Women need to start boycotting sports

[Augustus]

Agreed.

Excellent. Hopefully we can find more things to agree on

Now the question we will need to pose any scientist or specialist medical practitioner worth their creditionals is the following;

"Should we infer from the results we have about the advantages of male puberty to be sufficient for those with DSD?"

You can hear the question being answered in detail here.

The person answering it is one of the leading experts in the field who was involved in the World Rugby review of transgender and DSD participation in women’s rugby. He also we one of the experts involved in the Caster Semenya legal cases.

Paris 2024: Males Are About To Fight in Women's Boxing. How Did We Get Here? | The Real Science of Sport Podcast

Controversy in Paris as biological males compete in women's boxing and football. We explore the issues

shows.acast.com

Or a peer-reviewed paper here:

The International Olympic Committee framework on fairness, inclusion and nondiscrimination on the basis of gender identity and sex variations does not protect fairness for female athletes​

Loading…

onlinelibrary.wiley.com

The IOC is asking the same question as I am, which is clear evidence back by independent research.

Until then, why should they change anything?

At this point who is the realist and who is the idealist?

You can listen to the above discussion and find out your misconception about the IOC approach. Their approach regarding boxing is based on inclusion, and has nothing to do with science.

As we don't know the specifics, lets ignore the current case and just look at the policy to see if it is based on science and risk avoidance.

Sometimes biological males with DSD are assigned female at birth due to absence external genitalia. This is really a medical error and mostly happens in developing countries. For example: 5α-Reductase 2 deficiency - Wikipedia

They may be raised as a girl, but then undergo male puberty. Most then realign their gender identity with their biological sexual and live as men.

According to the science, they are biological males with a male DSD, not females with a female DSD (regardless of later gender identity)

The science is unequivocal on the advantages they have gained from male puberty. It is unequivocal in the increase in harms that result from this when competing in combat sports against those who have not undergone male puberty.

According to the IOC though, all that matters is their passport. So they can enter women’s sport due to a medical error that leads to a passport official ticking one box rather than another.

While we don't know the specifics of the current case, it would not matter if they had been born biological males and undergone (near) full male puberty. The policy is based on the passport, not their advantage or lack thereof.

Is there any of this you feel is incorrect or that you don't agree with?

What more evidence would you like to see before considering the complaint from female boxers to be reasonable and based on the science? Would you say that, at the moment, the balance of evidence suggests that there is no significant increased risk to female boxers from the current IOC policy?

 

[GoodAttention]

Excellent. Hopefully we can find more things to agree on

Of course, I only seek the best answer.

You can hear the question being answered in detail here.

The person answering it is one of the leading experts in the field who was involved in the World Rugby review of transgender and DSD participation in women’s rugby. He also we one of the experts involved in the Caster Semenya legal cases.

Paris 2024: Males Are About To Fight in Women's Boxing. How Did We Get Here? | The Real Science of Sport Podcast

Controversy in Paris as biological males compete in women's boxing and football. We explore the issues

shows.acast.com

Or a peer-reviewed paper here:

The International Olympic Committee framework on fairness, inclusion and nondiscrimination on the basis of gender identity and sex variations does not protect fairness for female athletes​

Loading…

onlinelibrary.wiley.com

You can listen to the above discussion and find out your misconception about the IOC approach. Their approach regarding boxing is based on inclusion, and has nothing to do with science.

As we don't know the specifics, lets ignore the current case and just look at the policy to see if it is based on science and risk avoidance.

I am yet to listen to the podcast, but I will make a comment on the peer-reviewed paper you provided which discusses, specifically, transgender women and not DSD.

This is the fundamental difference in the discussion point that the IOC president cheekily highlighted which is, it is not the same discussion.

I agree 100% that a transgender woman who went through puberty as a biological male will certainly have advantages. This is to be expected since having body dysmorphia is a psychological circumstance, and not one related to physiology.

Sometimes biological males with DSD are assigned female at birth due to absence external genitalia. This is really a medical error and mostly happens in developing countries. For example: 5α-Reductase 2 deficiency - Wikipedia

They may be raised as a girl, but then undergo male puberty. Most then realign their gender identity with their biological sexual and live as men.

You make the important point here which is most. Some do not, which is understandable, and even those that do would vary in the degree of androgenization they experience. I can infer that the testes, if they exist in a person with DSD, are internal, meaning their ability to produce testosterone itself is inhibited, and hence is NOT to the same degree of testosterone as biological males. The is (potentiall) part of the reason why the testes exist externally in a scrotom, and not internally.

