Sebastian Coe “gender cannot trump biology”

[Theeyeballsinthefuckingsky]

www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/mar/21/coe-warns-transgender-athletes-pose-risk-to-integrity-of-womens-sport

Also says they can’t keep farming off the decisions to member states

Yes, it's not as if women are permitted to raise their testosterone to the top of female levels.

There's also a secondary effect that's rarely talked about, which is that the actual performance distribution of suppressed males will not be remotely similar.

In high-level competition, you're looking at the right-hand end of a distribution, in both males and females.

When you impair a male, you do not just shift the performance distribution down 10% (say). It won't be the case that every man will get exactly 10% slower with suppressed testosterone.

We've had various studies showing the average reduction, but whatever it is, some men will lose more, some will lose less. Some may lose almost nothing.

To a large extent, what will matter is how resistant an individual male is to losing testosterone. It may even become the dominant factor - given three testosterone-suppressed males in a women's race the determining factor may be response to testosterone suppression, rather than natural performance or training.

Is it even a sporting competition at that point?

@NecessaryScene

Exactly. Before you even start to determine how it could possibly made fair (spoiler: it can’t) it needs to be explained how these males - trans or DSDs - are even eligible to be in the female category in the first place. Demonstrate how they are women/females first.

I don't think it's quite that straightforward. You do need to consider why the category delimiter is "female" in the first place, and whether that is the correct dividing line.

Fortunately the easy answer to that is it IS correct, because there ARE two human phenotypes, male and female, each with their own clear performance distributions.

Picking up on something from Emma Hilton yesterday, the highest-athletically-performing humans are basically able-bodied 25-year-old males.

To give other humans a chance you need to have categories. The absolute first category you pick would be sex, to give access to that 50% of the population.

After that, you can look at age, disability, weight, height categories, but those categories are less productive than sex in that either they open to far fewer people or open to people who have a chance earlier or later in life. Sex categorisation immediately opens up competition to 4 billion people who would otherwise never have a chance at any point in their life.

Well yes, NecessaryScene. But we've already done this. Transgenderism is making everyone re-invent the wheel. Abandoning the category of female will obliterate women's sport - the 4 billion.

And although we categorise to give more people a fair crack of the whip, it does go behind that.

Like overcoming adversity for para sports. And letting women shine in a society where they are often considered unworthy.

First and foremost it's to include more people. But then it's the pride which results from it.

Fairness is obviously only determined by sticking to the categories. But, as we can see, the sexism and the notion that women aren't fully human and therefore their category can be re-purposed for the benefit of their oppressors transcends the sport issue.

It's interesting that you use the word fortunate to describe the fact that the category of female happens to be made logical by the fairness.

Because it is indeed fortunate that women can justify why they want their own category, because sexism isn't enough.

(And yes, I realise, that if women had the same strength as men, and therefore didn't need their own category, then sexism probably wouldn't exist in the first place. You struggle to enforce sexism if the person in front of you is your physical equal.)

@NecessaryScene

Yes, it's not as if women are permitted to raise their testosterone to the top of female levels.

There's also a secondary effect that's rarely talked about, which is that the actual performance distribution of suppressed males will not be remotely similar.

In high-level competition, you're looking at the right-hand end of a distribution, in both males and females.

When you impair a male, you do not just shift the performance distribution down 10% (say). It won't be the case that every man will get exactly 10% slower with suppressed testosterone.

We've had various studies showing the average reduction, but whatever it is, some men will lose more, some will lose less. Some may lose almost nothing.

To a large extent, what will matter is how resistant an individual male is to losing testosterone. It may even become the dominant factor - given three testosterone-suppressed males in a women's race the determining factor may be response to testosterone suppression, rather than natural performance or training.

Is it even a sporting competition at that point?

This ^. If it’s all about testosterone, and it has been decided that men should reduce their T to the arbitrary level of what is it, 7, or 10 or something, then women should be allowed to increase theirs to the same level. Also, there will be fully functioning men whose T is naturally at the lower end, and who suffer no detriment from that - it’s their level. If this is the way sport is going, then every male needs to know what their personal level is so they know where in the range they sit. It’s entirely possible that there is a trans woman athlete out there who wouldn’t have to change a thing in order to compete. Admittedly we’re talking very small numbers, and hard cases make bad law, but it should be considered.

The Daily Telegraph as well - front of the sports section Lord Coe
www.telegraph.co.uk/athletics/2022/03/21/seb-coe-warns-future-womens-sport-stake-transgender-athletes/

www.telegraph.co.uk/swimming/2022/03/21/terror-labelled-transphobic-now-tops-inclination-protect-womens/

Inside page Chief Sports writer Oliver Brown "Fear of transphobic label halts protection of women's sport". His final paragraph: "But this poisonous culture should no longer stifle the acknowledgement of what is staring us in the face: that every time Thomas takes to the starting blocks, the sanctity of women's sport suffers another grievous setback."

I know that the Daily Torygraph is not the reading choice of loads of Mumsnetters but, as a newspaper, it is by far the most balls to the wall on the transgender issue. Every day there is something and it is the paper that supports women's sport more than any other.

We maybe should be thanking Lia Thomas for showcasing the problem more than anyone else. The failed weightlifter Hubbard went under the radar for most people but your everyday non sporty person is being made aware of Thomas.

On a personal note.. why should people care about being called transphobic? Personally I couldn't care less. The Thomas's of the world and their TRA supporters don't give a stuff about women - why should I give a stuff about them?

So many women are too damn soft.

I've had it up to here with the call for compassion. Just bog off already.

Yep. He is focussed on testosterone as it is measurable. Easily done and well researched already. It is how the science can most easily say "No!"

It might solve the immediate problem but will leave the can open for more worms...