Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: GB Tri creates mandatory open category for transgender [mathematics] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mathematics wrote:
timbasile wrote:
B_Doughtie wrote:
Has anyone in the sport ever competed in an AG that they biological aren't? Like has a 40 year old ever asked/demand that regardless of the birth certification, they identify as a 26 year old?

Is that next?


These are two separate things. Age is based on a verifiable date on a calendar. As much as someone would like to identify as someone younger than them, you cannot change nor dispute the day of your birth.

Gender and even sex are different. They can be messy. And while most of us fall into one of two identifiable and self-identified categories and have done so since birth, there are those who either do not fit into either category or identify as a category different than how they were initially labeled at birth. This applies to both sex and gender.

I won't dispute that trying create categories for sporting competition is an easy task - but at least we can agree that age is different than sex and gender?


I'll take the bait.

Age is a spectrum in the same way that gender is a spectrum and sex is a fixture. Sex can be defined by the genes and biology inside of your body and cannot be changed. Gender can be defined as the actualization of those genes and biology into a real-world output that usually aligns in a predictable way with biological sex, but in the case of a transgender person it does not. Something unique to them has caused their lived experience to be that of a person who's gender is not congruent with their biological sex, be it hardship, trauma, happiness, or anything else, and it is not our place to tell them what gender they are.

Biological age can be defined by the length of time genes and biology have been inside of your body and cannot be changed. Racing age can be defined as the actualization of those genes and biology into a real-world output that usually aligns in a predictable way with biological age, but in the case of a non-linear-aged person it does not. Something unique to them has caused their lived experience to be that of a person who's age is not congruent with their time based age, be it hardship, trauma, happiness, or anything else, and it is not our place to tell them how old they are.

I'm being facetious but people obviously do 'age' at different rates over the same timespan, and that has never been a valid reason to include them in a different competitive age group.


On the age front, you can't measure this in any objective other way but the date on your birth certificate. If you want to develop a telemere based measurement, fine - but these biological age based markers are all influenced by exercise, which might defeat whatever classification you'd be trying to achieve anyway.

Sex isn't as clear-cut as you make it sound. I know we were all taught about XX and XY in school but its far more complicated than that. So what about XXY? Or those with androgen insensitivity syndrome - those who are XY but cannot process testosterone and therefore outwardly appear and be labelled at birth as female? Obviously we're not going to do DNA tests before every turkey trot.

My point is that sex and gender are both far from clear cut, no matter how you slice it. Age, on the other hand, is a very clear and objective measurement.
Last edited by: timbasile: Dec 15, 22 13:52
Quote Reply
Re: GB Tri creates mandatory open category for transgender [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Well what I'm wondering more is if/when an RD is "sued" or gone after etc. It's going to happen, I mean look at the "slippery slope" we've kinda opened up to. Which in that mindset, are we suppose to allow it? If a person truly feels they are 68 and want to race as a 30 year old or they are 40 but want to be 21 again, we should allow it right?

ETA: If you would have told me 10 years ago "sex / gender" would be this much up for debate in sports, I'd have laughed at you. But this is the society we live in, so it's not even a stretch anymore I dont think.

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II
Last edited by: B_Doughtie: Dec 15, 22 14:13
Quote Reply
Re: GB Tri creates mandatory open category for transgender [timbasile] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
timbasile wrote:
On the age front, you can't measure this in any objective other way but the date on your birth certificate. If you want to develop a telemere based measurement, fine - but these biological age based markers are all influenced by exercise, which might defeat whatever classification you'd be trying to achieve anyway.

Sex isn't as clear-cut as you make it sound. I know we were all taught about XX and XY in school but its far more complicated than that. So what about XXY? Or those with androgen insensitivity syndrome - those who are XY but cannot process testosterone and therefore outwardly appear and be labelled at birth as female? Obviously we're not going to do DNA tests before every turkey trot.

My point is that sex and gender are both far from clear cut, no matter how you slice it. Age, on the other hand, is a very clear and objective measurement.

If we're taking about edge cases for biological sex then I suggest we do the same thing we do with ages. Generally age in sport is whatever you're age will be on Dec 31 or Jan 01 of that year. That means sometimes your cooking against someone 364 days older than you. Draw a line in the sand for biological sex. CAS screwed up with their Semenya ruling, but at least they gave a measurable metric by which one could be included.

