Transgender athlete

[SomeRandom]

I agree. But thus far nobody seems to want to invest in such an idea.

Shame really

That’s a case where interest should have been on the man’s team but was on the woman’s team.

Well not really. People with AIS are born with female genitalia and as such are raised exclusively as female their entire lives. Like I said, many don’t even know they have the condition to begin with. So why would they even compete as a man?
Or did I misunderstand you?

Intersex with both genitals are more one than the other. If both genitals were equally developed, the person would be able to get someone pregnant and get pregnant at the same time. Such a case has never happened.

That’s Hermaphroditism. Or “true hermaphroditism.”
Intersex refers to the biological phenomenon of the development of both sex traits, but to varying degrees. Not equally. But I suppose that’s splitting hairs, really

Interestingly enough people born with Swyer Syndrome (XY chromosomes, uterus, fallopian tubes, external female genitalia and external gonads) are actually able to get pregnant and give birth. Since their organs, you know, function?
Not medically recommended but there have been success stories through the years so

When I spoke of biological differences, I was referring to more than just chromosomes, I also spoke of uterus vs prostate, natural testosterone level of 1,000 vs 25, ovaries vs testis, etc. But yes; when it comes to biology, there is only male, female, and intersex (intersex being a deformity) there is no non-binary, gender fluid, or such stuff in biology.

There is also hermaphroditism and pseudohermpahroditsm. Gender fluidity and non binary are biological terms but are mostly studied in the Psychiatry fields. Which has a biological component since it’s the study of the brain. Though sure, such terms are usually used in social sciences moreso. So I guess this is me splitting hairs again since I’m bored lol

 

[Colt]

If there was a religion drugging and mutilating children, then people might "suddenly" be opposed on the basis of common sense.

 

[Kfox]

Shame really

Well not really. People with AIS are born with female genitalia and as such are raised exclusively as female their entire lives. Like I said, many don’t even know they have the condition to begin with. So why would they even compete as a man?
Or did I misunderstand you?

Perhaps I misunderstood you; this lady who had her medals stripped from her, was it because she had a testosterone level of a man? Or was it based strictly on her XY chromosomes?

That’s Hermaphroditism. Or “true hermaphroditism.”
Intersex refers to the biological phenomenon of the development of both sex traits, but to varying degrees. Not equally. But I suppose that’s splitting hairs, really

Yes! One more than the other

Interestingly enough people born with Swyer Syndrome (XY chromosomes, uterus, fallopian tubes, external female genitalia and external gonads) are actually able to get pregnant and give birth. Since their organs, you know, function?
Not medically recommended but there have been success stories through the years so

Are you saying such a person can get a woman pregnant and get pregnant themselves by a man?

There is also hermaphroditism and pseudohermpahroditsm. Gender fluidity and non binary are biological terms but are mostly studied in the Psychiatry fields. Which has a biological component since it’s the study of the brain. Though sure, such terms are usually used in social sciences moreso. So I guess this is me splitting hairs again since I’m bored lol

My point is; according to natural science, humans are mammals and mammals are either male or female (or intersex deformity in rare conditions) this is the case for lions, tigers, bears, even humans. There is no gender fluidity or non-binary in natural science.

 

[SomeRandom]

Perhaps I misunderstood you; this lady who had her medals stripped from her, was it because she had a testosterone level of a man? Or was it based strictly on her XY chromosomes?

She was stripped of her medals due to her chromosomes, as I understand it. Despite living as a woman her entire life and indeed was possibly unaware she was even intersex to begin with.
Apparently it caused her so much humiliation and embarrassment that she attempted to commit suicide as a result. Which is why the Olympics committee was heavily criticised.
Whilst testing has improved as medicine advances, there have been some “interesting” results over the years. Not sure of the specifics (I’ll try to find the story) but there was a case where a gold medalist submitted to a mouth swab which confirmed her status as a female. Despite being born with both sets of genitalia.

Yes! One more than the other

Are you saying such a person can get a woman pregnant and get pregnant themselves by a man?

Okay fair point.
Though with the way medical science is advancing, maybe that can be achieved in the future lol

My point is; according to natural science, humans are mammals and mammals are either male or female (or intersex deformity in rare conditions) this is the case for lions, tigers, bears, even humans. There is no gender fluidity or non-binary in natural science.

True enough.
Well unless you’re talking about a species that does change sex (usually due to breeding possibilities.)
Humans are….well complicated. Biology is only what happens physically. But we are more than our bodies, we have minds and hormones and other things.
I get the sense that you’re kind of elevating biology over its brethren. Which is fine.
But science itself treats the branches of its various disciplines more like complementary features to one and other. Not competing ones.
Sports science combines aspects of biology with other disciplines.
It might come up with a compromise based on further study. I can’t say for sure because again, I’m not well versed enough on the topic

 

[Koldo]

Your ideas won't work

Non sequitur.