Therefore I agree with the paper you presented, but disagree with applying it to people with DSD.

According to the science, they are biological males with a male DSD, not females with a female DSD (regardless of later gender identity)

The science is unequivocal on the advantages they have gained from male puberty. It is unequivocal in the increase in harms that result from this when competing in combat sports against those who have not undergone male puberty.

According to the IOC though, all that matters is their passport. So they can enter women’s sport due to a medical error that leads to a passport official ticking one box rather than another.

While we don't know the specifics of the current case, it would not matter if they had been born biological males and undergone (near) full male puberty. The policy is based on the passport, not their advantage or lack thereof.

Is there any of this you feel is incorrect or that you don't agree with?

I think I have mentioned what I feel is incorrect above.

What more evidence would you like to see before considering the complaint from female boxers to be reasonable and based on the science?

For science to answer the question specifically for DSD, and not to infer from biological males which include transgender people.

Would you say that, at the moment, the balance of evidence suggests that there is no significant increased risk to female boxers from the current IOC policy?

Two ways to look at risk would be to predict it or to measure it, but then the IOC could also be playing games since they only have to assess risk from a series of boxing matches over a set period of time that occurs every 4 years.

I would like to think they applied a fine-tooth comb on the data available to to make a conclusion that any increased risk is not statistically significant, by using the definition as it is applied in science, but again this dances around the question also, because if there is an increased associated risk then that should be made known. The IOC should also say if they have or haven't assessed the question themselves and provide the conclusion they came to and why.

I suspect their answer will be there isn't enough quality data to answer.

 

[Augustus]

am yet to listen to the podcast, but I will make a comment on the peer-reviewed paper you provided which discusses, specifically, transgender women and not DSD.

This is the fundamental difference in the discussion point that the IOC president cheekily highlighted which is, it is not the same discussion.

I agree 100% that a transgender woman who went through puberty as a biological male will certainly have advantages. This is to be expected since having body dysmorphia is a psychological circumstance, and not one related to physiology.

It actually covers both.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) recently published a framework on fairness, inclusion, and nondiscrimination on the basis of gender identity and sex variations. Although we appreciate the IOC's recognition of the role of sports science and medicine in policy development, we disagree with the assertion that the IOC framework is consistent with existing scientific and medical evidence and question its recommendations for implementation.

There may be greater focus on transgender, but the science is largely the same (unless you are doubting that people born biologically male but with DSD are sometimes assigned female at birth and undergo male puberty to significant athletic advantage, for example Caster Semenya).

Those with androgen insensitivity will gain less benefit, but those with 5ARD will basically undergo a near full male puberty other than male gene

You make the important point here which is most. Some do not, which is understandable, and even those that do would vary in the degree of androgenization they experience. I can infer that the testes, if they exist in a person with DSD, are internal, meaning their ability to produce testosterone itself is inhibited, and hence is NOT to the same degree of testosterone as biological males. The is (potentiall) part of the reason why the testes exist externally in a scrotom, and not internally.

Therefore I agree with the paper you presented, but disagree with applying it to people with DSD.

From what I understand (although I'm only going on what the experts say as I have no expertise myself), with 5ARD the testosterone produced is in normal male ranges and is used in the same ways, except for the part relating to genital development. Those with androgen insensitivity will get less impact though.

[The court of arbitration for sport] said athletes like Semenya with 5-ARD have "circulating testosterone at the level of the male 46 XY population and not at the level of the female 46 XX population", which gives them "a significant sporting advantage over 46 XX female athletes.

Caster Semenya Q&A: Who is she and why is her case important?

With Caster Semenya back in the news, BBC Sport looks at why her case is important.

www.bbc.co.uk

A framing of biological females with high testosterone would not be accurate. A framing of biological males with normal levels of testosterone is correct (regardless of gender identity)

I would like to think they applied a fine-tooth comb on the data available to to make a conclusion that any increased risk is not statistically significant, by using the definition as it is applied in science, but again this dances around the question also, because if there is an increased associated risk then that should be made known. The IOC should also say if they have or haven't assessed the question themselves and provide the conclusion they came to and why.

They did not.

Under the rules all that matters is the passport gender.

We understand the benefits of male puberty.

We understand the physics and biology of injury risk in combat and collision sport.

We know boxing weight classes are in part based on mitigating this risk.

We understand that some people with DSD have undergone a significant form of male puberty.