I disagree with you that biological sex is not clear cut. Everything in the real world is a shade of gray, but biological sex is a very very dark (or light) gray. For >>>99% of people a non-biased clinical assessment can be made of they are naturally male or female.
Quote Reply
Re: GB Tri creates mandatory open category for transgender [mathematics] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
But you're still taking about measurable ages and defining age groups according to a measurable standard. Heck, if you want, you could even adopt BMX age classifications (age on the day of the race) but it doesn't materially change the fact that you're applying something relatively easy to define.

Even if less than 1% of the population is intersex, it still means that you have exceptions to a binary system and you'll still have people put in the wrong class by their parents. The next challenge is then going to be that you can't force individuals to provide proof that you're in one class or another.

Age, on the other hand, no matter how defined, isn't going to have exceptions, or edge cases, or have people make plausible claims that they're 50 when their birth certificate says anything else.
Quote Reply
Re: GB Tri creates mandatory open category for transgender [timbasile] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Progeria is also known as Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome (HGPS) or the “Benjamin Button” disease (named after the short story and movie â€The Curious Case of Benjamin Button’). It’s a rare genetic condition that results in a child's body aging rapidly. A mutation in the LMNA gene causes progeria. Most kids with progeria don’t live past age 13. The disease affects people of all sexes and races equally. About 1 in every 4 million babies are born with it worldwide.

Werner syndrome is a rare progressive disorder that is characterized by the appearance of unusually accelerated aging (progeria). Although the disorder is typically recognized by the third or fourth decades of life, certain characteristic findings are present beginning during adolescence and early adulthood.
Individuals with Werner syndrome have an abnormally slow growth rate, and growth stops at puberty. Since the disorder was originally described in the medical literature in 1904 (O. Werner), more than 800 cases have been reported. The disorder’s frequency has been estimated at one to 20 per one million individuals in the United States.

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II
Quote Reply
Re: GB Tri creates mandatory open category for transgender [B_Doughtie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yes, people do age quicker than others - and some to an extreme case.

But even in those cases, we're still measuring the number of days a person went around the sun, not the number of telomeres (or whatever equivalent age). Even the description you quote is using laps around the sun as the objective measure (13 years).

In the case of sex, even in the most measurable case (if you can call it that) - if you say everyone who races needs a DNA test and we'll sort you into XX and XY groups (never mind how impractical or improper that might be), you're still going to have people who don't fit whichever definition you've just come up with. In fact, you might end up with people in different groups than you'd expect or even want - such as the aforementioned case of XY but appearing female.
Last edited by: timbasile: Dec 15, 22 17:27
Quote Reply
Re: GB Tri creates mandatory open category for transgender [timbasile] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
We'll just agree to disagree and I think we've only just begun with dealing with the inclusion vs fair play issue. I just dont think you can bring up "science" for 1 variable and then deny that same logic to any other variable.

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II
Last edited by: B_Doughtie: Dec 15, 22 18:04
Quote Reply
Re: GB Tri creates mandatory open category for transgender [timbasile] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
But wouldn't you open the same can of worms for "age doping"? Are we going to require a long form birth certificate for everyone in masters competition?

If you are open to a clinical definitions, then we can surely have a cutoff of genotype for people with gender that can be set on any number of ways. One side of the line is female and the other side is male.

IMO the toothpaste has been let out of the tube. If the first transgender athlete was told no and a standard was set there would still be argument but not nearly to this degree. I don't see any way this debate ends until a biological man (or in the rules of this forum, a transgender woman) wins a major sporting event. Someone who was a man by their own definition until 24 months ago winning Boston/Olympics/Kona will force everyone to have an opinion. {I fear that if an American transgender female wins Olympics gold all media will be on favor, or if a Russian/Chinese transgender female wins Olympic gold all media will be against, missing the actual issue in favor of geopolitics}.
Quote Reply
Re: GB Tri creates mandatory open category for transgender [timbasile] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
timbasile wrote:
In the case of sex, even in the most measurable case (if you can call it that) - if you say everyone who races needs a DNA test and we'll sort you into XX and XY groups (never mind how impractical or improper that might be), you're still going to have people who don't fit whichever definition you've just come up with. In fact, you might end up with people in different groups than you'd expect or even want - such as the aforementioned case of XY but appearing female.


