Olympics’ first trans athlete defies science and fairness in quest for gold

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mar 11, 2006
4,217
2,355
1,743
#41
This shouldn't be a political issue. This is simply a fairness issue. It is not "anti-trans" to be supportive of the transgender community, but also be solidly against a biological male competing in the same category of a biological female in certain sports. It is also not a rights issue. I have not heard one person say that a transgender female (biological male) should be barred from competing with other biological males.

To ignore the inherent significant advantages is being blind to science, logic, and genetics.
 
Nov 23, 2010
1,236
607
1,743
#42
I have a question some of you that follow this more closely may know.

One of the ways they check female athletes for doping with hormones is testosterone level……do male born trans athletes take enough hormones as part of transitioning that the testosterone is lowered to normal levels (not discounting the undeniable physical advantage of going through puberty a make) or do they have higher than typical levels at all times? If so will they have to remove that metric allowing cis females to dope with hormones?
IOC Requirements:

Athletes would also be required to demonstrate that their total testosterone level in serum has been below 10 nanomoles per litre for at least 12 months prior to their first competition - with the requirement for any longer period to be based on a confidential case-by-case evaluation, considering whether or not 12 months is a sufficient length of time to minimize any advantage in women’s competition.
An athlete's total testosterone level in serum must remain below 10 nmol/L throughout the period of desired eligibility to compete in the female category.
Compliance with the conditions may be monitored by testing, with non-compliance leading to eligibility to compete in events being suspended for 12 months.

From what I can tell, 10 nmol/L is 288.42 ng/DL, which appears to me like it would probably be very low for an elite male athlete, but still within the normal range for a male in the age group. Women in the age group of Olympic athletes are between 8-60 ng/dL.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
12,234
4,544
1,743
#45
I have a question some of you that follow this more closely may know.

One of the ways they check female athletes for doping with hormones is testosterone level……do male born trans athletes take enough hormones as part of transitioning that the testosterone is lowered to normal levels (not discounting the undeniable physical advantage of going through puberty a make) or do they have higher than typical levels at all times? If so will they have to remove that metric allowing cis females to dope with hormones?
IOC Requirements:

Athletes would also be required to demonstrate that their total testosterone level in serum has been below 10 nanomoles per litre for at least 12 months prior to their first competition - with the requirement for any longer period to be based on a confidential case-by-case evaluation, considering whether or not 12 months is a sufficient length of time to minimize any advantage in women’s competition.
An athlete's total testosterone level in serum must remain below 10 nmol/L throughout the period of desired eligibility to compete in the female category.
Compliance with the conditions may be monitored by testing, with non-compliance leading to eligibility to compete in events being suspended for 12 months.

From what I can tell, 10 nmol/L is 288.42 ng/DL, which appears to me like it would probably be very low for an elite male athlete, but still within the normal range for a male in the age group. Women in the age group of Olympic athletes are between 8-60 ng/dL.
So around 4.5 times that of an elite female athlete.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

UrbanCowboy1

Some cowboys gots smarts real good like me.
Aug 8, 2006
3,931
1,975
1,743
Phoenix, AZ
#46
And, your demeaning people "not even going through the transition" is about as logical as saying that people that don't become a monk or a priest aren't really religious. These are individual decisions not a you-are-or-you-aren't type decision as your take on this attempts to paint.
But no one is saying 'you can't be religious'. They are saying 'no, you aren't a priest'.

You seem to have given the worst example possible unless you are trying to make the argument for the other side - there are specific requirements to become a monk or a priest. Not unlike the specific requirements to be considered female in the track and field world (dubious as they may be). You can't just show up at mass one day and say "I'm a priest, everyone has to take the sacrament from me".
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
32,047
32,901
1,743
oklahoma city
#47
But no one is saying 'you can't be religious'. They are saying 'no, you aren't a priest'.

You seem to have given the worst example possible unless you are trying to make the argument for the other side - there are specific requirements to become a monk or a priest. Not unlike the specific requirements to be considered female in the track and field world (dubious as they may be). You can't just show up at mass one day and say "I'm a priest, everyone has to take the sacrament from me".
Who exactly showed up and said that?


The person is a priest by the requirements of the “church”(sport). And, when the sport ruled she didn’t meet the requirements, she agreed. The poster is the one trying to make requirements that he feels should be there for a church he doesn’t even belong to.
 