Would you agree based on this that the assumption should be there is an increased risk until proved otherwise?

Have you seen any evidence that would make it probable that there is no significant injury risk increase?

 

[GoodAttention]

It actually covers both.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) recently published a framework on fairness, inclusion, and nondiscrimination on the basis of gender identity and sex variations. Although we appreciate the IOC's recognition of the role of sports science and medicine in policy development, we disagree with the assertion that the IOC framework is consistent with existing scientific and medical evidence and question its recommendations for implementation.

I disagree.

The phrase "sex variations" is not defined, nor does the article aim to define this, nor does the article mention it further.

It also bears no relationship to "intersex", and never specifically discusses DSD or even mentions this term in the article.

There may be greater focus on transgender, but the science is largely the same (unless you are doubting that people born biologically male but with DSD are sometimes assigned female at birth and undergo male puberty to significant athletic advantage, for example Caster Semenya).

The only focus in on transgender and biological males without DSD. There is no discussion about people who are born with DSD.

Therefore, I continue to doubt if a person with DSD, a condition which we know affects the development of the fetus, will undergo male puberty that leads to a significant athletic advantage.

Those with androgen insensitivity will gain less benefit, but those with 5ARD will basically undergo a near full male puberty other than male gene

This is the conclusion that needs to be tested and verified. As I mentioned before, only a scientist, researcher, or specialist medical practitioner can come to this conclusion. The article you provided that was peer-reviewed is, as I said, correct when discussing transgender women who went through male puberty, but it does not make the conclusion that you have.

From what I understand (although I'm only going on what the experts say as I have no expertise myself), with 5ARD the testosterone produced is in normal male ranges and is used in the same ways, except for the part relating to genital development. Those with androgen insensitivity will get less impact though.

You are highlighting the confusion and frustation that the IOC has, which is that we cannot make the assumption that a person with DSD who has "normal" levels of testosterone will undergo male puberty the same way.

In fact, one could argue how could they? They were born with a condition where their body has failed to respond to what their genetics "should" have dictated.

[The court of arbitration for sport] said athletes like Semenya with 5-ARD have "circulating testosterone at the level of the male 46 XY population and not at the level of the female 46 XX population", which gives them "a significant sporting advantage over 46 XX female athletes.

Caster Semenya Q&A: Who is she and why is her case important?

With Caster Semenya back in the news, BBC Sport looks at why her case is important.

www.bbc.co.uk

A framing of biological females with high testosterone would not be accurate. A framing of biological males with normal levels of testosterone is correct (regardless of gender identity)

To come to that ruling CAS had to accept two points, which is that it had to rely on the data provided by the party that was the defending itself, and they had to accept that the conclusion of 3% was a significant advantage. Personally, I disagree that both should have been considered but I am obviously not CAS, BUT I do believe the IOC thinks any data collected should have been free of bias, and any conclusion that 3% was "significant" should be supported.

They did not.

Under the rules all that matters is the passport gender.

We understand the benefits of male puberty.

We understand the physics and biology of injury risk in combat and collision sport.

We know boxing weight classes are in part based on mitigating this risk.

We understand that some people with DSD have undergone a significant form of male puberty.

Would you agree based on this that the assumption should be there is an increased risk until proved otherwise?

According to what I understand, and the ruling CAS relied on, there is a 3% advantage for circulating testosterone.

I can understand in athletics where the margin between contestants can be less than 1% to justify having rules, but does this then translate to boxing also?

Have you seen any evidence that would make it probable that there is no significant injury risk increase?

No I have not. Is the IOC playing a dangerous game?

 

[Estro Felino]

Mmmm...Australian accent is so sexy. (the male one of course)

Btw...these are two professionals.

 

[Koldo]

Seriously? It sounds like you are arguing against having women's sports.

Really? How did you reach this conclusion?

 

[Koldo]

I disagree.

The phrase "sex variations" is not defined, nor does the article aim to define this, nor does the article mention it further.

It also bears no relationship to "intersex", and never specifically discusses DSD or even mentions this term in the article.



The only focus in on transgender and biological males without DSD. There is no discussion about people who are born with DSD.

Therefore, I continue to doubt if a person with DSD, a condition which we know affects the development of the fetus, will undergo male puberty that leads to a significant athletic advantage.



This is the conclusion that needs to be tested and verified. As I mentioned before, only a scientist, researcher, or specialist medical practitioner can come to this conclusion. The article you provided that was peer-reviewed is, as I said, correct when discussing transgender women who went through male puberty, but it does not make the conclusion that you have.