We still have about 11 million years to think about a solution, but the Y chromosome may disappear altogether!

https://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2022/opinion/men-are-slowly-losing-their-y-chromosome#:~:text=The%20sex%20of%20human%20and,evolve%20a%20new%20sex%20gene.


Quote Reply
Re: GB Tri creates mandatory open category for transgender [TheStroBro] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TheStroBro wrote:
Advocating for putting children on puberty blockers is a disgusting thought. (Um, definitely Child abuse)
Agree and it's crazy to think that we're even having this discussion... and others. Absolute insanity and it feels as if the inmates are running the asylums so to speak.
Quote Reply
Re: GB Tri creates mandatory open category for transgender [rrheisler] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Scandinavian countries, the UK, France, New Zealand are all putting the brakes on puberty blockers. Hopefully Canada and the US will stop the widespread practice of their rather indiscriminate use. Personally I have seen patients prescribed these with little in the way of evaluations (and untreated comorbid psychiatric conditions) and reports are widespread of this in Canada and the US. So it looks like there will still be lots of transgender females having gone through male puberty for the forseeable future.

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Quote Reply
Re: GB Tri creates mandatory open category for transgender [B_Doughtie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
B_Doughtie wrote:
Has anyone in the sport ever competed in an AG that they biological aren't? Like has a 40 year old ever asked/demand that regardless of the birth certification, they identify as a 26 year old?

Is that next?

You always gave the impression of being more intelligent than that. Disappointing.
Quote Reply
Re: GB Tri creates mandatory open category for transgender [mathematics] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mathematics wrote:
For >>>99% of people a non-biased clinical assessment can be made of they are naturally male or female.

Not this specific figure, but statistics in general isn't very kind to this issue if folks actually bother to look.

The highest figure I can find online is about 0.5% of people are trans. However, that cyclocross race had a 3rd place and 5th place finisher. What are the freaking chances of THAT happening. And it keeps happening.

There is a very real dichotomy between what we're being sold about fairness standards to persuade us to be more inclusive versus reality, in my opinion. And the cause of that, in my opinion, is that the folks pushing the inclusivity don't care about the actual impact on fairness from a statistical perspective.

At the end of the day on this topic, that's my real problem. We have so many outlier data points now that just don't make sense.

So, if you've got a cyclocross group of let's say 50 people, you're already statistically pretty well off taking the bet that there won't even be a trans person in the field. Furthermore, if there is, the probability of there being two AND both making the top 5.............it's an astronomically small chance.

(0.005/2) * (0.005/2) * .1 * .1 = 1 in 16 000 000.............one in a sixteen million chance. The math is you multiply each part together............0.005/2 is the 0.5% population figure divided by two since the cross field is 50 and not 100 people. You do it twice since there were two participants. Then the .1 twice is each person finishing in one of the top 5 places out of 50 (five possible places out of 50 total places). Simplified since one of the two making top 5 really reduces the other's chance to 4 spots out of 50 total.

Either way, astronomically small changes...........but we're seeing obvious statistical outliers. Which tells me, a gross discrepancy in fairness.
Quote Reply
Re: GB Tri creates mandatory open category for transgender [FindinFreestyle] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If you would have told me federations allow the end user decide the gender they want to race in 10 years ago I would have said "won't happen". But we are here now with some federations while others are having a much harder stance on said fair play issues. So no I dont think it's too far off to ask, "what's next' in this very much "inclusion friendly" world we live in. (And please note I'm not saying inclusion friendly in a negative way)

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II
Last edited by: B_Doughtie: Dec 16, 22 8:41
Quote Reply
Re: GB Tri creates mandatory open category for transgender [FindinFreestyle] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
FindinFreestyle wrote:
B_Doughtie wrote:
Has anyone in the sport ever competed in an AG that they biological aren't? Like has a 40 year old ever asked/demand that regardless of the birth certification, they identify as a 26 year old?

Is that next?


You always gave the impression of being more intelligent than that. Disappointing.

Are you implying that he is unintelligent merely for asking if this ruling can be applied to other formerly hard and fast categories? This is a pretty common judicial tactic, recently we saw the Dobbs case can be argued to overturn gay/interracial marriage even though it was a completely separate topic.

