People would be "calling her a man" – Transgender cycling champ in online row with Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies

jasecd wrote:

FrankH wrote:

"People would be calling her a man"

I don't think so. I could fancy Sharron Davies, I don't think I could ever fancy Rachel McKinnon.

So what you find attractive is the decisive factor here? You do realise that there are many others who do fancy men and trans people?

I don't exactly know where to stand on this subject. I think every effort shoud be made to make sports and society inclusive for all people, however I want to know more about the science behind this;  what advantage trans atheletes have and how this compares to the various advantages that different women may have over each other due to their varying genetics. Then I may be able to make a better judgment.

What I do know is who I may fancy has nothing to do with it.

He, sorry, of course I mean she, was the first to bring looks into it. If we have to choose who is male and who is female by that criteria, I choose Sharron Davies every time.

MarsFlyer wrote:

There is a very simple solution to this - just base it on simple genetics - if you have a Y chromosome then you are in the "mens" category. You can identify as a woman, but you compete with all the other Y chromosome competitors. 

Simple but wrong. As an expert pointed out in the Guardian today people are often assumed to have either XX or XY chromosomes, but some individuals are born with an extra X chromosome and others have a mosaic where each cell has one karyotype or the other.

Before parading their prejudices here lots of people would do well to read the article I lifted that quote from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/06/testosterone-biolo...

Rachel McKinnon's point is well made; apparently it's appalling to misgender Sharon Davies, but absolutely fine to misgender McKinnon. Oh the irony....

exilegareth wrote:

MarsFlyer wrote:

There is a very simple solution to this - just base it on simple genetics - if you have a Y chromosome then you are in the "mens" category. You can identify as a woman, but you compete with all the other Y chromosome competitors. 

Simple but wrong. As an expert pointed out in the Guardian today people are often assumed to have either XX or XY chromosomes, but some individuals are born with an extra X chromosome and others have a mosaic where each cell has one karyotype or the other.

Before parading their prejudices here lots of people would do well to read the article I lifted that quote from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/06/testosterone-biolo...

 

Rachel McKinnon's point is well made; apparently it's appalling to misgender Sharon Davies, but absolutely fine to misgender McKinnon. Oh the irony....

Those with unclear chromosomes make up a tiny percentage. On Radio 4's More or Less it was reported to be a fraction of one per cent. 

And we're not even talking about these, we're talking about males who decide to live their lives as women. 

It's simple; if you have unusual chromosomes that are neither make or female you should compete in the male category or have your own category. To compete against females is clearly unfair. If you were born with a set of male chromosomes you should have no right to compete against females. 

exilegareth wrote:

MarsFlyer wrote:

There is a very simple solution to this - just base it on simple genetics - if you have a Y chromosome then you are in the "mens" category. You can identify as a woman, but you compete with all the other Y chromosome competitors. 

Simple but wrong. As an expert pointed out in the Guardian today people are often assumed to have either XX or XY chromosomes, but some individuals are born with an extra X chromosome and others have a mosaic where each cell has one karyotype or the other.

Before parading their prejudices here lots of people would do well to read the article I lifted that quote from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/06/testosterone-biolo...

 

Rachel McKinnon's point is well made; apparently it's appalling to misgender Sharon Davies, but absolutely fine to misgender McKinnon. Oh the irony....

No, it's not well-made, because Sharron Davies has consistently referred to Rachel McKinnon as female; saying 'some other people were mean to me', doesn't make it anything other than vile to suggest that a 56 year old woman looks like a man.

As far as that Guardian article goes it's actually a fair bit simpler than they are trying to make out - you either have (or had) testes or you don't. Your testes (or lack of them) is determined by the SRY gene (sex-determining region Y protein). The SRY gene as the name suggests is usually found on the Y chromosome, but it can be transposed in rare cases.