Yes you can! Objectivity only guarantees both sides will agree. But you can have a meaningful conversation with both sides in disagreement.

If every single word on this very sentence had a completely subjective meaning... it would be meaningless.

 

[Koldo]

Again the level of performance boost is what matters.

Far more athletes take PEDs than most people think, but testing limits the performance boosts to some degree. In many sports it’s almost certain the winner dopes (athletics, cycling,weightlifting etc.), but you can have a lesser career clean.

But a free for all would basically mean the winner would be which elite athlete has the best doctor, and all athletes would need to dope extensively.

Let's not pretend the performance is not significantly influenced by money already, alright?
It wouldn't really make much of a difference from what we have right now. Promoting sports as healthy activities is a public relations' wet dream coming true though, which would be smashed into nothingness if every top athlete was openly a junkie.

There is no magic solution, but that doesn’t mean there is no reason to have any care about fairness.

No one really cares about fairness.

 

[Augustus]

Let's not pretend the performance is not significantly influenced by money already, alright?
It wouldn't really make much of a difference from what we have right now. Promoting sports as healthy activities is a public relations' wet dream coming true though, which would be smashed into nothingness if every top athlete was openly a junkie.

Cheap PEDs are far more impactful in many sports than lots of money.

Expensive training might get you the extra 1% to win a tight race, PEDs can get you 10%.

No one really cares about fairness.

Nonsense, people certainly care about fairness to some extent, although people aren’t consistent in their beliefs.

Humans are never consistent in their beliefs though so that doesn’t invalidate anything.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yeah, right...
Not.

You do understand the sport?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You have said and I quote: "Those people can already access lower level competitions. I remain bemused by the idea that you think you can establish another elite competition, but one which doesn't have the best players. How is it an elite competition? "

In other words, you were saying that an elite competition requires the best players. But any closed category (as in the women's) won't have the best players. It is, rather than that, going to have the best players among those allowed to (and interested) play on that category.

Nope.
As I've said...repeatedly...elite and sub-elite are defined terms. It has no relationship to your colloquial usage. There are elite and sub elite men's and women's competitions because they have grown from grassroots competitions.
If you want an elite under 185cm competition, you'd need to grow that from grassroots. Then...in theory...you could have your elite sub 185cm competition. This really isn't that confusing isn't it? Elite competitions aren't formed by waving magic wands.

It is literally the same situation that would happen if we were to create a max 1,85m height category, for example.

This is why I have said that you can't have your cake and eat it too.

You've said it. It just assumes that you and a magic wand can create an 'elite' competition. In truth you can just create A competition and call it elite. You seem unable to understand the difference.

Considering this is a religious forum filled with atheists, I also wouldn't expect a basketball forum to be representative.

Okay. What is 'representative'?

And, indeed even if it were, there is hardly anyone interested in watching women's soccer here in Brazil, and there is still a national tournament.

I have and will continue to keep my thoughts and examples limited to what I'm involved and educated in.

I don't see debates as having anything to do with winning and losing. It is a totally different beast.

Way to dodge the point there.

I mean... women's basketball is an olympic sport, so...

No idea what your point is there. You might need to just state it clearly.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

If you make a claim about a fact, am I supposed to treat it as a fact just because you have claimed it to be so?

Nope. I rarely claim facts. Informed opinions should be considered though.

Specify first which, if any, of my claims you consider that need to be substantiated.

You've not substantiated anything you've said. Just shot from the hip with no research, context or examples.

Are you really saying you can make claims about what I would find entertaining to watch?

In general? No.
But that particular claim was bulldust.

 

[Kfox]

She was stripped of her medals due to her chromosomes, as I understand it. Despite living as a woman her entire life and indeed was possibly unaware she was even intersex to begin with.
Apparently it caused her so much humiliation and embarrassment that she attempted to commit suicide as a result. Which is why the Olympics committee was heavily criticised.
Whilst testing has improved as medicine advances, there have been some “interesting” results over the years. Not sure of the specifics (I’ll try to find the story) but there was a case where a gold medalist submitted to a mouth swab which confirmed her status as a female. Despite being born with both sets of genitalia.

I tried looking on line to find out who this woman was, this is all I could find

14 Athletes Who Lost Their Olympic Medals Because They Were Duped Or Straight Up Cheated

Ways you can get kicked out of the Olympics: be too young, have someone spike your food, and use someone else's blood.

www.buzzfeed.com

True enough.
Well unless you’re talking about a species that does change sex (usually due to breeding possibilities.)
Humans are….well complicated. Biology is only what happens physically. But we are more than our bodies, we have minds and hormones and other things.
I get the sense that you’re kind of elevating biology over its brethren. Which is fine.