UrbanCowboy1

Some cowboys gots smarts real good like me.
Aug 8, 2006
3,931
1,975
1,743
Phoenix, AZ
#48
Who exactly showed up and said that?


The person is a priest by the requirements of the “church”(sport). And, when the sport ruled she didn’t meet the requirements, she agreed. The poster is the one trying to make requirements that he feels should be there for a church he doesn’t even belong to.
So, to be clear:

The sport said she didn't qualify as a woman
The athlete agreed that she didn't qualify as a woman (in asmuch as she won't fight the decision)
@wrenhal said she shouldn't qualify as a woman.

...and @steross takes offence at @wrenhal for implying she's not a woman.

But getting past all that, I am curious - do you think she should be allowed to compete? What do you think should happen here?
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
32,047
32,901
1,743
oklahoma city
#49
So, to be clear:

The sport said she didn't qualify as a woman
The athlete agreed that she didn't qualify as a woman (in asmuch as she won't fight the decision)
@wrenhal said she shouldn't qualify as a woman.

...and @steross takes offence at @wrenhal for implying she's not a woman.

But getting past all that, I am curious - do you think she should be allowed to compete? What do you think should happen here?
So, to be clear:
I explained exactly what my issue was with what he posted. I explained it again. Neither time did it have anything to do with what you just claimed and that was perfectly clear.

So, you either decided to try to misrepresent that with this smarmy nonsense, or you can’t comprehend what I wrote.

either way, there is no reason for me to discuss with you any further. The answers to your new questions are already in my posts. I’m sure any new answer from me will be met with your biases to so they won’t be coming.
 

UrbanCowboy1

Some cowboys gots smarts real good like me.
Aug 8, 2006
3,931
1,975
1,743
Phoenix, AZ
#50
So, to be clear:
I explained exactly what my issue was with what he posted. I explained it again. Neither time did it have anything to do with what you just claimed and that was perfectly clear.

So, you either decided to try to misrepresent that with this smarmy nonsense, or you can’t comprehend what I wrote.

either way, there is no reason for me to discuss with you any further. The answers to your new questions are already in my posts. I’m sure any new answer from me will be met with your biases to so they won’t be coming.
Not gonna lie, this made me laugh. I must be part troll because, despite sincere intentions, anytime someone calls me a smartass (or smarmy! that's a rare one, but I love it even more because it conveys the same meaning as smartass but in a more refined way), I can't help but smile. You and my dad should talk, because that's exactly the kind of response he gives me all the time.

Long story short, I'll let it drop too. Two rando's arguing on an OSU message board doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
32,047
32,901
1,743
oklahoma city
#51
So, to be clear:

The sport said she didn't qualify as a woman
The athlete agreed that she didn't qualify as a woman (in asmuch as she won't fight the decision)
@wrenhal said she shouldn't qualify as a woman.

...and @steross takes offence at @wrenhal for implying she's not a woman.
I have a question for you.

What if this same person had been born as a woman, competed through school as a woman, then, when reached this level of competion had a testosterone level that was too high as she had an ovarian tumor or something like that. So, as an athlete, she wouldn't qualify as a woman.

Would you call her "she" or "he?"
 

OSUCowboy787

Territorial Marshal
Dec 31, 2008
7,012
4,813
1,743
34
Keller, Texas
#52
I have a question for you.

What if this same person had been born as a woman, competed through school as a woman, then, when reached this level of competion had a testosterone level that was too high as she had an ovarian tumor or something like that. So, as an athlete, she wouldn't qualify as a woman.

Would you call her "she" or "he?"

cg9qzscr-1353902186.jpg
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,217
2,355
1,743
#53
I have a question for you.

What if this same person had been born as a woman, competed through school as a woman, then, when reached this level of competion had a testosterone level that was too high as she had an ovarian tumor or something like that. So, as an athlete, she wouldn't qualify as a woman.

Would you call her "she" or "he?"
:facepalm:
 

andylicious

Territorial Marshal
Nov 16, 2013
6,002
2,784
743
35
tractor
#55
I have a question for you.

What if this same person had been born as a woman, competed through school as a woman, then, when reached this level of competion had a testosterone level that was too high as she had an ovarian tumor or something like that. So, as an athlete, she wouldn't qualify as a woman.