As far as testes goes, you might quote this 'Take, for example, women with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, who appear to be overrepresented among elite women athletes and for whom their tissues have no ability to respond to T at the cellular level. '

In fact that quote is misleading at best. Androgen insensitivity is a spectrum from 'very mild' along to complete. In terms of athletes with AIS, while complete androgen insensitivity is quite easy to diagnose, partial insensitivity is FAR more common among athletes. And what's happening is "there are difficulties in ascertaining a specific percentage or degrees of androgen resistance and Dr Bermon says that the benefit of the doubt is given to the athlete."

We know that androgen insensitivity is 140x more common among elite athletes than in the general population, and that you can be partially sensitive to androgens and still compete.

What does it mean to be partially sensitive? Well at the most mild end of AIS, we are talking about people who are unequivocally and uncontroversially male. Those on the complete end have a female phenotype (breasts, external genitals), BUT they are still taller on average than people with XX chromosomes, even though they are completely insensitive to testosterone. Why is that? Because of genes on the Y chromomsome determining height.

So you essentially have in that context:

* people with XY chromsomes and internal testes (though they may be removed surgically, this is no longer mandated by sporting bodies) who cannot use testosterone at all (likely 10% of the cases of athletes with XY chromosomes and internal testes). They are infertile.

* people with XY chromosomes and internal testes who are somewhat virilized (i.e. their bodies to process testosterone). They may have male fertility (no people with testes produce eggs, sex IS completely binary on the level of gametes) or maybe not. This is the majority of cases. These people will have been brought up as girls typically, and may or may not develop a male gender identity after puberty (it essentially depends on the extent to which you are sensitive to testosterone).

Both groups seem to have advantages over women who are missing the SRY gene. (There is another group of people (those with 5ARD) who are missing the minor androgen DHT, these are fully sensitive to testosterone, but may have female-appearing gentials and  internal testes. A male gender identity is common after puberty.)

So while there are certainly variations in biology, the fundamental is testes (producing testosterone) vs the lack of the same.

In the case of transwomen we are talking about fully androgen-sensitive testes owners (either past or present) who have developed a male skeleton and muscle as a result of exposure to androgens, mostly during male puberty. Whereas girls' ovaries produce oestrogen at puberty, which acts as a growth retardant, transwomen had testosterone which would have made them taller and stronger than girls (prior to puberty there is not much difference).

Castration or GnRH agonists (to suppress testosterone production) after puberty by a transwoman will not reverse the indelibly male skeleton, and moreover the respective consumption of testosterone by transmales and oestrogen by transfemales still produces an average higher lean muscle mass from the transfemales than the transmales. Obviously biological females who do not identify as transgender and therefore do not take testosterone supplements would have an even bigger penalty compared to transfemales.

MarsFlyer wrote:

There is a very simple solution to this - just base it on simple genetics - if you have a Y chromosome then you are in the "mens" category. You can identify as a woman, but you compete with all the other Y chromosome competitors. 

Except apparently it isn't as easy as X/XX/XY etc - the chromosomes don't maketh the man (or woman, for that matter) and even *biological* gender is way more fuzzy/complicated than was previously thought.

brooksby wrote:

MarsFlyer wrote:

There is a very simple solution to this - just base it on simple genetics - if you have a Y chromosome then you are in the "mens" category. You can identify as a woman, but you compete with all the other Y chromosome competitors. 

Except apparently it isn't as easy as X/XX/XY etc - the chromosomes don't maketh the man (or woman, for that matter) and even *biological* gender is way more fuzzy/complicated than was previously thought.

That's just a typical minorityist attempt to pick on something vanishingly rare and pretend that it is far more common than it actually is in order to muddy the waters.  The incidence of anything other than XX or XY is about 1 in 1,666 live births.  

Eton Rifle wrote:

brooksby wrote:

MarsFlyer wrote:

There is a very simple solution to this - just base it on simple genetics - if you have a Y chromosome then you are in the "mens" category. You can identify as a woman, but you compete with all the other Y chromosome competitors. 

