For a nicely written article see-
https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2021...

It starts by describing the Netfix series and the book, The Queen’s Gambit by Walter Tevis.

Then there is the true story of the three Polgár sisters. They were chess champions, success came from a fanatical father who drove them remorselessly (was the capability/ intelligence there or was it forced in by training?), and from that, a serious competitive instinct, I suggest that is not common in women, except in politics, perhaps it is repressed.

None of the three became world champion, each did beat world champions but not in the competition, regardless all three were extraordinarily good.

There is no intelligent reason for one person to outdo another, simply for the sake of outdoing the other person.

Right on!!! Have Men, Women, and Other sports, that would give everyone a choice. Restrooms too.

Yeah...that would be entertaining.

My reply was a technical reply. I certainly do not have any problems with a man having a uterus implanted, but my point was that you do not need to have a uterus in order to carry a child to term. The blastocyst in the woman, who had had a hysterectomy, implanted on the outside of the colon (I think) and formed a placenta there. It had to be a c-section delivery in that case, because there was no uterus. So the simplest case of 'a man bearing a child' does not necessarily involve an implanted uterus.

I would assume that at least some individual trans-males would compete in male sports. The two women I can think of who I know who converted to being male definitely had an aversion to being macho and had no interest that I know of in sports.

When I talked with one of them, they said that they did not want to make all the mistakes that men did about being male. They liked the 'trans' part of being trans-male, not just the 'male' part.

Jan

I'm talking about a former male who wanted the surgery to implant a uterus so as to be able to bear a child. I would not do a C-section; give that person the full benefit of labor and birth. On the other side, are there former women who convert to male, beard and all, who want to compete in male sports? Just wondering.

I haven't heard of a single case of this happening ... I wonder why :-)

Should the sexually extra chromosomed with extra x or y chromosomes be placed in other sports groups? Should for example down syndrome persons be allowed to compete with those with normal number of chromosomes?

LOL :-)

Why not ask also, what do men think about women competing in men's sports? If a woman transgenders into a man by hormone therapy and surgery and gains greater muscular strength, and can out perform some natural males, should she still chromosomally a female, be allowed to compete with men?

But there is no reason a man has to even be permanently trans in order to do that. You might have to alter his hormones for the duration of the pregnancy, and the delivery would be by C-section, but there are reports of ectopic pregnancies where the blastocyst implanted itself on the peritoneal side of the gut (I think it was the colon) and formed a placenta. This occurred in about 2000 and it was a woman who had had a complete hysterectomy.

So you could theoretically have a man who had taken hormone shots for a year, deliver a baby, but otherwise be totally masculine.

Jan

This is the sort of question that we should consider. Our insights from this can inform how sports in general should work.

Another corner case is high altitude. Is it fair to hold competitions at high altitudes, where Andean and Himalayan athletes will have the advantage? Or hold them at lower altitudes, where they will not?

It all comes down to having a sport that is geared for one particular type of exertion, and having a genetic sub-population that is 'good at that'. Our concept of 'fair sports' is based on a village green, where people of the same genetic background are playing against each other.

Jan

X-chromosomes and y-chromosomes confer biologically measured differences in physical make-up. Until that basic scientific fact is acknowledged and the advantages/disadvantages of each are understood, a consensus will not be reached. I am the oldest of 9, 6 of whom were boys. As strong and fast as we three girls were, our brothers had the edge in any strength-related competion. In skill sports like baseball we did well. Too many young women are now losing any chance of scolarship to college. No matter how you declare, in most cases you are biologically either x or y. I agree with Rex_Little that x-only should be a viable catagory for sports competition.
.

Yes, they must present their testicles in a jar of formalin following their physical exam to prove they are transgender.

If I were a marathon runner, and really wanted to be "world class", I would realize that I was being unrealistic, as I do not have the genetic make-up to excel in that sport. I can either settle for being mid-pack (at best, in my case) or find something else to excel at. However, if I had spent my entire high school career near the top of my sport, and someone who previously was ineligible decided he could dominate merely by deciding he would change genders, and in the process deny me the right to scholarships, etc.then I would definitely have been cheated out of my chances.

Similarly, what happens when heavyweight fighters "feel like" they are welterweights?

There are certainly areas where women compete at the same level. Not exactly athletic, but music at the middle and high school level is very competitive. And one of my daugthers was first chair statewide. I'm sure some of the guys had greater lung capacity, but obviously, that's not the critical factor. And there is not a separate category for women, because none is needed.

What if there were, in this hypothetical example, a Kalinjin and a non-Kalinjin category? Would it be acceptable for a Kalinjin to "identify" as non-Kalinjin to excel or win that category?

We are not supposed to notice the racial disparity in sports. It's one of the areas where we must not "follow the science".

Your argument is well made for sports where "skill counts" more than strength or endurance.

However, the argument for women's sports is not that 'all men are stronger than all women'. It's that the strongest men are stronger than the strongest women.

Actually I agree with you that not all sports need to be segregated by sex. Yours is a great example. But in sports where it makes a difference (such as Track, obviously), IF there is going to be a separate category for women, then the reason for creating that category (difference in genetics-based strength) should be the key factor in determining who qualifies.

Should Kalinjins have to compete only against other Kalinjins? Possibly, but anyone who proposed such a thing would be cancelled at best, and probably worse. Women's sports are already here.

It's definitely unfair to literally steal a trophy from girls that have put their entire life in training and hoping to reach the top

It is possible to go down that path, but I would like to hear opinion on what to do if most/all of the contenders in a particular sport are black or even Kalinjin, as I think that might inform our perspective.

Is it fair for a white male to compete if he knows he can never win, but unfair for a woman to compete if she knows she can never win? Is it fair for a black woman or man to compete if there is a Kalinjin in the race and they know they will not win?

Jan

One wonders about race car drivers. Danica Patrick stands out and has the only win by a woman in an indycar race. There was some grumbling about her having an advantage due to her weight being lower which speaks to your point. There have been a few, perhaps there will be more.

Astronaut has changed. Just over 10% of astronauts who have flown are women, but the last few years have seen the pool become very close to 50/50.

If we restructure the argument into the form of an "open division" and a "women's only" division, how do you feel about that? (I know which division you would enter).

There are probably lots of places where women have an advantage; some of these are yet to be discovered. Some that come to mind is being a jockey, fighter pilot, or astronaut. These are all endeavors where women have been categorically eliminated - but note that only one is a sport. Bullfighting is another sport where women could do well - the difference between the strength of a woman and a man pales in comparison to the strength of a bull.

The most puzzling sports where women have traditionally failed to excel (or just been disqualified) are racecar drivers and pilots.

We are doing well, overall, at eliminating the artificial barriers, but it will probably take a few more generations before we throw off the liabilities of social conditioning and see what women can actually do physically.

Jan

Nicely expressed, term2, LOL

Same story for the 100 miler distance. Look at Western States ... the longest held 100 miler started in 1974. A male is always the first and consistently finishes at least an hour ahead of the fastest female. That will continue to be the case. Tennis is another example. The males dominate. Period.