You are highlighting the confusion and frustation that the IOC has, which is that we cannot make the assumption that a person with DSD who has "normal" levels of testosterone will undergo male puberty the same way.

In fact, one could argue how could they? They were born with a condition where their body has failed to respond to what their genetics "should" have dictated.




To come to that ruling CAS had to accept two points, which is that it had to rely on the data provided by the party that was the defending itself, and they had to accept that the conclusion of 3% was a significant advantage. Personally, I disagree that both should have been considered but I am obviously not CAS, BUT I do believe the IOC thinks any data collected should have been free of bias, and any conclusion that 3% was "significant" should be supported.




According to what I understand, and the ruling CAS relied on, there is a 3% advantage for circulating testosterone.

I can understand in athletics where the margin between contestants can be less than 1% to justify having rules, but does this then translate to boxing also?



No I have not. Is the IOC playing a dangerous game?

If an athlete has a significant advantage over others, how should their participation on competitions be handled?

Discussing whether Imane Khelif has a significant advantage is redundant if the answer is that they should be allowed to participate without any restrictions.

 

[LeftyLen]

I think there should be a category for transexual people or intersexual people.

then another category for bisexuals, tri-sexuals, on and on. this is getting silly.

 

[Augustus]

The phrase "sex variations" is not defined, nor does the article aim to define this, nor does the article mention it further.

It also bears no relationship to "intersex", and never specifically discusses DSD or even mentions this term in the article.

It’s the term the IOC uses to describe DSD.

According to what I understand, and the ruling CAS relied on, there is a 3% advantage for circulating testosterone.

I can understand in athletics where the margin between contestants can be less than 1% to justify having rules, but does this then translate to boxing also?

Circulating testosterone is not the same as total advantage from male puberty + circulating testosterone.

Boxing advantage is much higher anyway as are all strength and throwing sports.

Look at world records for objective proof of this. Weightlifting for example is about 30%

On boxing:

But even with roughly uniform levels of fitness, the males' average power during a punching motion was 162% greater than females', with the least-powerful man still stronger than the most powerful woman

Full study: https://journals.biologists.com/jeb...exual-dimorphism-in-human-arm-power-and-force

Therefore, I continue to doubt if a person with DSD, a condition which we know affects the development of the fetus, will undergo male puberty that leads to a significant athletic advantage.

Modern medicine knows that 5ARD biological males undergo a significant male puberty as they use testosterone in the same way. It is not androgen insensitivity.

Affected males still develop typical masculine features at puberty (deep voice, facial hair, muscle bulk) since most aspects of pubertal virilization are driven by testosterone, not DHT.

Anecdotally (but not insignificantly). Look at how over represented DSD athletes are in elite woman’s sports

Summary of expert views on p7 here.

"Individuals with 5-ARD have a performance advantage over 46 XX female athletes." [although they did not agree whether this level was the same as in typical males]

https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdfs/Semenya_CAS_decision.pdf

The Prof Tucker referred to is the person who is on the linked podcast btw.

This is the conclusion that needs to be tested and verified. As I mentioned before, only a scientist, researcher, or specialist medical practitioner can come to this conclusion. The article you provided that was peer-reviewed is, as I said, correct when discussing transgender women who went through male puberty, but it does not make the conclusion that you have.

Plenty of studies exist showing male performance advantage, and plenty exist show that 5ARD males undergo a significant male puberty.

This is more true in strength sports than pure athletics, and arguably more true in boxing than pure strength sports.

It would thus be quite remarkable if this did not result in significant performance advantage, and thus risk, in boxing. The IOC has not offered any of this remarkable evidence.

Quite obviously the assumption should be that any male who has undergone male puberty gains a significant advantage unless shown otherwise

We don’t let weak heavyweights fight against lightweights because the assume an unfair advantage. We don’t need to prove it in every individual case.

No I have not. Is the IOC playing a dangerous game?

Yes, of course they are.

But their own guideline prioritise inclusion ahead of safety so they don’t care.

 

[Augustus]

If an athlete has a significant advantage over others, how should their participation on competitions be handled?

Boxing has weight classes for precisely this reason.

Weight classes are restricted for the same reason women's categories are protected.

Discussing whether Imane Khelif has a significant advantage is redundant if the answer is that they should be allowed to participate without any restrictions.

In boxing they are limited by perceived advantage (weight). They cannot participate without any restrictions.

So it is not redundant per your logic.