It's a fair argument to say that for the exact same reasons a sports governing body should be accepting, inclusive, affirmative, validating, etc when it comes to age as well as sex.

It's a statistical certainty the someone has lied about their age in the past in order to compete in an easier category. When you sign up for a USAT license there is no age verification, not when signing up for events or accepting a KQ.
Quote Reply
Re: GB Tri creates mandatory open category for transgender [mathematics] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mathematics wrote:
FindinFreestyle wrote:
B_Doughtie wrote:
Has anyone in the sport ever competed in an AG that they biological aren't? Like has a 40 year old ever asked/demand that regardless of the birth certification, they identify as a 26 year old?

Is that next?


You always gave the impression of being more intelligent than that. Disappointing.


Are you implying that he is unintelligent merely for asking if this ruling can be applied to other formerly hard and fast categories? This is a pretty common judicial tactic, recently we saw the Dobbs case can be argued to overturn gay/interracial marriage even though it was a completely separate topic.

It's a fair argument to say that for the exact same reasons a sports governing body should be accepting, inclusive, affirmative, validating, etc when it comes to age as well as sex.

It's a statistical certainty the someone has lied about their age in the past in order to compete in an easier category. When you sign up for a USAT license there is no age verification, not when signing up for events or accepting a KQ.

I have never done a USAT event, just Ironman branded triathlons the last 6 years. When you go to pick up your race packet at check-in, you have to first show your driver's license. The person who checked me in a couple weeks ago at IM Indian Wells 70.3 actually looked closely at my DOB. I'm not sure but back in 2018 when I did IM Copenhagen I think I had to show my passport. So you can lie all you want about your age, but WTC events have volunteers checking before you get your race packet, timing chip, wrist band, etc.

Been following along and while I value inclusivity for most aspects in life, I fall into the camp of fairness when it comes to biological female athletes. I'm female myself so a stakeholder.

Death is easy....peaceful. Life is harder.
Quote Reply
Re: GB Tri creates mandatory open category for transgender [burnthesheep] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
burnthesheep wrote:

(0.005/2) * (0.005/2) * .1 * .1 = 1 in 16 000 000.............one in a sixteen million chance. The math is you multiply each part together............0.005/2 is the 0.5% population figure divided by two since the cross field is 50 and not 100 people. You do it twice since there were two participants. Then the .1 twice is each person finishing in one of the top 5 places out of 50 (five possible places out of 50 total places). Simplified since one of the two making top 5 really reduces the other's chance to 4 spots out of 50 total.

I'm not going to argue w/ your conclusion that the chances of 2 trans women finishing in the top 5 is a statistical outlier, is unlikely to occur randomly and is most likely due to some physiological difference between them and their competitors.

That said, there are some errors in your math. To answer the question of the likelihood of there being 2 or more transwomen in a field of 50 women, you need to use a binominal distribution. If a randomly chosen women has 0.5% chance of being a trans women (1 of 200), then in a random group of 50 women there's a 22% chance that there is at least 1 trans women there and not 0.25% (0.005/2). For 2 or more, it's a 2.6% chance. See this link for a binomial probability calculator.

FWIW, there were 32 women on the Cyclocross Nationals start list. Using those numbers, there was 1.1% chance that there were 2 or more trans women in the field.

Sorry for being that guy on the internet, but I kind of like statistical analysis.
Quote Reply
Re: GB Tri creates mandatory open category for transgender [rrheisler] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
rrheisler wrote:
Speaking SUPER generally, the most common non-binary pronouns are they/them.

But the clarification here is appreciated in that you're talking about non-binary versus trans women.



Do you anticipate IronThem coming?