Except apparently it isn't as easy as X/XX/XY etc - the chromosomes don't maketh the man (or woman, for that matter) and even *biological* gender is way more fuzzy/complicated than was previously thought.

That's just a typical minorityist attempt to pick on something vanishingly rare and pretend that it is far more common than it actually is in order to muddy the waters.  The incidence of anything other than XX or XY is about 1 in 1,666 live births.  

 

Not really. Was just saying that recent research is starting to ask *how* we're defining man/woman when we can't rely on chromosomes, or testosterone count, or (according to current transgender orthodoxy) what bits you have between your legs.

 I'll step out of this debate, because I'm too old to get my head around it, with my final comment that dr McKinnon looks about two feet taller and twice the size of the athletes with whom she shares the podium.

brooksby wrote:

Eton Rifle wrote:

brooksby wrote:

MarsFlyer wrote:

There is a very simple solution to this - just base it on simple genetics - if you have a Y chromosome then you are in the "mens" category. You can identify as a woman, but you compete with all the other Y chromosome competitors. 

Except apparently it isn't as easy as X/XX/XY etc - the chromosomes don't maketh the man (or woman, for that matter) and even *biological* gender is way more fuzzy/complicated than was previously thought.

That's just a typical minorityist attempt to pick on something vanishingly rare and pretend that it is far more common than it actually is in order to muddy the waters.  The incidence of anything other than XX or XY is about 1 in 1,666 live births.  

 

Not really. Was just saying that recent research is starting to ask *how* we're defining man/woman when we can't rely on chromosomes, or testosterone count, or (according to current transgender orthodoxy) what bits you have between your legs.

 I'll step out of this debate, because I'm too old to get my head around it, with my final comment that dr McKinnon looks about two feet taller and twice the size of the athletes with whom she shares the podium.

There are arguments that it's not necessary to define man/woman at all.
Why should it be in your passport, for instance?  What purpose does it serve there?

Transphobes have found that hypothetical predators in bathrooms and the possibility of self-identifying people competing in women's sport are safe ways to attack trans people.  Don't fall into the trap.

clayfit wrote:

Transphobes have found that hypothetical predators in bathrooms and the possibility of self-identifying people competing in women's sport are safe ways to attack trans people.  Don't fall into the trap.

But is it a trap?

My wife tells me that over on mumsnet there are people throwing the word 'transphobic' around in an attempt to stifle the debate, rather than to counter prejudice against trans women.

And apparently those predators in toilets and prisons are not all hypothetical. Even if they were hypothetical it says to me (a man) that women are uncomfortable, possibly afraid of other women in the same way as they are of men. That's probably not their own fault and certainly not a nice position in which to find oneself.

Are you sure that the women complaining about fairness in sport are doing it purposely to attack trans people? Is it not possible to complain about what you perceive as unfair without being called names?

Eton Rifle wrote:

brooksby wrote:

MarsFlyer wrote:

There is a very simple solution to this - just base it on simple genetics - if you have a Y chromosome then you are in the "mens" category. You can identify as a woman, but you compete with all the other Y chromosome competitors. 

Except apparently it isn't as easy as X/XX/XY etc - the chromosomes don't maketh the man (or woman, for that matter) and even *biological* gender is way more fuzzy/complicated than was previously thought.

That's just a typical minorityist attempt to pick on something vanishingly rare and pretend that it is far more common than it actually is in order to muddy the waters.  The incidence of anything other than XX or XY is about 1 in 1,666 live births.  

Though definitely a minority that is still 4.5 million people on the planet with other than XX or XY.

MarsFlyer wrote:

There is a very simple solution to this - just base it on simple genetics - if you have a Y chromosome then you are in the "mens" category. You can identify as a woman, but you compete with all the other Y chromosome competitors. 

If it were a simple problem, perhaps simple genetics would fix it. But it's not a simple problem, and genetics isn't simple. Just because you have the genes of a female  doesn't mean you present as a female. And vise versa. Sharron Davies is  also wrong. Male and female isn't binary... like sexuality it's a sliding scale.