 

[Koldo]

Boxing has weight classes for precisely this reason.

Weight classes are restricted for the same reason women's categories are protected.

In boxing they are limited by perceived advantage (weight). They cannot participate without any restrictions.

So it is not redundant per your logic.

We are not talking about weight though. Any factor that is not weight, gender and age is not taken into consideration. All other advantages are fine, no matter how significant they are.

 

[Augustus]

We are not talking about weight though. Any factor that is not weight, gender and age is not taken into consideration. All other advantages are fine, no matter how significant they are.

The controversy is about whether they should prioritise sex rather than gender in dangerous sports.

(The science says they should if they are concerned about safety)

 

[Koldo]

The controversy is about whether they should prioritise sex rather than gender in dangerous sports.

(The science says they should if they are concerned about safety)

No science can determine the bar for what constitutes an acceptable risk. That's a choice made by the policymakers based on their preferences.

 

[Augustus]

No science can determine the bar for what constitutes an acceptable risk. That's a choice made by the policymakers based on their preferences.

It can tell you what the best course of action is if your goal is helping protect boxers from serious harm though.

It can also tell you what will happen if you prioritise inclusion over harm reduction.

So if you want to prioritise inclusion you should be open and honest about what this entails, which is a significantly increased risk of serious injuries and perhaps even death among females fighting biological males with certain DSDs.

 

[Koldo]

It can tell you what the best course of action is if your goal is helping protect boxers from serious harm though.

Like prohibiting hits to the head, since CTE is well-known, documented and linked to repeated trauma to the head? Or like only allowing 16~20 oz gloves to reduce the impact?

It can also tell you what will happen if you prioritise inclusion over harm reduction.

So if you want to prioritise inclusion you should be open and honest about what this entails, which is a significantly increased risk of serious injuries and perhaps even death among females fighting biological males with certain DSDs.

Death from boxing is nothing new and a well-known risk.

 

[Kathryn]

Well, I feel sorry for Imane Khelif. She stood on the podium crying, and saying, "I am a woman" and looking so much like a man. Poor thing.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Really? How did you reach this conclusion?

Because you are trying to diminish to nothing the physical advantages of bio-males over bio-females, which is the SOLE reason for women's sports to exist.

 

[Koldo]

Because you are trying to diminish to nothing the physical advantages of bio-males over bio-females, which is the SOLE reason for women's sports to exist.

I am not doing that, at all.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I was reading today about the woman olympic boxer who walked off in pain after only 46 seconds and openly cried. This was not some pansy woman. She was a world class boxer. She was forced to compete against someone who had male chromosomes.

I can't blame her. I did Kung Fu for seven years at a school that had only two women, so we had no choice but to spar with men. I'll tell you, after seven years, I got pretty good, but never stopped taking a beating from the guys. After seven years, I was still scared to spar. They HURT me. I think I became a better sparrer because I was forced to spar with those far better than me. But was it a level playing field? Absolutely not.

I personally have absolutely nothing against trans women. I think in general, society need to be far more tolerant of them. But what's happening in women's sports takes it to an extreme that is insane.

Forcing women in sports to compete against biological males is not right. Males are not only stronger, but they have thicker bones, larger hearts, larger lungs, greater hemoglobin levels, and are taller and have longer limbs. There is no way that the best women can compete against the best men.

Dare I use the M word? Yes. This is misogyny. They are disappearing women.

View attachment 95003

At this point, this poor woman is being harassed. She is a woman. She's female. She never went through a male puberty or anything like that. She doesn't have testicles. Also, it's common for elite female athletes to have hormonal or intersex conditions, because those often result in traits leading to success in such sports. However, that's how sports are - inherently unfair as it's basically a matter of a genetic lottery as to whether you have the physical traits condusive to elite success. For example, I'm fairly sure that Brittney Griner, from the WNBA, has an intersex or hormonal disorder, too. But she's still a woman, a female. Unless anyone can produce proof that she was "born" a male or whatever, they need to stop harassing her. This is a particularly American weirdness.

Also, athletics and especially violent combat sports are very masculine activities, so of course more masculine people will gravitate towards them and be more successful at them. If you're not prepared to get the **** beaten out of you, you need to stay away from boxing and MMA. There's always a risk of brain damage and possible death.

That said, no, I don't think actual males should be competing against females in sports. But my point is that irrelevant issues are being conflated here. This has nothing to do with trans people, as the boxers at the center of the controversy are not trans women!

 

[Shaul]

Should that be "womancotting"?