I can hear it now, Mike R replacement:
“Jackie from San Diego…. You are an IronThem”
Quote Reply
Re: GB Tri creates mandatory open category for transgender [B_Doughtie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
B_Doughtie wrote:
If you would have told me federations allow the end user decide the gender they want to race in 10 years ago I would have said "won't happen". But we are here now with some federations while others are having a much harder stance on said fair play issues. So no I dont think it's too far off to ask, "what's next' in this very much "inclusion friendly" world we live in. (And please note I'm not saying inclusion friendly in a negative way)
What's next is actually a very realistic thing to ask given what we're talking about. Inclusion isn't a bad thing but defining it in new ways to include mental illnesses and ignore biology is a step too far IMO.
Quote Reply
Re: GB Tri creates mandatory open category for transgender [Triingtotrain] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Brett Favre the famous NFL QB did a tri in Mississippi probaly 4-5 years ago under a pseudonym (I think he did a play on his real name, was kinda funny if I remember correctly for some reason I think it was Trebb Farve). USAT requires ID check to verify for insurance / fair play issues, but that was small town usa race, they didn't care or need to follow that specific requirement (He said he did a fake name to keep a lower profile so as not to disrupt the race with mobbing him) that the much stricter bigger races follow. Our tri shop hosts many packet pick up for races, and while the run races are much more relaxed with requirements (you can even pick up race packets for friends), even the "ID required" for tri is almost always a scan of the person and name and not a "ok you are in the 26 year old age group that corresponds with your DOB on your id because you were born on 1/1/96". But again the stakes are usually bigger for the big races while the local races it's "meh" if an actual "age doping" issue were to actually occur for the most part.

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II
Last edited by: B_Doughtie: Dec 18, 22 9:15
Quote Reply
Re: GB Tri creates mandatory open category for transgender [mgreer] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mgreer wrote:
burnthesheep wrote:

(0.005/2) * (0.005/2) * .1 * .1 = 1 in 16 000 000.............one in a sixteen million chance. The math is you multiply each part together............0.005/2 is the 0.5% population figure divided by two since the cross field is 50 and not 100 people. You do it twice since there were two participants. Then the .1 twice is each person finishing in one of the top 5 places out of 50 (five possible places out of 50 total places). Simplified since one of the two making top 5 really reduces the other's chance to 4 spots out of 50 total.

I'm not going to argue w/ your conclusion that the chances of 2 trans women finishing in the top 5 is a statistical outlier, is unlikely to occur randomly and is most likely due to some physiological difference between them and their competitors.

That said, there are some errors in your math. To answer the question of the likelihood of there being 2 or more transwomen in a field of 50 women, you need to use a binominal distribution. If a randomly chosen women has 0.5% chance of being a trans women (1 of 200), then in a random group of 50 women there's a 22% chance that there is at least 1 trans women there and not 0.25% (0.005/2). For 2 or more, it's a 2.6% chance. See this link for a binomial probability calculator.

FWIW, there were 32 women on the Cyclocross Nationals start list. Using those numbers, there was 1.1% chance that there were 2 or more trans women in the field.

Sorry for being that guy on the internet, but I kind of like statistical analysis.

Thanks.

Agreed. Not sure why I did it that way, I think I confused how you get total efficiency of things like engines when you have multiple engines.

Either way it reinforces my opinion on the matter.
Quote Reply
Re: GB Tri creates mandatory open category for transgender [SheridanTris] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
SheridanTris wrote:
With immediate effect transgender banned from womens sport at AG and elite competitions.
UK Athletics are intent on adopting a similar approach:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/...t/athletics/64514819
[UK Athletics] says all transgender athletes should be allowed to compete with men in an open category.
[They] want athletics to be a "welcoming environment for all", but added it had a responsibility to "ensure fairness" in women's competition. "We would appeal to all those engaged in this discussion online to share their thoughts in a way that is respectful of the differing opinions and sensitive nature of the debate," said UKA Chairman.
UKA disagrees with the use of testosterone suppression for transgender women as there is "currently no scientifically robust, independent research showing that all male performance advantage is eliminated".
UKA added it has seen "no evidence that it is safe for transgender women to reduce their hormonal levels by testosterone suppression", and that there is "insufficient research to understand the effects on transgender women if such testosterone suppression is carried out suddenly".
Therefore it would instead like to reserve the female category for those who were recorded female at birth and have not undergone transition."
The BBC article also notes FINA's approach (last June).
"Fina - swimming's world governing body - to stop transgender athletes from competing in women's elite races if they had gone through any part of the process of male puberty, insisting "fairness is non-negotiable".
"Fina's decision followed a report by a taskforce of leading figures from the world of medicine, law and sport which said that going through male puberty meant transgender women retained a "relative performance advantage over biological females", even after medication to reduce testosterone.
"Fina also aimed to establish an 'open' category at competitions for swimmers whose gender identity is different than their sex recorded at birth."
Quote Reply

Prev Next