /// Barbell Medicine Podcast/// Newsletter /// Seminars ///