Rachel has had the physical advantage of growing up with the developmental advantages of a (presumably) healthy testosterone boost, but probably with the disadvantages of a less agressive nature, and a lower reward displacement function (both typically 'male characteristics', but less represented in those with 'female' behavioural adaptations, both very important in elite athletes.)

It is a very difficult area, and personally I don't think that those who developed and went through puberty as a male should race as a female. I think the most likely outcome if human rights are put to the fore is that we end up with classes based around gender, just as we do for age, often times weight, number of limbs etc etc etc.

madcarew]</p>

<p>[quote=MarsFlyer

wrote:

There is a very simple solution to this - just base it on simple genetics - if you have a Y chromosome then you are in the "mens" category. You can identify as a woman, but you compete with all the other Y chromosome competitors. 

If it were a simple problem, perhaps simple genetics would fix it. But it's not a simple problem, and genetics isn't simple. Just because you have the genes of a female  doesn't mean you present as a female. And vise versa. Sharron Davies is  also wrong. Male and female isn't binary... like sexuality it's a sliding scale.

Male and female IS binary. Determined by your chromosomes. What isn't binary is the gender. A male can live as a woman, but he can never become female as that would defy biology. 

darrenleroy]</p>

<p>[quote=madcarew

wrote:

MarsFlyer wrote:

There is a very simple solution to this - just base it on simple genetics - if you have a Y chromosome then you are in the "mens" category. You can identify as a woman, but you compete with all the other Y chromosome competitors. 

If it were a simple problem, perhaps simple genetics would fix it. But it's not a simple problem, and genetics isn't simple. Just because you have the genes of a female  doesn't mean you present as a female. And vise versa. Sharron Davies is  also wrong. Male and female isn't binary... like sexuality it's a sliding scale.

 

 

Male and female IS binary. Determined by your chromosomes. What isn't binary is the gender. A male can live as a woman, but he can never become female as that would defy biology. 

Fix what?

darrenleroy]</p>

<p>[quote=madcarew

wrote:

MarsFlyer wrote:

There is a very simple solution to this - just base it on simple genetics - if you have a Y chromosome then you are in the "mens" category. You can identify as a woman, but you compete with all the other Y chromosome competitors. 

If it were a simple problem, perhaps simple genetics would fix it. But it's not a simple problem, and genetics isn't simple. Just because you have the genes of a female  doesn't mean you present as a female. And vise versa. Sharron Davies is  also wrong. Male and female isn't binary... like sexuality it's a sliding scale.

 

 

Male and female IS binary. Determined by your chromosomes. What isn't binary is the gender. A male can live as a woman, but he can never become female as that would defy biology. 

Male/female is way more complicated than binary/either/or.

Intersex is the term generally used for people with ambiguous genders and it's not always down to their chromosomes, but a complex mixture of chromosomes, gene expressions and the conditions in the womb.

Also, you can have relatively "normal" appearing people who don't even realise that they have unusual chromosomes until they get a medical test performed for an unrelated issues.

For more insight into the difficulties of sorting people into genders, have a look at Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, complete androgen insensitivity syndrome etc.

madcarew wrote:

Male and female isn't binary... like sexuality it's a sliding scale.

The scary thing is that if it is repeated often enough, made part of the school curriculum, enacted as a hate crime if you deny it, written in to HR policies, eventually you have no choice but to agree.

That said, if that is a sincerely held belief amongst some, then let them compete without rancour within some 'sliding scale' handicap category of their own device, leaving the old-school binaries to carry on as before.

MarsFlyer wrote:

There is a very simple solution to this

There is no such thing as a simple solution to a complex problem. If there was then the problem couldn't have been complex! That this topic is once again discussed at great length - here and elsewhere - demonstrates that it is far from simple.