Would you call her "she" or "he?"
It happened in the 1990's, she was excluded from competition. She had some pituitary problem that shouldn't have effected testosterone but it did.
 
Sep 22, 2011
4,289
2,990
1,743
34
#56
I have a question for you.

What if this same person had been born as a woman, competed through school as a woman, then, when reached this level of competion had a testosterone level that was too high as she had an ovarian tumor or something like that. So, as an athlete, she wouldn't qualify as a woman.

Would you call her "she" or "he?"
Is there not a DNA test that can be done to determine if you have a Y or not? I am pretty sure they arent doing that now because they are trying to include trans women. I am also pretty sure the soviets got banned from the olympics for doing exactly what is trying to be pushed right now.
 
Apr 7, 2006
2,980
1,565
1,743
#57
I have a question for you.

What if this same person had been born as a woman, competed through school as a woman, then, when reached this level of competion had a testosterone level that was too high as she had an ovarian tumor or something like that. So, as an athlete, she wouldn't qualify as a woman.

Would you call her "she" or "he?"
What if he was born with a penis and testicles and sometime after puberty decided to be a woman and just take testosterone blockers but keep the testes just for funsies - and compete as a woman? What would happen then?
 

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
15,953
5,780
1,743
Katy, TX
#58
IOC Requirements:

Athletes would also be required to demonstrate that their total testosterone level in serum has been below 10 nanomoles per litre for at least 12 months prior to their first competition - with the requirement for any longer period to be based on a confidential case-by-case evaluation, considering whether or not 12 months is a sufficient length of time to minimize any advantage in women’s competition.
An athlete's total testosterone level in serum must remain below 10 nmol/L throughout the period of desired eligibility to compete in the female category.
Compliance with the conditions may be monitored by testing, with non-compliance leading to eligibility to compete in events being suspended for 12 months.

From what I can tell, 10 nmol/L is 288.42 ng/DL, which appears to me like it would probably be very low for an elite male athlete, but still within the normal range for a male in the age group. Women in the age group of Olympic athletes are between 8-60 ng/dL.
Except for the women’s 400m, 800m and 1500m which is limited to 5 nmol/L.
This requirement knocks out the 3 800m medalists from Rio who have hyperadongenism and have naturally higher testosterone for bio females. Those ladies were told they would need to have surgery or take testosterone blockers in order to compete in their specialty.
 
Nov 23, 2010
1,236
607
1,743
#59
Is there not a DNA test that can be done to determine if you have a Y or not? I am pretty sure they arent doing that now because they are trying to include trans women. I am also pretty sure the soviets got banned from the olympics for doing exactly what is trying to be pushed right now.
Chromosome testing stopped after the 1996 Olympics. All testing now is for testosterone.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
12,234
4,544
1,743
#60
IOC Requirements:

Athletes would also be required to demonstrate that their total testosterone level in serum has been below 10 nanomoles per litre for at least 12 months prior to their first competition - with the requirement for any longer period to be based on a confidential case-by-case evaluation, considering whether or not 12 months is a sufficient length of time to minimize any advantage in women’s competition.
An athlete's total testosterone level in serum must remain below 10 nmol/L throughout the period of desired eligibility to compete in the female category.
Compliance with the conditions may be monitored by testing, with non-compliance leading to eligibility to compete in events being suspended for 12 months.

From what I can tell, 10 nmol/L is 288.42 ng/DL, which appears to me like it would probably be very low for an elite male athlete, but still within the normal range for a male in the age group. Women in the age group of Olympic athletes are between 8-60 ng/dL.
Except for the women’s 400m, 800m and 1500m which is limited to 5 nmol/L.
This requirement knocks out the 3 800m medalists from Rio who have hyperadongenism and have naturally higher testosterone for bio females. Those ladies were told they would need to have surgery or take testosterone blockers in order to compete in their specialty.
So lowering it for those events, means that they will still have a testosterone level about three times as high as a normal female athlete.
And as for those three medalists, if they're actual women and something happens that means they can't compete then so be it. It's no different than having a medical issue as a football player and it means you can't compete. Sometimes that happens as an athlete.

Unless I am misunderstanding your statement. Are you saying that the level for an elite athlete that is female is higher than the 1.75 and is set to 5, or are you saying the level for a TG woman is lower than 10 and set to 5?



Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.