Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jordan's Article on Sex Divison in Sports

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jordan Feigenbaum
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • MelLond
    replied
    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 https://lovermart.com/product/anal-fantasy-elite-p-motion-prostate-massager-black/) 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bak2ThaBasix
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • LeonSquatsky
    replied
    It's a very interesting question to ask if there are situations that an unfair advantage might exist.

    It seems like people are worried about that a great deal.

    It would be nice to have a more thorough examination into that topic, although from a certain perspective, it might be the most important topic.

    I'm just a guy on an internet forum, I don't have strong opinions or answers to life's hard questions.

    Leave a comment:


  • JenovaImproved
    replied
    I felt the same way and PM'd Jordan about it. I prefer to keep things as simple as possible because the more complicated you make the issue (more than it needs to be) the more wrong you usually are. Jordan said to respond via forum instead of PM, so I'm submitting this here. My initial argument just seeing the highlights of the article posted on instagram is "We've had a way to tell sex with 99.9% accuracy for 6000 years. Penis + XY chromosomes = Male, Vagina + XX chromosomes = Female. Tiebreaker goes to chromosomes." After reading the full article at his behest, I see one of his largest arguments against this is that there's females with XY chromosomes and individuals with 1 less or 1 more chromosome, and this invalidates the way I determine sex. But he himself shows in the article that these only show up in 1 in 1000-2000 births. 1 in 1000 makes my method 99.9% accurate, as I stated. This isn't anywhere close to a significant number to invalidate our definition of the 2 sexes. If you have a birth abnormality that modifies your chromosomes that's bad luck of the draw for you. You can still be included - in the division that matches your chromosomes. You probably won't be exceptional enough to place - but neither is someone with other abnormalities at birth like a heart defect. (Side note because Jordan questioned it in PMs: Why did I say for 6000 years? because the first document i know of that describes 2 sexes is the bible and the oldest scrolls recovered are around that age so im comfortable saying this standard was set then. might have been known earlier without documentation, doesn't really matter.)

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • philibusters
    commented on 's reply
    Political issues occasional cause me stress, but for the most part I enjoy the conversation in the same way I enjoy exercise like strength training or running.

  • MitchellCole
    commented on 's reply
    It seems like this subject causes you a lot of stress. There are far more important things to worry about, IMO.

  • philibusters
    replied
    Another issue I have, not so much with this particular article, but with the debate in general, is the term transgendered.

    People who have surgery and get hormone treatment should be called transsex because they are altering their body to more resemble a sex that they were not born into. If gender is based on behavior rather than biological basis (e.g. how we dress), then a transvestite (a man who dresses as a woman is an example of a transgendered person). A person going though an operation and hormone treatment by contrast should be called trans-sex.

    Leave a comment:


  • llaffin
    commented on 's reply
    I don't think the word "mutilate" is appropriate. Also, the article did not suggest there should be no boundaries, but that the current IOC guidelines appear to eliminate most of the competitive advantage. What are these "few instances"? Most I have seen are from trans athletes not having to follow the rules set out by the IOC.

  • ChrisZ
    replied
    Interesting article. If you choose to manipulate/mutilate your own body in order to assign yourself a new gender, then the consequence should be no participation in professional sports or a trans division must exist . In just a few instances where average male competitors decide they are female and compete as such, they have blown out the biological female competitors in track and strength sports. Over time, I think with no boundries, many top podium spots and records would be occupied by trans people in women's divisions. As a father of 3 girls that play sports, I would not be on board with biological or gender re-assigned persons competing with them. Sorry.

    Leave a comment:


  • philibusters
    commented on 's reply
    Thanks for your comment sjalbrec.

    I don't see the contradiction. In terms of sex not being binary--I have accepted that as I gained piece meal knowledge of intersex people. There is no one factor that separates a male from a female, but a computer analyzing a persons biological makeup could with something very close to 100% accuracy label 98% or so of the population as male or female. About 2% of the population is born with a biological makeup more complicated than the cookie cutter version we think of and that is where the stat that 1.7% of the population is born intersex came from. However even within that 1.7% in the vast majority of the cases it is still pretty easy to label somebody as male or female. But there really is a small percentage of cases. Jordan's figure was 1 out of every 1,666. The number I saw was 1 out of 5000 where the person is genuinely not a good fit for male or female. In addition to the people who were born intersex, other people through surgery and hormone treatment alter their biological makeup so that they too don't truly fit into the male or female category. So both people born intersex and transgendered people serve as examples that sex is not binary.

    The idea in some extreme circles within feminism that sex and gender are not distinct is something I learned about from an article I read in Quillette ( https://quillette.com/2019/03/13/gen...brief-history/ ) I find that idea troubling because society still makes a lot of important distinctions based on biological sex. The idea that gender is fluid, and that sex is the same thing as gender, so that biological sex is also fluid challenges a lot of practices of society. Should boys and girls use separate bathroom? Should male and female prisoners be held in separate prisons? Should doctors be cognizant of biological differences between men and women when they treat them? Not that feminists who hold those beliefs want any of those things or are even worried about those issues. What they want is for transgender woman to become recognized as a biological female (sex) rather than just as a woman (gender). But the foundational underpinnings of such a belief would place a lot of things in doubt. To me sex is biologically based and gender is a combo of being biologically based and culturally based. Thinking that sex is biologically based does not mean I think sex is binary. Rather I think people who are born intersex and born that way based entirely based on biologically processes.
    Last edited by philibusters; 08-10-2019, 11:01 PM.

