• Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
    It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)

Laura Nagtegaal 2019 Amateur World Champion FA40

I agree that's interesting info about sociological constructs of prior centuries, but not really relevant to your present point that women and men would perform equally in sports competitions if they were given equal supports.

I gave two examples that directly addressed (and refuted) that point, but you seem to have changed the subject.

Turning to irrelevant sociology stuff about the 1800s and 1900s in response to relevant hard data about current times kinda seems to me like you might be denying the science. But if I have evidence to the contrary, I will gladly revise my opinion.

Well, if you shrug the article off as irrelevant and don't see how the history of sport being objectively male-dominated affects today's landscape, then I'm not sure it's me who is denying the science. Look up the gender gap in sport participation.

Also, there are obviously numerous skills that benefit the male physiology, but there are others that do not. My point from the beginning is that it's silly to separate the sexes in those sports where physiology doesn't have such a huge affect on outcome, but we do so because of our long standing (almost subconscious) belief that women aren't as good as men at sport (and never can be!). Disc golf, ball golf, curling, billiards, there's a lot of sports out there that could be equal.

And a sport sociologist would probably look at the volleyball study and ask why is that the men performed better than women in some aspects of the game (but not all?) They'd probably look to what you call the irrelevant history of gender roles in sport and propose that men who play volleyball have probably also been encouraged to participate in numerous other complimentary sports that served to improve their overall skills throughout their life time (at a rate much higher than the women).

Anyway.
 
Also, there are obviously numerous skills that benefit the male physiology, but there are others that do not.

OK, on this we agree. I may have misunderstood your original post. I thought you were arguing that performance differentials were mostly due to lack of proper support, not physiology.
 
There is consensus on the topic, as per 2015 guidelines, full text here: https://stillmed.olympic.org/Docume..._sex_reassignment_and_hyperandrogenism-en.pdf
There is no consensus as of yet on a newer version, where halving the testosterone threshold is the key change (I have already gone on record several times on this forum, stating I would applaud that change).
Ie. until further notice, the text that DOES have consensus is the current policy, and that one states:
TLDR: permanently (absolute minimum requirement is minimum 12+ months, uninterrupted) keep your T values below 10nmol/l
 
I appreciate the request, Lines, and it owuld potwntially be a wonderful thing.

BUT...
I would rather NOT video the discussion itself.
The discussion itself must be allowed to be completely open and sincere, including tears, hugs, swearing, or whatever the moment asks for. Filming that would seriously stifle the discussion, and make it a charade.

Instead, I would suggest the other participants to - ONLY IF they want to, as THEy should NOT be the ones receiving flak for choosing any side in the discussion ( - coming with a written or video'd statement post discussion.
 
Really? tears, hugs or swearing? I forecast a meeting where they tell you what you want to hear so they can continue playing without ripples.
 
Anythng might happen in that conversation.
A meeting of minds, possibly opposing ideas, possibly on the same page.
You don't know, I don't know.
I am preparing for the full spectrum of viewpoints and emotions.
No more, no less.
Expecting anything else (a given predetermined direction), is unfair to ANY participant.
 
It was a very good discussion; where concerns were voiced, background was shared, questions were asked and answered, the actual policy was discussed, potential pitfalls of the system addressed, its social impact, what a possibly overturning of the policy could mean for all parties.
And it all ended with very sincere hugs!
 
Ginger, what is the normal testosterone level of a woman? And how does this compare to the 10nmol/l allowed by the IOC for a trans woman?
 
Ginger, what is the normal testosterone level of a woman? And how does this compare to the 10nmol/l allowed by the IOC for a trans woman?

The article RobLee sighted (assuming the data is correct) was interesting:

"Those guidelines, used by most sports federations to draw up their transgender policies, have proved controversial, given that women's testosterone levels tend to range between 0.12 and 1.79 nmol/l, while men's are typically between 7.7 to 29.4 nmol/l."

"However, others disagree, pointing to the emerging findings from the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, which show that testosterone suppression for transgender women has little effect on reducing muscle strength even after a year of treatment. That indicates that at least some of the physical advantages of those who have gone through male puberty are maintained even after transitioning."
 
Ginger, what is the normal testosterone level of a woman? And how does this compare to the 10nmol/l allowed by the IOC for a trans woman?

For all intents and purposes, the most often used "normal" ranges of testosterone for men and women are (accounting for a drop in levels as people age is:
women 0.5/1.5 - 2.5/3.5
men 15 - 35
 
Here's an interesting fact you'd probably not expect, if you have seen photos of me, or heard my stats (6'0", 162lb)

Both Elaine King and I received a few 2019 Pro Worlds polo shirts, we both asked for "women's M"
They're fitting me quite nicely; while Elaine asked if he had L's as well, for the M's were ill-fitting.
 
For all intents and purposes, the most often used "normal" ranges of testosterone for men and women are (accounting for a drop in levels as people age is:
women 0.5/1.5 - 2.5/3.5
men 15 - 35

So lets use the high end of normal and go with 3.5. That means that the IOC (and PDGA) is allowing trans women to compete with testosterone levels that are 3X higher than the field. I'm sure you see why this is an issue. You've said you want to half the level to 5 nmol/l, but that would still be a good bit more than the normal range. Any thoughts?
 
Indeed, that 5nmol/l threshold that's been used by the IAAF on 4 of its events, and which the IOC is discussing on, is something I have advocated for indeed.
There ARE (but relatively low in number, due to being at the very extreme end of the curve - jus tlike transgender women would typically be at the LOW end of the normal female range) cisgender women who are over 3.5, and even get near/on/over the 5nmol/l limit, but the current limit would indeed allow - as the flipside of transgender women needing to be below 10nmol/l - be as high as 9.99nmol/l; which would skew (as displayed by Cater Semenya) competition inside the cisgender community, MORE than the transgender woman would , or could.
 
Coincidentally, news came out yesterday that the IAAF just changed its rules to limit trans females to T levels of 5 nmol/l. We'll see if the IOC and PDGA follow suit.
 
Coincidentally, news came out yesterday that the IAAF just changed its rules to limit trans females to T levels of 5 nmol/l. We'll see if the IOC and PDGA follow suit.

To get that clear, did they now move from "setting threshold at 5 instead of 10 at 4 of 30+ field&tracks disciplines" to "all events"?
Do you have IAAF announcement link pelase?
 

Latest posts

Top