It is disappointing, but not surprising, to see that many people seem to have strongly-held views (and prejudices?) based on very little information.

KiwiMike wrote:

How about we all agree that if you aren't a trans athlete yourself, or a genetics + sport science expert in this particular field, maybe you don't get to comment?

I like to think of cyclists as mostly not being bigoted, and mostly open/inclusive folks. Maybe this is a topic I simply shouldn't read the comments on. 

I think limiting the comments might spare us some of the venom but it is possible to have an intelligent opinion without being an expert. And I have to say that I find it good to have my opinions challenged, and sometimes altered, and it doesn't matter whether that person has an incomplete knowledge of a subject as long as it is enlightening.

Where would road.cc's bike, wheel and clothing reviews if you had to be a framebuilder/pro rider, wind tunnel operator or garment technologist to comment? My sister trained and worked as a GT so could be termed a clothing 'expert' but she knows sod-all about cycling or appropriate clothing for different disciplines, climates and so on.

I'd also argue that allowing a comment free-for-all means people can show their true colours. It may not always be pretty but at least we get to see what they really think rather than a censored version to fit the morals of the environment.

Organon wrote:

 It is a known fact that in '1980' or earlier male Eastern Bloc athletes were masquerading as female. 

Is it?  Or have you confused the high level of drug taking, including anabolic sterioids like testosterone, that created body changes for female Eastern Bloc athletes.  Some of those body changes were reported to be characteristics that are generally considered to be 'male'.

Agree with much of the post though.

Sniffer wrote:

Organon wrote:

 It is a known fact that in '1980' or earlier male Eastern Bloc athletes were masquerading as female. 

Is it?  Or have you confused the high level of drug taking, including anabolic sterioids like testosterone, that created body changes for female Eastern Bloc athletes.  Some of those body changes were reported to be characteristics that are generally considered to be 'male'.

Agree with much of the post though.

Yes it is... the IOC started testing for Male athletes competing as female in 1968, it was classed as cheating which if course it was, however the situation here is completely different in that Rachel isn't hiding the fact she was once a man.

Sniffer wrote:

Organon wrote:

 It is a known fact that in '1980' or earlier male Eastern Bloc athletes were masquerading as female. 

Is it?  Or have you confused the high level of drug taking, including anabolic sterioids like testosterone, that created body changes for female Eastern Bloc athletes.  Some of those body changes were reported to be characteristics that are generally considered to be 'male'.

Agree with much of the post though.

It happened, I'm suprised you never heard about it.

Not an exact example of what was stated, but this was waaay earlier:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dora_Ratjen

The whole issue makes you think why the male and female categories exist... there was no male category to begin with because it was simply about competing to be the best, adding a female category was always going to lead to complications.
 

If sport is about fairness then you really need to remove the arbitrary and vaguely defined groups. It won't stop anyone competing, but it will many from unfairly winning.

ChrisB200SX wrote:

Sniffer wrote:

Organon wrote:

 It is a known fact that in '1980' or earlier male Eastern Bloc athletes were masquerading as female. 

Is it?  Or have you confused the high level of drug taking, including anabolic sterioids like testosterone, that created body changes for female Eastern Bloc athletes.  Some of those body changes were reported to be characteristics that are generally considered to be 'male'.

Agree with much of the post though.

It happened, I'm suprised you never heard about it.

Not an exact example of what was stated, but this was waaay earlier:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dora_Ratjen

 

The whole issue makes you think why the male and female categories exist... there was no male category to begin with because it was simply about competing to be the best, adding a female category was always going to lead to complications.
 

If sport is about fairness then you really need to remove the arbitrary and vaguely defined groups. It won't stop anyone competing, but it will many from unfairly winning.

 

An interesting article.  As you say it is way earlier and hence nothing to do with Eastern Bloc athletes. 

Any links to the original claim?

There was much more of this going on

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_in_East_Germany

Edit, not as funny as I thought it'd be.