  • sjalbrec
    commented on 's reply
    i think you've contradicted yourself:

    You stated: "In terms of whether of him presenting a strong case that sex is not binary, I didn't look at that part of the article as closely because I am already in agreement with that position and just took it as a given."

    But then you said: "At the very extremes of feminism, the idea has emerged that there is no difference between sex and gender. These are ideas that I find worrisome, not because they are evil or anything, but because they tear down cultural understandings and consensus understanding that are fundamental to most people's world view. They is a saying that culture is composed of all of society's solutions to past problems. We may over time, forget that those past problems even existed, but if we are too ready to change our culture and traditions on a whim we may find a lot of problems that society solved long ago reemerge."

    I don't think anyone (especially those directly impacted) would say that society is moving past old-fashioned norms about gender "on a whim". It is, and will continue to be, quite a fight. I'd say you could categorize this issue along side women's voting rights, gay marriage, voter suppression of minorities, etc. These were all consensus cultural understandings and obviously wrong. Btw, I am in no way accusing you of supporting any of these outdated schools of thought!
    Last edited by sjalbrec; 08-09-2019, 05:01 PM.

  • philibusters
    replied
    Originally posted by ropable View Post
    I really appreciated the article, for a couple of reasons:

    1. It challenged my common-sense/intuition that trans/intersex female athletes will automatically have a competitive advantage over their opponents with actual data. This is a useful opportunity for self-reflection and reviewing my priors.
    2. It presented an opportunity for me to troll my fundamentalist religious relative on Facebook, which I always appreciate.

    Joking aside, I've read the whole thing and I still don't know 100% where I stand. I'm inclined to agree with Jordan's conclusions as I generally favour inclusivity and fewer restrictions on people playing sports. I still can't shake the idea that for certain sports and certain individuals there may still be some competitive advantage gained, which doesn't sit well with me. This is a difficult topic to think about rationally.
    I am not convinced the evidence really shows that they don't have an advantage. For example he uses the study by Bermon which compared the athletic performance of women athletes who were in the top third of females testosterone levels with women who were in the bottom third, to argue the data shows that levels of testosterone only have a minor effect on performance advantage which is 0.31% for running events and 1.07% for non-running events like throws. But the problem with with that study is it studied females in the normal testosterone range of 20-60 ng/dL, meaning the difference from a very low testosterone participant to high testosterone participant was about 40 ng/DL. With intersex athletes we are potentially talking about women with testosterone levels 10 X the high end of the female spectrum so we are talking about a difference of 540 ng/DL not 40 ng/DL so the study doesn't address how that type of testosterone discrepancy would affect performance. In at least one case, Caster Semenya, when she had to reduce her testosterone levels it immediately affected her performance by about 6%. That is huge.
    Last edited by philibusters; 08-09-2019, 01:03 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • philibusters
    commented on 's reply
    I find Jordan arrogant and he can kind of grind my gears so I am not all that inclined to be charitable to him.

    In terms of my comments about Jordan's motivations, could I be wrong? Sure. My comments are speculative in nature. But its what I do. I am a lawyer and I also enjoy political conversation. As a lawyer, it order to be good, you have to be able to read signaling--whats going on beyond the surface of people's words. If you the prosecution you are not allowed to say "this is a bad person he probably did the crime" but you can signal the judge or jury subtly. As the defense you are trying to signal them the opposite way but you are not allowed to say "my client is a good person and he wouldn't do what is alleged becasue its inconsistent with his good character", but that doesn't mean you don't say it underneath your words. If you are a good attorney you can see what the other side is signaling. If a witness on the stand is signaling meaning beneath the words you take note of it and see if you can use it against them on cross examination. In political conversation, where people are usually too smart to say something controversial or that will hurt them strategically you are always looking for clues to understand what happening.

    Take my post in this thread where I said "I follow three new sources on Facebook (The Washington Post, The Atlantic, and Quillette)" From that one sentence if you are attuned to political signaling you can pretty much guess my politics. Washington Post = Respectable Democrat publication (if I was a Republican I would and wanted to convey respectability I would have said the Wall Street Journal), The Atlantic = Educated worldview, and Quillette equals interested in the intellectual dark web and pushing back against the social justice movement on the left. In order to catch all that you would have to follow politics, but when I wrote I was definitely being frank about political affiliations while also being a little bit discreet. That is an example of purposeful signaling.

    In terms of not guessing at people's motivations, I thought Jordan's signaling was not all that subtle and discreet. The tone of the article let you know which side of the fence he was on. He wasn't in your face about it and it kept it professional, but it wasn't like he tried to hide it either. Here is the thing, there is a lot of professions like politics and journalism where you have to be able to be able to fairly accurately guess people positions from signaling. If you cannot do that, you cannot excel in that profession. It doesn't mean you cannot earn a living in that profession, but you cannot excel in it. But its one of those things where even if you are good at it, you are occasionally going to get some of them wrong. We have had experiences where we make have an impression of someone and then over time that impression changes.

  • Leah Lutz
    commented on 's reply
    "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."
    It always fascinates me when people decide to make statements about someone else, particularly someone they only slightly know online. I'm not going to argue the point, but I find it curious that you find it useful to attempt to judge the formation of the article.
Working...
X