True! I believe natural sciences (Physics, Geology, Chemistry, Biology) as more authentic to theoretical type sciences like sociology or psychology because such theoretical type sciences seem to have a history of bending to the will of the powers that be. It wasn’t too long ago that social sciences claimed homosexuality was a mental disorder because that was in line with what the powers that be dictated. But then as social attitudes changed, in the 1980’s they redefined it as perfectly normal. Heck they even used to claim blacks were inferior to whites; even Darwins book “Descent of Man” claimed blacks as inferior to whites. But then when society began to change, psychology and sociology changed as well. I’m just wondering how much of what they are telling us today is still going to be taught 150 years from now.

 

[Kfox]

Non sequitur.

No it's not Non-sequitur; it's perfectly reasonable to conclude if your ideas would work, somebody would have tried them already. Evidently people have very good reasons to believe your ideas will not work. Heck; you won't even try them!

If every single word on this very sentence had a completely subjective meaning... it would be meaningless.

But the subject of conversation can be completely subjective and have a meaningful conversation; agree?

 

[SomeRandom]

I tried looking on line to find out who this woman was, this is all I could find

14 Athletes Who Lost Their Olympic Medals Because They Were Duped Or Straight Up Cheated

Ways you can get kicked out of the Olympics: be too young, have someone spike your food, and use someone else's blood.

www.buzzfeed.com

True! I believe natural sciences (Physics, Geology, Chemistry, Biology) as more authentic to theoretical type sciences like sociology or psychology because such theoretical type sciences seem to have a history of bending to the will of the powers that be. It wasn’t too long ago that social sciences claimed homosexuality was a mental disorder because that was in line with what the powers that be dictated. But then as social attitudes changed, in the 1980’s they redefined it as perfectly normal. Heck they even used to claim blacks were inferior to whites; even Darwins book “Descent of Man” claimed blacks as inferior to whites. But then when society began to change, psychology and sociology changed as well. I’m just wondering how much of what they are telling us today is still going to be taught 150 years from now.

I’ll try to find the case I was referring to

As to psychology changing its definitions over time to suit society.
I mean, to be fair, science is conducted by humans and humans have biases. That’s the unfortunate reality of our species. We try our best to leave them at the door when conducting scientific experiments. But it doesn’t always happen. Indeed in the past many respected figures in the scientific community did try to confirm society’s biases. Maybe not intentionally, but still
That’s why Science in general has to constantly change by default. As new information becomes available, studies are reevaluated. That happens in all scientific disciplines. Including Physics, Geography, Chemistry, Biology etc
There have been many changes made in The Theory of Evolution over the centuries, for example. Not because it’s untrue. It’s just that as methods become more and more advanced, hypothesis’ are challenged or are shown to be untrue. So the discipline reevaluates the information. And changes it if need be.
If it doesn’t, then it’s not using the scientific method properly.

As to what will be taught in 150 years. I mean it could be entirely different to what is taught now. But that’s true of what was taught 150 years ago. In all scientific disciplines.
That’s just how science works.
Everything is to be constantly questioned. Maybe Laws in science are the only thing that can’t be re-examined since it’s been exhausted already. But everything else is fair game. Nothing is set in stone yet
If we are afraid of the changes made, then we are just as guilty of allowing our biases dictate our conclusions. We need to be able to accept (with properly backed up research) that information will just change over time.
I know that seems a bit weird, but without that flexibility, we lose the ability to re-examine our belief over time and become too rigid to accept updated data

 

[Kfox]

I’ll try to find the case I was referring to

As to psychology changing its definitions over time to suit society.
I mean, to be fair, science is conducted by humans and humans have biases. That’s the unfortunate reality of our species. We try our best to leave them at the door when conducting scientific experiments. But it doesn’t always happen. Indeed in the past many respected figures in the scientific community did try to confirm society’s biases. Maybe not intentionally, but still
That’s why Science in general has to constantly change by default. As new information becomes available, studies are reevaluated. That happens in all scientific disciplines. Including Physics, Geography, Chemistry, Biology etc
There have been many changes made in The Theory of Evolution over the centuries, for example. Not because it’s untrue. It’s just that as methods become more and more advanced, hypothesis’ are challenged or are shown to be untrue. So the discipline reevaluates the information. And changes it if need be.
If it doesn’t, then it’s not using the scientific method properly.