Organon wrote:

Unfortunately the good doctor has lost any moral high ground with this purile comment. Sharron Davies is a woman and no-one has ever suggested otherwise. It is a known fact that in '1980' or earlier male Eastern Bloc athletes were masquerading as female. It is a lame throwback and a very poor excuse for her activities and not comparable at all. It is great to see ex-athletes speaking out knowing that current competitors might not risk doing so for fear of being labelled Transphobic. I am with Martina and Sharron on this one. The integrity of women's sport is at risk if we don't have clear guidelines. If I were to choose to do so I could go onto Strava right now and swap my gender to female at the click of a button and appear at the top of numerous leaderboard; I am sure the local female riders might think that unfair whether I was on hormones or not. 30+years of testosterone and the physical development it brings does not disappear. 

But it does.  Once your hormones get into the female range, you lose the male advantage in muscle strength and power.  Then, all that those years of testosterone give you is a bulky frame to cart around.  

The research is clear, even if there is not yet much of it.

If it were any other way, wouldn't those nations with less scruples (was USSR/eastern bloc, now China) be filling the field with transwomen?

And in any case, this is a non-problem.  It's the bathroom controversy, moved onto a new topic.  Transphobia dressed up.

clayfit wrote:

But it does.  Once your hormones get into the female range, you lose the male advantage in muscle strength and power.  Then, all that those years of testosterone give you is a bulky frame to cart around.  

The research is clear, even if there is not yet much of it.

If it were any other way, wouldn't those nations with less scruples (was USSR/eastern bloc, now China) be filling the field with transwomen?

And in any case, this is a non-problem.  It's the bathroom controversy, moved onto a new topic.  Transphobia dressed up.

Does the height advantage disappear? The larger lung capacity? The larger heart? Does the pelvis magically change shape?

Obviously not. To pretend that there is no residual advantage is ridiculous. To throw around the term transphobia just undermines your argument further.

clayfit wrote:

Then, all that those years of testosterone give you is a bulky frame to cart around.  

A bulky frame you can smash into someone with in a rugby match, boxing match, MMA fight etc. There *is* a problem here if we're concerned not only about competetiveness but with safety. Don't just point and say "transphobes" when people bring up concerns, most people here aren't being transphobic, but love sport to be fair and safe.

clayfit wrote:

Organon wrote:

Unfortunately the good doctor has lost any moral high ground with this purile comment. Sharron Davies is a woman and no-one has ever suggested otherwise. It is a known fact that in '1980' or earlier male Eastern Bloc athletes were masquerading as female. It is a lame throwback and a very poor excuse for her activities and not comparable at all. It is great to see ex-athletes speaking out knowing that current competitors might not risk doing so for fear of being labelled Transphobic. I am with Martina and Sharron on this one. The integrity of women's sport is at risk if we don't have clear guidelines. If I were to choose to do so I could go onto Strava right now and swap my gender to female at the click of a button and appear at the top of numerous leaderboard; I am sure the local female riders might think that unfair whether I was on hormones or not. 30+years of testosterone and the physical development it brings does not disappear. 

But it does.  Once your hormones get into the female range, you lose the male advantage in muscle strength and power.  Then, all that those years of testosterone give you is a bulky frame to cart around.  

The research is clear, even if there is not yet much of it.

If it were any other way, wouldn't those nations with less scruples (was USSR/eastern bloc, now China) be filling the field with transwomen?

And in any case, this is a non-problem.  It's the bathroom controversy, moved onto a new topic.  Transphobia dressed up.

If we were to reverse your assertion, do you seriously think that if an female athlete raised their testosterone levels into the acceptable male range that they would be able to compete against male athletes?

There are a hell of a lot of gender differences that are not solely mediated with testosterone. As an elite athelete they will have a life of training with male chromosomes as well.

In the sport of cycling the advantage of being male is massive, most cycling clubs will have several amateur men who could win the womens TT championship, how many races did Rachel McKinnon win as a male?