Whatever changes that may have been made in Biology, Physics, Chemistry, or Biology are different than the changes made in Psychology, or Sociology. The idea that Black people are or are not inferior, homosexuality is or is not a mental disorder, countless genders, these all appear to be based on subjectivity based on changes due to society demanding the change. Whatever changes that may have been done in the natural sciences are due to new information found that those outside of the field have no clue about. Whatever changes done concerning the Theory of Evolution was not because the powers that be that have no clue concerning the details of the theory demanded those changes. I don’t think you can compare the two.

 

[SomeRandom]

Whatever changes that may have been made in Biology, Physics, Chemistry, or Biology are different than the changes made in Psychology, or Sociology. The idea that Black people are or are not inferior, homosexuality is or is not a mental disorder, countless genders, these all appear to be based on subjectivity based on changes due to society demanding the change. Whatever changes that may have been done in the natural sciences are due to new information found that those outside of the field have no clue about. Whatever changes done concerning the Theory of Evolution was not because the powers that be that have no clue concerning the details of the theory demanded those changes. I don’t think you can compare the two.

Forgive me. But that sounds a little bit conspiratorial.
The idea of black people and homosexual people being inferior were largely influenced and supported by biological fields as well as the social sciences. I don’t think all the disciplines have clean hands in that regard. Unfortunate to be sure. But a reflection of social biases influencing science way too much. On that I can agree. But it’s not like only the soft sciences were affected. They might have taken longer to catch up to their brethren, I’ll grant you that. But to be fair, they are often more closely associated with society. Since that is moreso their topic of research in many cases
And given the recent rise in transphobic sentiment right now, just for example, I don’t see any scientists backing off to satiate such societal pressures. They’ve doubled down and stood by their assessments/conclusions.

It was the scientists trying to change people’s minds about race, gender, sex etc after the previous hypothesis’ were proven incorrect. Not really the other way around. At least that’s been my experience.
Maybe it was a bit of back and forth. I don’t know all human history after all lol
But like when same sex marriage was being fiercely debated, it’s not like all of society was even interested in the science. It was just “wrong.”
That the sciences (including biology) were rather neutral and even supportive of the “Yes” position was not some nefarious agenda being fulfilled. That was just what the science said at the time and people used that for their own arguments. Like they’ve always kind of done.

 

[Kfox]

Forgive me. But that sounds a little bit conspiratorial.
The idea of black people and homosexual people being inferior were largely influenced and supported by biological fields as well as the social sciences.

Are you saying there were actual scientific theories of biology that address human race and homosexuality that were later retracted? Or am I misunderstanding you.

 

[SomeRandom]

Are you saying there were actual scientific theories of biology that address human race and homosexuality that were later retracted? Or am I misunderstanding you.

I’m saying that I actually partially agree with you, with regards to society influencing science too much. Just that it was more common earlier on and that all the disciplines were affected. Like society was racist and homophobic. Science in general kind of reinforced that for a while, perhaps unknowingly, perhaps on purpose. Maybe both even.

At least that’s what I learnt about the history of science

I’m not versed enough on the history of retractions in the realm of science to comment either way though.
I know retractions happen often, usually due to poor research. But beyond that, I’m a bit lost admittedly lol

 

[Kfox]

I’m saying that I actually partially agree with you, with regards to society influencing science too much. Just that it was more common earlier on and that all the disciplines were affected. Like society was racist and homophobic. Science in general kind of reinforced that for a while, perhaps unknowingly, perhaps on purpose. Maybe both even.

At least that’s what I learnt about the history of science

I’m not versed enough on the history of retractions in the realm of science to comment either way though.
I know retractions happen often, usually due to poor research. But beyond that, I’m a bit lost admittedly lol

I know when Galileo discovered through science that the Earth was not the center of the Universe and that the Earth actually traveled around the Sun rather than the other way around, this went against everything the powers that be (Catholic Church) wanted to believe, and they ex-communicated him because of it. Galileo retracted his theory saying it was wrong because being a part of the church was more important to him than scientific facts. But this was an example of a scientist putting actual science aside for personal beliefs; not some new scientific discovery. Eventually the truth became too obvious and even the Catholic Church was dragged (kicking and screaming) into accepting his original findings were true.

 

[Augustus]

I know when Galileo discovered through science that the Earth was not the center of the Universe and that the Earth actually traveled around the Sun rather than the other way around, this went against everything the powers that be (Catholic Church) wanted to believe, and they ex-communicated him because of it. Galileo retracted his theory saying it was wrong because being a part of the church was more important to him than scientific facts. But this was an example of a scientist putting actual science aside for personal beliefs; not some new scientific discovery. Eventually the truth became too obvious and even the Catholic Church was dragged (kicking and screaming) into accepting his original findings were true.

That’s not remotely what happened

 

[Kfox]

That’s not remotely what happened

So; what happened?